A change in the law that better defines HOW a court goes about deciding what an individual may or may not want--and that allows for a "good samaritan".
As I posted earlier, here are at least three ways I want the law "tightened" when there are no written instructions from the patient:
1.--The patient must have separate legal representation to protect his or her right to due process; 2. --The definitions of "terminal" and "disabled" must be unbound and the disabled individual must be afforded all protections under the Americans with Disabilities Act; and 3.--When the patient's wishes are not clear, the law must allow for guardianship by an individual other than spouse, or even family, if someone capable of accepting the responsibility petitions the court.
But that still does not protect a person that the court has decreed "wants to die." Yes, it may make the hurdle touger to cross (it is now easily crossed, see Schiavo case), and I agree there is room for improvement. I will watch things unfold. I never did have faith in the system, but this case still rattles me to my core.