The court hasn't mandated it in this case either. It has complied with the wishes of Ms. Schiavo's husband/guardian. The main difference between Cruzan and Schiavo is the dispute between the relatives in the latter case.
"The court hasn't mandated it in this case either. It has complied with the wishes of Ms. Schiavo's husband/guardian. "
Wrong, that is not what the lawyer Felos said. It's a court order.
The legal prinicple the court applied was to follow the patient's wishes, not the husband's wishes. The guardian has a legal duty to carry out the patient's wishes, assuming of course, those wishes are legal to carry out.
I am not saying wishing to starve to death is illegal. Just pointing out a very basic error in the way you have framed the case.
I am very surprised you say this. There is so much misinformation out there about this case. I have HEARD repeatedly by lawyers commenting on this case that the COURT HAS MANDATED her FEEDING TUBE removal and that EVEN IF THE COURT gave the guardianship to the PARENTS that it would NOT allow the parents to re-install the tube........by the way JUST CAME DOWN the FINAL APPEAL has been turned down. A sad sad day!!