I don't construe ST's remarks that way (and it's up to ST to say yea or nay) but would swiftly and strongly reject that view.
"...if [my husband] is not conscious and has minimal brain function [I can] decide to turn off a respirator..."
Yes, that's right, if the respirator is found to be burdensome or futile, and especially if your husband is terminally ill or has specified that he does not want a respirator. A respirator is an "extraordinary" form of medical treatment.
"Florida law allows for feeding tubes to be removed under certain conditions."
Feeding tubes can be removed if the patient is no longer capable of assimilating food and fluids (e.g. if digestion and circulatuion are shutting down), or if there are tube-related complication (e.g. infection at the surgical os.) Feeding tubes are not to be removed for the purpose of killing the patient.
Nutrition and hydration are not "extraordinary" and are not "treatments." They are ordinary human needs, they are a fundamental element of palliative care even after medical treatment has been abandoned, and they are morally obligatory as long as the medically dependent person is capable of assimilating nutrients.
I mean that in the absence of conscious thought and decision-making by my husband, as his spouse, I have the legal right and responsibility to decide whether to continue life support.
That depends on what you mean by "life support." Even after all drugs, devices, and therapies have been stopped, palliative care --- nutrition, hydration, pain managment, hygienic and comfort care --- are obligatory, not optional. This does not include chemo, radiation therapy, surgery, ventilators, kidney dialysis and other interventions. These are optional.
No care-giver, whether spouse, parent, child, sibling, court-appointed gurdian or anyone else, is permitted to deliberately and intentionally cause the death of the patient by action or omission.
This does not mean that they cannot let nature take its course. Nature does, every time. It means that even a dying patient is morally and legally entitled to palliative care.
In 1998, Michael Schiavo got Judge George Greer involved when he petitioned the Pinellas County Circuit Court to remove Terri's feeding tube.
"I assume that this action was taken in accordance with the law in Florida..."
That's exactly what you can't assume. That's what the whole flippin' controversy was about.
"Michael had the legal responsibility for the decision. We allow spouses, and parents in the absence of a spouse, to make these decisions."
No. We do not allow any caregiver or kin to intentionally cause the death of a medically dependent person.
Mr. Schiavo's brief said that in 1990, the Florida Supreme Court ruled that an individual had the right to refuse medical treatment regardless of his or her medical condition. In the same year, the brief said, the United States Supreme Court ruled in a separate case that it was up to the judicial system to determine whether a terminally ill person intended to be kept alive artificially.
The legal standards in both cases were incorporated into Florida law, which has since allowed a patient's legal guardian or spouse or the courts to make decisions in the absence of a living will.
Terri is given food and water through tubes. Is disconnecting a feeding tube the same as ending life support?
Yes, under Florida law, which governs the ability of each person to determine, or to appoint someone to determine, whether each of us should receive what the Legislature terms "life-prolonging medical procedures." The Legislature has explained:
The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care.
§ 765.102(3), Florida Statutes.
The Legislature has also defined what is a "life-prolonging procedure": "Life-prolonging procedure" means any medical procedure, treatment, or intervention, including artificially provided sustenance and hydration, which sustains, restores, or supplants a spontaneous vital function. The term does not include the administration of medication or performance of medical procedure, when such medication or procedure is deemed necessary to provide comfort care or to alleviate pain.
§ 765.101(10), Florida Statutes (italics added by author).