At one time the Florida legisalture, did NOT consider a feeding tube EXTRAORDINARY MEANS. The defintion was changed and now they do. Thus, if they institute the gentleman's idea, feeding tubes AGAIN would no longer be considered extraordinary means.
What the ABOVE MEANS, if anything, in terms of the possible selling and implementation of Phil's idea, is NOT clear to me. Perhaps it suggest a difficult sell? Or after all the HOOPLA, maybe its an idea the legislature would gladly embrace as a way out of a tough dilemma.
Goodnight prayer for Terri!
If I remember correctly, before the definition was changed, the SCOFla ruled that a patient must be allowed to decline gastrostomic food and water; the legislature changed the law to allow that, but opened up things much more than I expect most legislators realized.
Rolling back the change completely would revert to a set of laws the SCOFla declared unconstitutional. On the other hand, adding significant extra restrictions to the removal of food and water should not be a problem.