I think the concern is that since it's his word against hers, and without documentation, to err on the side of death puts every man and woman sitting in a nursing home at risk that a less than scrupulous loved one paying for said care will come forward and say:
"Yeah - uh - Aunt Gertie - she told me back in 1993 there that she didn't want no part of dis here nursing home and lying in a bed all day, so - uh - go ahead and stop feedin' the money syphon - I mean, my LOVELY aunt."
However there is a process that has to be followed to resolve these matters. That process has been followed in this case. And absent enough proof to the contrary, the spouse (if they are around) should make that decision. He is around and despite what people want to think of him, the courts have maintained his rights as guardian.
The rights of the married couple should not be thrown aside without ample reason, and aside from accusations, no sufficient reason has been found to do so in this case.
Thank you for a brilliant summation of this case.
It seems so easy to understand,yet so many here fail in grasping that simple set of facts.
It would seem we have a lot of brain impaired people roaming around,I hope for their sake they don't live in Florida and speak in low voices most of the time so as not to be overheard.