Relatives or guardians of brain-damaged people can order the removal of feeding tubes that keep them alive, the Florida Supreme Court said in a ruling hailed by ``right-to-die'' advocates. ``It reaffirms the rights of Floridians under our (state) constitution to make their own decisions about what will be done with their bodies,'' said Charlene Carres, a Tallahassee attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union. Roman Catholics, anti-abortion groups and other opponents did not immediately respond, saying they needed more time to review the ruling. The decision focused on an elderly woman who died last summer. Estelle Browning spent the last 2{ years of her life hooked up to feeding tubes that she had specified in a ``living will'' she didn't want. Mrs. Browning suffered permanent brain damage in a stroke and was left in a persistent vegetative state, unable to swallow or communicate. She was not comatose. Doris Herbert, Mrs. Browning's second cousin and only living relative, was named her guardian. Herbert sought permission to remove the tubes in 1988. The state fought the request and a trial court denied it, but a state appeals court said the Florida Constitution allowed for removal of the tubes and the issue was reviewed by the Supreme Court. ``We hold that, because Mrs. Browning was unable to exercise her constitutional right of privacy by reason of her medical condition, her guardian was authorized to exercise it for her,'' Justice Rosemary Barkett wrote. When people take ``the time and trouble'' to write ``living wills,'' express their wishes orally or appoint health-care surrogates, there's no need to go before a judge to get permission to carry out their wishes, the court ruled. Patricia Dore, a law professor at Florida State University who drafted the privacy clause added to the state constitution in 1980, said it was significant that the justices ruled there was no legal distinction between food and water supplied through tubes and other medical treatments, like respirators. Although it has no direct impact outside Florida, attorneys and advocates said other state courts could be influenced by the case. ``I think many, many state courts look to Florida for guidance on issues that affect the elderly,'' said George Felos, an attorney who represented Herbert. Florida's high court heard oral arguments in the case in January. Six months later, the U.S. Supreme Court said a Missouri couple could not order the removal of food and water keeping their 32-year-old comatose daughter alive. The daughter, Nancy Cruzan, had not left a living will. Her parents said they were certain she would prefer to die rather than live in a coma. In its split decision, the nation's high court said competent people have a right to refuse medical treatment.
