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?
One thing. Why no legal instrument? Many (most) states require. Not infallible, but better than letting judge be judge, jury and executor. Why not have a review board analogous to a pardon board in criminal cases. Law tends to be driven by process, but process is not an end in itself, which is why equity jurisdiction appeared. But equity is a "royal" power, and so there is no reason why it should NOT be vested in the executive. Texas gives the governor the power to stay' the pardon board the authoprity to pardon. Something like this to check the power of the courts when they get caught in a "loop," where the judicial process is not open to a different result.