Florida law does not require that. Why do you even bring it up?
"Terri was judicially murdered"
As a lawyer, you should know that murder is the "unlawful" killing of another ..." Judge Greer made a legal finding, supported by 30+ judges.
You use of the term "murder" is inflammatory and in error.
"the multiple conflicts of interest"
The "conflicts" are so tenuous as to be laughable.
Terri was killed in a way that couldn't even be legally done to a dog or cat. That Florida law allows this prodcedure simply means they did not think through the frightful consequences of adopting it, as shown here, where it becomes easier for a woman to order herself killed than it would be for her to bequeath a $2.00 heirloom to a friend. Given the immense number of due process hurdles constructed by the courts to the painless execution of mass murderers, it seems the Federal courts could at least conclude, under the Fourteenth Amendment, that the judicial taking of life in this case by deliberate starvation and dehydration at least required the victim's advance written consent and proof beyond a reasonable doubt that she was in a PVS. The "deliberately inflamatory", and entirely accurate, term "judicial murder" stands.