And the courts decided it was.
Speaking for myself, the idea that a brother or sister-in-law would be more reliable than my family or closest friends is preposterous.
The law has always been that the spouse has the first word on decicions like this.
One court ruled on that. When appealed the court said that in order to grant relief significant new evidence (like an advanced directive or written designated health care surrogate) be discovered. In other words they needed more evidence for relief than they did to terminate life prolonging procedures once Greer established the record.
The law has always been that the spouse has the first word on decicions like this.
Read Greer's decision. He refers to the Guardian Ad Litem's (GAL) belief that Michael Schiavo's testimony alone did not rise to clear and convincing. Greer stated that he wasn't required to rule on that testimony because he had the testimony of Scott and Joan Schiavo. (He also states in that decision that when the only evidence of intent is an oral declaration, the accuracy and reliability of that declaration may be challenged, which it was.)