I'm on dial-up, so retrieving documents is a pain, but I thought Greer's denial of oral feeding/hydration cited her as having received three swallow tests. That would be consistent with her receiving such tests through 1993, not 1997. Am I misremembering?
Also, I don't recall her ever having had any tests that indicated that there was no possibility of swallowing food--merely that oral feeding would not be worth the risk if other methods were available.
Why should a judge usurp a medical decision? And if medicine is about sustaining life, well, I don't really understand the relevance of the tests. As I posed, it strikes me that the decision is illegal on its face. I wonder what statute Greer relied upon for that one.