I think the "living wills" thing is ridiculous. Who's to say that some right-to-die lawyer gets a right-to-die judge to determine that you really didn't mean it, your spouse says you weren't in your right mind or some such, and the court orders what they will.
Who's to say that you'll feel the same way after an injury as before one? What a nightmare that must be, to realize after the fact that you do want to live after all, then be euthanized for your previous error!
It is usually the case that a critically ill person, who remains able to speak, will revoke the "advance directive" they made while healthy.
Not wanting to live with a machine when your mortality is inconceiveable is one thing.
When your lungs are full of serum and every breath feels like your last, things look different.
The next step down this disastrous path we are on is to make these so-called "living wills" binding, so the sick person cannot revoke them.
Then, the killing can start in earnest.
The whole "living will" thing is prolefeed. According to the law signed by Jeb Bush in 1999, everything that is being done to Terri is legal. The law was pushed by Felos, Greer, and other euthanasia activists. That's why Jeb is terrified to do anything to save Terri now. He would be violating HIS OWN LAW, and his stupidity and culpability would be exposed. Under that same law, "living wills" and "advance directives" can be ignored, IF they call for life-saving procedures--e.g., food and water.
That's one of the real dangers being set by this precedent of the court killing Terri Schindler. The decision was based on hearsay evidence. Hearsay can be used to "say" a lot of things, including what you suggest. The "Living Will" of today becomes simply "a scarp of paper" (to use another famous phrase that ushered in the deaths of millions) tomorrow. A "Living Will" that affirms a desire to live becomes meaningless in a culture of death.