The argument to which I was responding was that a priori Scriptural injunction compelled overcoming private decision-making of the husband otherwise authorized by law with a new state power. Since what is proposed is novel state-interference with private decision-making, I did not want to overstate (i.e. state more broadly) the principle which the advocates of the new grant of state power were arguing. Let's take the words, one by one.
"Extraordinary" means people don't come with permanent feeding tubes attached, so it must be implanted.
"Non-volitional" means the subject within whom the permanent feeding tube is to be implanted cannot consent to it.
"'Life-saving'" means merely that the moving party contends that without the non-volitional implantation, the person will die. The records of medicine are filled with examples where machines were thought to be necessary and proved not to be. Some years ago, it was argued that if a ventilator was removed from a comatose woman (whose name escapes me right now), she would die. Well, eventually, it was removed and she lived on her own for months or years. The quotation marks merely reflect that the moving party contends that it is necessary to preserve life.
"Irreversible" is important because the question would be much easier if there were any reasonable expectation that the present debilitation would be reversed and normality restored. This deals with duration. "Complete debilitation" is important because the degree of debilitation is important to the analysis. This deals with degree.
Since the proponents of new state power propose a truly novel new power, it is important to frame the question with precision.
The argument to which I was responding was that a priori Scriptural injunction compelled overcoming private decision-making of the husband otherwise authorized by law with a new state power.
I think the appeal to Scripture is an appeal to the principles of natural law and moral obligation, which, originally anyway, under-girded our laws. Appealing on the basis of those principles may be persuasive, but overcoming the private decision making of the adulterous husband/guardian is a power already within the purview of the state. For example, there are no novel state powers required to remove a guardian for cause.
744.3215 Rights of persons determined incapacitated.Thus the private decision-making of the guardian is not the ultimate dispositive question, as in "the question is who is the decision-maker" (in this case, the husband). Guardians have certain obligations and duties. Failing them, he may be removed The guardian does not have the final say. He is subject to all court orders.
825.103 Exploitation of an elderly person or disabled adult; penalties.
733.504 Removal of personal representative; causes for removal.
I agree with you that in general the rule allowing a husband, absent sufficient proof of ill-will to displace him, to exercise decision-making power on behalf of a wife, is a good one. However, this case has had so many bizarre irregularities that if this case were not one to demonstrate justification for removal for cause, imo there isn't any such thing. If all one can say is that the court(s) have not seen fit to do so, in a descriptive sort of way, then there remains no prescriptive principle with which to criticize any potential opposite outcome.
The objection I have with regard to the use of the word, "irreversible" in conjunction with "debilitating condition", is that it is, as far as I can tell, entirely novel. It used to be used only in such cases as terminal illness or immanent death. It never was used in conjunction with the merely handicapped who were not dying to justify withholding nutrition and hydration from them so that they would die. That development indicates to me that the present terrain is already very long and very fast down the slippery slope, and we are losing our brakes.
Cordially,