In the Terry Schaivo case, to me anyway, the biggest issue was who had the legal right to decide what therapies, treatment, etc. to provide or withhold. In the absence of a clear written prior direction, it seems to me that her husband had that right. Credible alleations of abuse or other criminal activity by him against her, particularly if said abuse was likely to have caused her to be in that condition would be about the only reason I could see to strip him of that authority. That her family was able to stop his plan to cease all treatment via the courts is somewhat troubling. I say somewhat as there are aspects of the case that are not totally clear, and it's possible, if unlikely, that there was good cause for such legal interference.
