[Cboldt]

Well, Terri's actual condition was the critical issue, not Michael's behavior.

As noted just above, I agree that Michael's behavior is largely irrelevant, except inasmuch as it affects how one interprets and weighs his testimonial evidence regarding Terri's wishes.

But I don't see PVS as the critical issue under Florida case law. If the patient is mentally incapacitated (could be dementia, altzheimers, stroke, brain injury, insanity, somehow incompetent or unable to give orders for medical treatment), and is being fed other than by mouth, then that patient is a candidate for natural death by dehydration.

IMO, the critical issue is the determination of the patient's wishes.

[Dog Gone]

I agree that a PVS finding isn't necessary, but it bolstered Michael's case. I haven't looked at the Florida Statutes since the Terri battles were raging here, but I believe that they provide that the feeding tube can be removed from such a patient.

I'd have to go back and look, but I've viewed it as a fallback argument for Michael if the "Terri's wishes" argument had failed.