The court indicated that forgoing life sustaining treatment -- including artificially provided nutrition and hydration -- from a patient in Michael Martin's condition would be acceptable if a "clear and convincing evidence" standard of evidence of a patient's previously expressed wishes was met. The court ruled, however, that Martin's wife did not meet the clear and convincing standard, and refused to authorize removal of the feeding tube. The court ruled narrowly on this case, and indicated a looser standard of evidence might be acceptable and appropriate for "patients who have never been competent, patients in a persistent vegetative state, patients experiencing great pain, or patients who are terminally ill."