[Dolphy]

The fact is under the law NOBODY has to accept ANY medical treatment if they don't want it, ESPECIALLY when it comes to end of life situations.

And the fact is that evidence must be clear and convincing. I want the law protecting my right to make that decision and if I'm unable, I want the evidence of those that presume to know my wishes to be clear and convincing. Speaking for myself, the idea that a brother or sister-in-law would be more reliable than my family or closest friends is preposterous.

[Jorge]

And the fact is that evidence must be clear and convincing.

And the courts decided it was.

Speaking for myself, the idea that a brother or sister-in-law would be more reliable than my family or closest friends is preposterous.

The law has always been that the spouse has the first word on decicions like this.

[lizma]

The laws were wrong. The Florida definition of "extraordinary means" included gastric tube. Greer chose testimony to support a totally legal claim. (I don't understand why there isn't a review system to look at controversial choices, there is in medicine.)

But the fact that a court has the ability to put the hearsay of my in-laws before my own parents and siblings testimonies is unbelievable.

This is a state's right issue. Now is the time for us to start reviewing our own state's law and working for a change if needed.