With all due respect, I think Andy is stretching the law quite a bit to argue that federal law, indeed the Constitution, requires that the burden of proof for criminal cases (“beyond a reasonable doubt”) must be applied in civil proceedings that will result in the end of life. I understand the rationale for such a standard, but I don’t think it can be plausibly argued, as Andy does, that this is the law today. There is certainly nothing in Cruzan or other cases to suggest as much. I understand and appreciate Andy’s motivation, but I simply don’t think this argument can hold water any more than his substantive due process claims.