OK, mfree. It would simplify matters if there was any way of knowing what Terry Schiavo would have wanted. Her husband's assertion that she wanted to die is suspicious and not properly substantiated.
Regardless of any thing you might have wanted for her, the law made her husband the person that got to decide. It is not up to you.
As for the unsubstantiated part of it, very few younger people tell anyone but their spouse what they want in such a case, and even fewer write it down. Are you suggesting that we leave people on life support indefinately unless there is something in writing?
I'm not sure what fistful is suggesting, but I'll suggest exactly what you've said. Leave people on life support unless they've left written instructions otherwise. If Schaivo was serious about her decision, she should have written it down.
For better or worse, her husband wanted her dead. Given his current situation in regards to future plans to marry, insurance payouts, and so forth, I'm highly suspect of his objectivity in the decision. It should never have been his decision, it should have been hers. If Mr. Schaivo is so enamored with death, perhaps he should look into it for himself rather than imposing it upon someone else who isn't in a position to object.
Ultimatley, though, it was a judge that decided whether she lived or died. Frankly, I'm extremely uncomfortable with a judge weilding life or death powers over anyone who hasn't been convicted of a capital crime.
It's awfully easy for someone to say that death is the best alternative, so long as it isn't their own death that's under consideration.
The only person who should have authority to terminate a man's life is himself, not some uncaring spouse and not some black robed oligarch (duly convicted capital offenders excepted).
It worries me deeply that the "Christian Right" is the only body of people who were disturbed by this situation, and that the mainstream body politic considers them to be kooks because of it.
