[phenn]

Again, you are likely missing the point I'm trying to make. I know all about Browning. She had a written, advanced directive. Terri did not.

Additionally, Terri was not terminally ill. It was only after the 1999 statute changes that a non-terminally ill person could have a feeding tube removed without a written, advanced directive and that was only in cases of PVS.

Further to that, under Florida's evidence code, Michael Schiavo's testimony of Terri's alleged oral declaration was NEVER admissible. Yet, that was what the court found as clear and convincing evidence of her death wish.

Browning served to set the case law that a person could refuse unwanted intervention, but it did NOT serve to set the case that someone else could refuse intervention for the patient. That has never been set - well.... until now that is.

[george wythe]

It was only after the 1999 statute changes that a non-terminally ill person could have a feeding tube removed without a written, advanced directive and that was only in cases of PVS.

Not true. Already adressed in Browning. Mrs. Browning, a non-PVS patient and a non-terminally-ill person had the right to refuse feeding tubes. No written directive was required, an oral statement was sufficient said the court.

Further to that, under Florida's evidence code, Michael Schiavo's testimony of Terri's alleged oral declaration was NEVER admissible.

False again. No wonder you can't understand why the Schindlers kept losing their court battles.