[PhiKapMom]

FYI! Didn't want you all to miss this article.

[bigeasy_70118]

will read later. Thanks for the ping.

[Dog Gone]

It still boggles my mind that the attorneys did not raise issues which would have required the introduction of evidence. The Court would have been in position to refuse and the tube would have had to be reinserted until those issues were resolved.

The court would never had to issue its four-prong test because immediate injunctive relief, or a writ of mandate would have been forthcoming.

Unbelievably, they missed that opportunity with their second bite at the District Court apple, too. The Schindler's attorneys have some serious responsibility for the fact that Terri is going to die.

[Torie]

Thanks for the flag. This article gets it exactly right, the first that I have read to do so. Teh only problem, noted in the article, but deemphasized, is that while maybe there should be a symmetrical substantive due process right to not have a feeding tube removed to attend the Cruzan decision right to have it removed, the fact is that SCOTUS has not yet created such a right. I also think there is potentially a state action issue. The state is merely enforcing what presumptively the private actor wished to do, not going against it ala Cruzan. But arguably that could be finessed by claiming the court in fact went against the actor's wishes, and by doing so that was ipso facto state action.

All of these legal doctrines tend to be moving targets that courts use at the leisure as tools to paper over pre-desired results desired for ulterior reasons all too often.