[Dog Gone]

I thought the Schiavo case, while certainly referring to Browning, was centered on the Florida Statutes which provided for removing the feeding tube from someone in a PVS.

I read Browning once, but obviously not close enough. It makes the Florida statute not only unnecessary, but unconstitutionally too strict, it seems.

[Cboldt]

I read Browning once, but obviously not close enough. It makes the Florida statute not only unnecessary, but unconstitutionally too strict, it seems.

I haven't read the District Court's Browning, just the SCOFLA review of it.

The two entities, FL statutes and the SCOFLA ruling, can coexist. Remember, both are interpreted by courts, and as long as the courts can rationalize it, it's the law.

ALso, the constitutionality is viewed from the patient's point of view, where the patient has expressed a will to have food and water withheld. The CRUZAN case stands for the proposaition that clear and convincing evidnece of this desire is not an unconstitutional burden on the patient. It implies that a lower hurdle would be okay too, e.g., preponderance of the evidence.

[Cboldt]

I thought the Schiavo case, while certainly referring to Browning, was centered on the Florida Statutes which provided for removing the feeding tube from someone in a PVS.

That's where the lawyers took it. But the Florida Law has more than one avenue to justify giving the patient what the patient wants.