The source of the quote was unsourced document posted by mercyme on another thread. However, there was another later thread that did provide source information in the body of the thread. Don't know the other thread-tried to bookmark it last night but could not find how to do FR bookmarks and lost the thread.
Here is the summary of the document and the part above is in the last paragraph I think.
Summary-
"When Michael Schiavo first asked Judge Shames to allow him to remove terri's feeding tube in 1997, and then again in Judge Greer's court in 1998, the law at the time was not enough to let Greer order the removal of Terri's feeding tube under Terri's circumstances, so the law had to be changed in favor of Michael Schiavo.
In 1998, the florida legislature created the Florida Panel on End-of-Life Care for the purpose of revising the 765 statute for end-of-life issues. They were charged with coming up with the findings for changes in the law for the Florida legislature. Their findings were made law
Bill CB/CB/SB 2228, which revised the 765 as of October 1, 1999, also gave the authority to the End-to-Life panel to make findings for the legislature and that these findings were to made into law.
The legislature essentially gave them the authority to dictate to the legislature what changes to put in their bills. So the role of End-of-Life panel was not simply to make recommendations, but had the authority to determine what changes would be made into law.
The 765 law was revised in 1999 to include "end-stage condition" as a reason to withdraw life prolonging procedures along with persistant vegetative state and terminal illness. This was also put into law. Geldart also redefines terminal illness as not just conditions that cause death, but "irreversible" conditions or conditions "with no reasonable chance of recovery". Felos used this definition for the argument that Terri is terminal because she has a "irreversible" neurological condition with no "reasonable hope for recovery".
Geldart also details the the change in law that permitted nutrition and hydration to be considered medical treatment and the changes to life-prolonging procedures in the absence of advanced directives. Project Grace member William Leonard then points out a common scenario in Florida in his article: an elderly couple moves from out of state to Florida and then one spouse dies within a year 's time. Leonard then expands the definition of family to a neighbor, friend or caregiver who is now in the position of articulating the wishes of the elderly person to withdraw medical treatment, rather than "some distant relative".
And indeed the 765 law was changed to allow an "friend" to say that the person wanted life-pronging procedures withdrawn without a written directive. This also effected the outcome of Terri's case. Authors of Project Grace advocate for terminal sedation (Basta), withdraw of nutrition and hydration (Basta), and the refusal of physician to provide "futile" treatment as unethical even with advanced directive asking for treatments (Doty).
They also state that advanced directives providing for treatment should not carry the same weight as directives withdrawing care, and advanced directives should not compel the physican to provide them, regardless if the patient needs them (Doty). Doty is part of the Florida Bioethics Network as well as Project Grace. One of the changes in the law in CB/CB/SB 2228 includes the Bioethics Network as part of the process of withdrawing care. "
Next the insurance companies will use the living will to release them from any responsibility in tending to the needs of the patient.
Thank you for your thoughtful and very thorough response.
While I suspect you and I would disagree about the correctness of the Court's determination of Terri's wishes, we certainly do agree that her wishes HAVE to be paramount. I certainly don't favor a tyranny of physicians. Such end-of-life decisions MUST be focused entirely on the wishes of the person involved and not those of their relatives, friends, etc.
There is of course an intersection with the medical establishment in determinations of "medical irreversibility", "medical certainty", etc. These determinations are often factual predicates of the instructions or wishes of the subject, i.e. "If I am ever in a condition with no reasonable expectation of recovery ...." Well, anyone trying to make such a decision, whether the person himself (assuming he is able) or his guardian or surrogate (if he is not), has to know if the condition is in fact 'irreversible' or if in fact there is 'no reasonable expectation of recovery'.
In practice these decisions are seldom made in the first week, or month or even year of the condition. So the judgments of 'irreversibility' or 'expectation of recovery' are usually made with a substantial history of unchanged condition as evidence of 'irreversibility.' As with Terri, goes the argument, if the condition hasn't changed in 8 years, what's to make us think it will change in the future?
So, I think as a practical matter most people are wise enough not to put too much trust in the pronouncements of the medical establishment.
If you want some other scary information on the euthanasia industry, do some research on viaticals or "life settlements." There is a lot of proven fraud and criminal activity and it all has to do with the prospect that the sooner you die, the sooner the investors collect. Creepy stuff. If you ping Calpernia she can get you started.