Ultimately, there needs to be some clarification as to whether laws are supposed to apply to facts as they exist, or as a judge claims the facts to be. To be sure, judges should be given great defference in their factual findings, but if a government worker knows that the judge's factual basis for a ruling is just plain wrong, should he "pretend" that the factual basis is correct, or should he act upon what he knows and face the consequences?
I would posit that if the law says that if an action may only be performed if certain conditions apply, and those conditons do not in fact apply, then the action is not legal even if a judge can be wrongly pursuaded that the conditions apply. Although from a legal standpoint proving the judge wrong may be difficult, a judge's declaration that the sky is purple does not make it so.
It is amazing to me, that a judge who is actually legally blind, is such a biased judge.
I was just watching "Saving Millie" . The story of Mort Kondracke and his wife who died of Parkinsons disease. When it got to the feeding I was floored. He said he didn't think he could do it if she refused it. She didn't refuse it. Oh, how sad that having to have a feeding tube is seen as artificial life support. It was a great love story, btw.