Because I have no problem with the state government getting involved. Madison was clear on that issue and Scalia agrees with him. Haven't seen Thomas' stance but I imagine he would agree with Scalia.
If Florida wants to muck around with their state laws and constitution, that's the business of the state of Florida. But my stance still is that the family should make the decision. Yes, you will have instances where the wrong family member makes the decision but I'd take that chance compared to some politician making a standard one day in the future that should be followed regardless of the family's position
I am sorry, you were not clear on this.
Is that Florida State laws, and the US Constitution?
I think there are some very common-sensical changes that can be made to the law without getting politicians overly involved. Spouses who commit adultery after their power of attorney have been granted should lose their power of attorney. The power of attorney should never extend so far as to prohibit oral sustenance, or tests to see if oral sustenance is possible.
And this business of starvation and dehydration without medication, at least in situations like this, has go to go. Either the patient is capable of suffering the consequences of the starvation, in which case she'll need pain-killers, or she's not capable of suffering the consequences, in which case she certainly isn't going to suffer from living. In that latter case, if there's a family member who's willing to take care of her, then not even the power-of-attorney should be able to say no. Only if the POA insists the patient is suffering should he be able to mandate no feeding and water, and if the word is that the patient's suffering then there should be medication to go along with the dehydration and starvation. But I don't see any way someone can simultaneously claim that a patient is suffering from being alive, but won't suffer from what for anyone else would be a slow and extremely painful death.