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.
The particular circumstances were different, but the issue was germane. As a matter of fact, Browning is profusely cited in the Schiavo decisions.
Was the statute banning the removal of feeding tubes constitutional? No, said Browning.
The law that states medical treatment removal must be directed by the patient is certainly not unconstitutional any way you slice it.
That's what happened in both Browning and Schiavo. Neither of them lost their right to refuse medical treatment just because they could not verbalize their wishes. Previous oral or written expressions are sufficient.
Read Browning dicta if you have any doubts.
Furthermore, being PVS was not a requirement to have the right to refuse feeding tubes. Mrs. Browning was not PVS, she just could not verbalize.