[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.

[ironman]

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.

I read it the other way. If another State had a higher requirement, say a living will requirement, SCOTUS might find that to be too high a burden. But couldn't they also rule that it was up to the State and constitutionally acceptable.