Two issues were involved. 1) was she PVS and 2) was there clear and compelling evidence that she wanted her life ended. With regard to the second, we have to ask about the sufficiency of the statute and whether the judge properly applied it. With regard to the first, we have to ask about the definition of PVS and whether doctors properly diagnosed her. IMHO, the statute gives the trial judge too much discretion. He jumped through all the right judicial hoops and therefore the judge-club could do nothing but circle the wagons to guard THEIR rights. So far as PVS is concerned, it is at best a term of art and the facts are as open to multiple interpretation as the number of doctors who can be brought in, on a par with a psychiatric diagnosis.
Sure. Though in Terri's case where two parties are arguing over her future, someone has to make a decision based on something, one way or the other. Correct?
The citizens of Florida, through their duly elected representatives, decided that a judge hear the medical testimony, hear the testimony of the parties, and make a decision based on the standard of "clear and convincing" evidence.
This is no good? This is wrong? This method of determination should be trashed, and the state should adopt another?
"on a par with a psychiatric diagnosis."
And that's done in murder cases, and has been for decades, and is acceptable to everyone. But we can't do the same with medical doctors testifying as to PVS?
I'm curious. What's your solution?