This wasn't about suicide exactly. It was about whether to withhold lifesaving treatment. Maybe it's artificial to draw an omission/commission line here and say the difference is meaningful, but it's a line that has been traditionally drawn.
Anyway, the case wasn't really about that. The Georgia law allowed lifesaving treatment to be withheld, which is what the family said she would have wanted, but demanded a high burden of proof ("clear and convincing evidence," which is one down from "beyond a reasonable doubt" on the proof scale) from them that she actually desired for the plug to be pulled. Just their say-so wasn't good enough (get a living will, kids). The court said the state had a legitimate reason because if the family is right, she keeps on living, and that can be corrected, but if they're wrong, that's an irreversible mistake, because...
