Actually, besides the pardon, there is prosecutorial discretion as well. E.g., the acriminal adultery statute in Florida is enforced rarely, if at all.
Civil courts only carry out money judgements. They don't incarceraate or condemn criminals. In this case, the court holds itself out as follwing the patient's wishes. As we can see, there is not much of a hurdel to find the pateint's wisehs, and if that finding is incorrect (either way), it stands review by higher courts, provided the process is followed.
This is a "case" of first immpression, with the combination of life/death in a civil trial (which usually only divides money up among the contestants) and an entrenched judiciary that may have commited factual error. Very interesting times indeed. I suspect, FWIW, that there are civil trial swhere the appellate court does in fact review the evidence. Especially where the judgement is in the hundreds of millions of dollars. Couldn't cite one, but additures, remitteurs, and reversals must, maybe one in a thousand, hinge on the facts and not on the law. I think the reversl of punitiva award in the McDonald's Coffee-burn case hinged on a review of the evidence.
I see what you mean. But does this not, in the end, rely on the Judiciary to police itself? The mechanisms you site are good evidence that the Judiciary has ample opportunity to correct self-error, but if the facts as they are being presented here are correct, it would seem that the primary focus of the judiciary is to dig in intransigently, and say "we ain't gonna, an you cain't make us". It is an arrogance that needs to be seen by the world.
Thanks for the critique. Am I further wrong here?