I guess you weren't paying attention to the threads which cited Florida statutes.
Florida statutes forbid the denial of food and water to disabled persons.
Judge Greer forbade the provision of food or water to Terri Schiavo. Sherriff's deputies stood by her bed to see that no one violated the order by giving her an ice chip or sip of water.
Judge Greer is exactly the kind of judge who adjudicates based on how he feels, and not on the basis of law, or fact. Judge Greer should be impeached and charged with murder.
Florida statutes forbid the denial of food and water to disabled persons.
Florida's constitution expressly includes a right of privacy, and the Florida Supreme Court held in In re Browning that the right of privacy includes the right to refuse medical care, particularly life-sustaining medical care. Including a feeding tube. That's every Florida citizen's right.
Because this right is considered fundamental, by virtue of its inclusion in the constitution, it is not very difficult to exercise. Indeed, In re Browning decided that, for Floridians, the right could be exercised in writing or orally. If the right could be exercised only in writing, then it would be a weaker right, requiring you to jump through procedural hoops to exercise it. By comparison, a decision-making right that allows you to make a decision by announcing it is a stronger right.
So the decision that you can exercise the right to refuse medical treatment by stating your desires orally is based on the right's importance.
Now, if you can exercise this right orally, can an oral statement negate a prior written wish? Yes. In fact, if you read the facts of the Browning case, you will see that Estelle Browning had executed a document in which she declared she did not wish to be maintained by a feeding tube under certain circumstances, and the state government intervened in her case and argued that her written wishes should not be followed because it was possible that, later, she orally made a decision to the contrary.
Think about that. She said no to a feeding tube. The state embraced the notion she could have revoked that wish through oral statements and argued that because she may have done that, her written wishes should not be followed.
That didn't work -- the court made clear that it would not indulge presumptions someone did or did not say something. But the court indicated that had such oral statements been made, they would control.
So, yes, written wishes regarding end-of-life care can be orally revoked. At least in Florida. They just need to be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
For those who would rather look at a statute than dwell on constitutional principles, take a look at the Florida statute that governs this area. Section 765.104(1)(c) explains that an advance directive -- including a living will -- or the designation of a health care surrogate decisionmaker may be revoked "[b]y means of an oral expression of intent to amend or revoke." Now, keep in mind that the statutes enacted by the legislature cannot conflict with the rights provided in the state constitution, but it is certainly meaningful to see that the legislature has affirmatively recognized the signicance of oral declarations.
In Terri's case, the testimony of her husband and others (including her best friend) provided clear and convincing evidence of Terri's wishes to the Courts.