“...that the trier of fact and the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states, where there is no advance directive, through substituted/proxy judgment of the guardian and/or the court as guardian, and with the use of evidence regarding the medical condition and the intent of the parties that was deemed, by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing.”

A new survey by FindLaw finds that only 33% of Americans have a living will. Sixty-seven percent of Americans lack a living will, potentially leaving them with no say over whether they wish to receive life-sustaining medical treatment in the event they should become incapacitated or terminally ill.

The national survey of 1,000 adults was conducted by telephone and results are accurate to within plus or minus three percent.

Chief Justice Rehnquist writes for the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, holding that “a State may apply a clear and convincing evidence standard [of the patient’s wishes] in proceedings where a guardian seeks to discontinue nutrition and hydration of a person diagnosed to be in a persistent vegetative state,” and that the Constitution gives “a competent person a constitutionally protected right to refuse lifesaving hydration and nutrition.”

New Jersey’s Supreme Court recognizes that a patient’s constitutional right to privacy includes a right to terminate medical treatment.

California case holding that, under the State’s law, a conservator may not withhold artificial nutrition and hydration “from a conscious conservatee who is not terminally ill, comatose, or in a persistent vegetative state, and who has not left formal instructions for health care or appointed an agent or surrogate for health care decisions...absent clear and convincing evidence the conservator’s decision is in accordance with either the conservatee’s own wishes or best interest.”

Massachusetts case holding that the “State’s interest in the preservation of life does not overcome [the patient’s] right to discontinue treatment,” and that such a position is not contrary to the “State’s interest in the prevention of suicide.”