nues to suffer physically without hope of recovery. In such instances, family members will often call for an end to the treatment. However, this situation tends to bolster the arguments against recognizing a right to die. The only ones able to make a decision on the spot are those who are burdened by the continued existence of the patient.
Under current Florida law, a patient has the right to refuse life-prolonging medical treatment, including artificial nutrition and hydration (In re Guardianship of Browning, 568 So. 2d 4 (Fla. 1990)). This right emanates from the right of privacy expressly provided by the Florida Constitution (Fla. Const. art. I, § 23). The Florida Supreme Court has said that this right extends not only to competent patients (Satz v. Perlmutter, 379 So. 2d 359 (Fla. 1980)), but also to incompetent patients (John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bludworth, 452 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1984)). In the case of an incompetent patient, such a decision must be made by a family member or court-appointed guardian or through an advanced directive (living will). In addition, such a decision requires three physicians to certify that there is no reasonable prospect of the patient regaining competency and that the patient's life is being artificially sustained (John F. Kennedy Memorial Hospital, Inc. v. Bludworth, 452 So. 2d 921 (Fla. 1984)). The Florida legislature has codified these rulings to a large extent in its provisions concerning advanced directives (Fla. Stat. ch. 765, 1996 Supp.). The statute also allows a healthcare facility to designate a proxy in the absence of an advance directive by the patient and when no surrogate has been appointed by the patient. The statute forces the facility to follow a certain order within the patient's family. If no such family member exists, the facility must apply for a court-appointed guardian (Fla. Stat. § 765.401). The statute, however, does not explicitly include artifi...