My point was that the Florida law required “clear and convincing evidence” that the person wanted to die (in the opinion of the trial court judge)
However, if Terri had left a living will stating that she wanted to be left alive (the intent of the law though was to make keeping the person alive the default action), it would be pretty hard to argue she wanted to die.
However, even if a person left a living will stating that he or she wanted to live, an attorney could still argue (and a judge decide) that it was in the best interest of the person to be starved and dehydrated.
If people knew how painful dehydration was, they'd never check "no hydration." But that's what morphine's for.... Then you end up with a morphine overdose and dehydration of someone not dying.
Barbarism.
We’ll see. I don’t have the text of the applicable statute here.
Esenberg’s a blogger (http://sharkandshepherd.blogspot.com). I’ve met him. Federalist Society, either Yale or Harvard Law, (despite that, he has his head together.)
The Wi Supreme Court is 4 to 3 Wacko Lefty, however...if this gets that far, it will be very interesting.