They will also be well-advised to carefully review Federal standards regarding the 'diagnosis' of "PVS."
And make damn sure that States do the same.
"PVS" seems to have mission creep--but if you look at the MD's who define it for purposes of legislation, you'll understand why....
Browning was 82 or so, stroke victim. She did have a written advance directive. The patient was not PVS and was not terminal. Florida court system held that starving these patients to death is legal. Note the decision dates to 1990, before the Florida statute was changed so that the definition of "life-prolonging procedure" was expanded to specifically include "artificially provided sustenance and hydration."Supreme Court of Florida.
In re GUARDIANSHIP OF Estelle M. BROWNING. STATE of Florida, Petitioner, v. Doris F. HERBERT, etc., Respondent.
No. 74174.
Sept. 13, 1990.
BARKETT, Justice.
We have for review In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989), in which the district court certified the following question as one of great public importance:
Whether the guardian of a patient who is incompetent but not in a permanent vegetative state and who suffers from an incurable, but not terminal condition, may exercise the patient's right of self-determination to forego sustenance provided artificially by a nasogastric tube?
Id. at 274. [FN1] We answer the question in the affirmative as qualified in this opinion.
FN1. We have jurisdiction. Art. V, 3(b)(4), Fla. Const. Estelle Browning died on July 16, 1989, at the age of 89. Although the claim is moot, we accept jurisdiction because the issue raised is of great public importance and likely to recur. In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186, 1189 (Fla.1989); Holly v. Auld, 450 So.2d 217, 218 n. 1 (Fla.1984).
I. THE FACTS
On November 19, 1985, a competent Estelle Browning executed a declaration that provides, in part:
If at any time I should have a terminal condition and if my attending physician has determined that there can be no recovery from such condition and that my death is imminent, I direct that life-prolonging procedures be withheld or withdrawn when the application of such procedures would serve only to prolong artificially the process of dying.
In addition, Mrs. Browning stipulated that she desired not to have "nutrition and hydration (food and water) provided by gastric tube or intravenously." [FN2]
FN2. The entire form is reproduced in the appendix of the district court's opinion. In re Guardianship of Browning, 543 So.2d 258, 275 (Fla. 2d DCA 1989).
At eighty-six years of age, Mrs. Browning suffered a stroke.
...
The consensus of the medical evidence indicated that the brain damage caused by the hemorrhage was major and permanent and that there was virtually no chance of recovery. Death would occur within seven to ten days were the nasogastric feeding tube removed. However, Mrs. Browning's life could have been prolonged up to one year as long as she was maintained on the feeding tube and assuming the absence of infection.
Chapter 765, Florida Statutes 2004 <-- 765.101(10)
Note also the recitiations in Browning's living will. These were construed by the Florida District Court of Appeals in such a way as to find that Browning was legally terminal. That a scheduled natural death by dehydration, under the fact circumstances of the case, was what Browning wanted, and was therefore legal.
This is also the case that lays the groundwork for the assertion that Michael somehow did the blood family a favor, by following the "more strenuous" legal course before starving Terri to death. The alternative, less strenuous course, is to starve her to death with no permission required from the court.
And PVS is MISdiagnosed 35-43% of the time, according to several medical studies.