Replies

This is what the US Congress is going to have to deal with:
(Note that Nancy Cruzan was in a PVS. Her family wanted the feeding tube removed. The state said no. It went to the SCOTUS.)

First, the US Supreme Court's decision to leave it to the states:

In its Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, decision the U.S. Supreme Court addressed only states' authority in the refusal of medical treatment (the feeding tube).

... The Court was careful to qualify and limit its support of the Missouri Supreme Court's decision.
As opposed to the latter's nearly outright denial of an individual's right to refuse medical treatment, the U.S. Supreme Court's majority opinion asserted that a competent person has a "constitutionally protected liberty interest in refusing unwanted medical treatment."

And although the Court upheld Missouri's requirement that there be "clear and convincing evidence" of an incompetent patient's previously expressed wishes before treatment can be discontinued, it did not make such evidence mandatory for states with different law.

Finally, in a separate concurring opinion Justice Sandra Day O'Connor asserted that a patient-designated proxy could be an acceptable "source of evidence" of a patient's intent. If the proxy does in fact have some constitutional status, this status should motivate state courts and legislatures to recognize the practice.

PMID: 10107437 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

That's the shortest summary I could find... You probably should read the judge's decisions in total - about the states' rights.

But, the way I see it, Florida set up its own standard accordingly, and followed it. As stated in 2001, by the Florida 2nd District Court of appeals:

This is a case to authorize the termination of life-prolonging procedures under
chapter 765, Florida Statutes (1997), and under the constitutional guidelines
enunciated in In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So.2d 4 (Fla.1990).

...the Schindlers argue that the testimony, which was conflicting, was
insufficient to support the trial court's decision by clear and convincing evidence.
We have reviewed that testimony and conclude that the trial court had sufficient
evidence to make this decision. The clear and convincing standard of proof, while
very high, permits a decision in the face of inconsistent or conflicting evidence.
...
Her statements to her friends and family about the dying process were few
and they were oral. Nevertheless, those statements, along with other evidence
about Theresa, gave the trial court a sufficient basis to make this decision for
her.
...
After due consideration, we
conclude that the trial judge had clear and convincing evidence to answer this
question as he did.

The Florida Supreme Court denied review on appeal.

It also noted,

there may be occasions when an inheritance could be a reason to question a surrogate's ability to make an objective decision. In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa. Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker.

There's more about the choice Michael made and how "In this context, the trial court essentially serves as the ward's guardian."

Yes, the Cruzan case is not helpful to the Schindler's at all. Their attorneys will attempt to discount it by pointing to the bill passed by Congress last night.

That may or may not be completely successful, given the previous opinion of this court.

I also don't know why the Schindler's keep pursuing the theory that Terri's religious liberties are being violated. That's just such a weak argument legally. I think it's counterproductive to pursue it at this point.

Thanks for all of the excellent information, Trinity_Tx. I know many people let their emotions rule their intellect, but the information you provided will be of interest to those who do want to think rather than just feel.

Thank you for this information. :)