Replies

765.105 Review of surrogate or proxy's decision.--The patient's family, the health care facility, or the attending physician, or any other interested person who may reasonably be expected to be directly affected by the surrogate or proxy's decision concerning any health care decision may seek expedited judicial intervention pursuant to rule 5.900 of the Florida Probate Rules, if that person believes:

(1) The surrogate or proxy's decision is not in accord with the patient's known desires or the provisions of this chapter;

(2) The advance directive is ambiguous, or the patient has changed his or her mind after execution of the advance directive;

(3) The surrogate or proxy was improperly designated or appointed, or the designation of the surrogate is no longer effective or has been revoked;

(4) The surrogate or proxy has failed to discharge duties, or incapacity or illness renders the surrogate or proxy incapable of discharging duties;

(5) The surrogate or proxy has abused powers; or

(6) The patient has sufficient capacity to make his or her own health care decisions.

And when the legal guardian and the permanent counsel disagree about the proper course of action for the incapacitated person, what then?

If your a liberal, you get the federal government to step in. It was no coincidence that policitians discussed coming up with new powers for the government to intervene at such a personal level, nor was it a coincidence the Reverend Jackson was there...

Regardless of everything, hopefully this has been a heads up to everybody to get their wills in order, or if they have children to young to create a will, to make sure they know what would happen if they faced similar circumstances.

As medical science has made it possible for people to survive using various machines, the chances of this happening elsewhere go up.

Here in Texas, while everybody was concerned with Terri Schiavo in Florida, a six-month-old child was disconnected from life support, against the wishes of the mother.

And when the legal guardian and the permanent counsel disagree about the proper course of action for the incapacitated person, what then?

Then the legal guardian has to try to prove in court that he's right and the 'permanent counsel' is wrong. If the 'permanent counsel' is doing his job, the guardian will only be able to prove that he's right if he is, in fact, acting in the ward's best interest.

To be sure, the notion of a state-appointed advocate poses many problems, but without somebody to oppose guardians' actions incapacitated wards would have zero protection.

How often was Terri represented in court by someone who both (1) wanted her to be rehabilitated rather than killed, and (2) had full access to her medical and guardianship records? If the only people with full access to a ward's medical records want the ward dead, that would seem to rather tilt the scales against the possibility of the ward being allowed to live, would it not?