Then, read how the law changed in 1999 with regards to feeding tubes.
phen, do you know the difference between an unconstitutional statute and a valid statute?
The no-feeding-tube-can-be-removed statute changed in 1999 had been declared unconstitutional since 1989.
In the Browning case tried in 1989, both a circuit court and the district appellate court had decided that such statute was unconstitutional. In 1990, the Florida Supreme Court upheld the decision by the appellate court.
Since the Florida Constitution trumps any unconstitutional statute, the Florida courts have rejected the argument that withdrawing a feeding tube was illegal when Terri collapsed in 1990. The inalienable right to refuse medical treatment is guaranteed in the Florida Constitution, and no unconstitutional statute can change that.
Do you think a statutory definition of PVS is constitutional? We're talking about one that doesn't defer to a diagnosis of a doctor or a certification of two physicians. Just a statutory definition.
That constitutional?
Terri had nothing to do with Browning, BTW. Browning had not one but two advanced directives instructing the removal of ANY life-prolonging measures - including feedings. Terri did not.
The law that states medical treatment removal must be directed by the patient is certainly not unconstitutional any way you slice it.
Withdrawing a feeding tube under these circumstances was not just illegal when Terri collapsed, it was illegal when the original petition was filed. There is your problem. Think about that.
PS: We are clearly talking about different statutes.