[supercat]

It was a civil case based up "preponderance of evidence". Probate judges interpret the wishes of those who can no longer speak for themselves all the time.

The statutes in 1999 were amended to allow refusal of artificial food and hydration based upon "clear and compelling evidence". But you haven't cited me any statute to allow the denial of oral food and hydration.

[presently no screen name]

But you haven't cited me any statute to allow the denial of oral food and hydration.


Did the poster respond to you yet? I wanted to see it also. Thanks for asking.

[E Rocc]

The statutes in 1999 were amended to allow refusal of artificial food and hydration based upon "clear and compelling evidence". But you haven't cited me any statute to allow the denial of oral food and hydration.

Perhaps the clear medical view that this would cause nothing but choking.

-Eric