Yes, the patient should have this right - however, in Terri's case, nothing was written down and we are just using MS's "hearsay" evidence to kill an American citizen. There is a 50/50 chance she wanted to die like that. Based on MS actions it was doubtful he really had Terri's interests in mind. And the desperate need to see her dead proved that there was a lot more going on behind the scenes.
This is exactly why we are so upset. We do not believe the state has the right to commit murder on an American citizen AND we see that there is an agenda to progressively further euthanasia for the undesirables a step at a time.
And, there are now glimmers that even the Living Will can be ignored by "doctors" if they chose. Should a person have to end up with the vultures wanting their estates, or wanting them dead, circumventing their wishes?
FYI - Here are the progressive steps the Florida end-of-life panel has instigated into law without oversight. For the "skirting of the Living Will" see the last paragraph (Posted by mercyme on another thread)
In 1998, the florida legislature created the Florida Panel on End-of-Life Care for the purpose of revising the 765 statute for end-of-life issues. They were charged with coming up with the findings for changes in the law for the Florida legislature. Their findings were made law
Bill CB/CB/SB 2228, which revised the 765 as of October 1, 1999, also gave the authority to the End-to-Life panel to make findings for the legislature and that these findings were to made into law.
The legislature essentially gave them the authority to dictate to the legislature what changes to put in their bills. So the role of End-of-Life panel was not simply to make recommendations, but had the authority to determine what changes would be made into law.
The 765 law was revised in 1999 to include "end-stage condition" as a reason to withdraw life prolonging procedures along with persistant vegetative state and terminal illness. This was also put into law. Geldart also redefines terminal illness as not just conditions that cause death, but "irreversible" conditions or conditions "with no reasonable chance of recovery". Felos used this definition for the argument that Terri is terminal because she has a "irreversible" neurological condition with no "reasonable hope for recovery".
Geldart also details the the change in law that permitted nutrition and hydration to be considered medical treatment and the changes to life-prolonging procedures in the absence of advanced directives. Project Grace member William Leonard then points out a common scenario in Florida in his article: an elderly couple moves from out of state to Florida and then one spouse dies within a year 's time. Leonard then expands the definition of family to a neighbor, friend or caregiver who is now in the position of articulating the wishes of the elderly person to withdraw medical treatment, rather than "some distant relative".
And indeed the 765 law was changed to allow an "friend" to say that the person wanted life-pronging procedures withdrawn without a written directive. This also effected the outcome of Terri's case. Authors of Project Grace advocate for terminal sedation (Basta), withdraw of nutrition and hydration (Basta), and the refusal of physician to provide "futile" treatment as unethical even with advanced directive asking for treatments (Doty).
They also state that advanced directives providing for treatment should not carry the same weight as directives withdrawing care, and advanced directives should not compel the physican to provide them, regardless if the patient needs them (Doty). Doty is part of the Florida Bioethics Network as well as Project Grace. One of the changes in the law in CB/CB/SB 2228 includes the Bioethics Network as part of the process of withdrawing care. "
Bring up these issues with the FL legislature.