Terry Schiavo. . . .
I find it disturibing that she will be starved to death. We don't do that to dogs, and someone who is terminally ill (in some areas) can get a lethal cocktail of painkillers. But, because some experts believe that she cannot feel pain, starvation is okay. If she is going to be killed (and let's face it, she's not on a ventilator or a heart/lung machine - she's on a permanent feeding tube. Big difference in degree), then oughtn't we, as a society, do so in a manner known to be quick and painless?
I severely distrust Michael Schiavo's "I'm Catholic, and don't believe in divorce" argument. If he didn't believe in divorce, he also shouldn't be sleeping with another woman (and having children with her). You cannot openly break faith with your church and then try to wrap yourself in its sacrements when people complain about you. Mr. Schiavo has a severe conflict of interest in this case - and the courts should have recognized that. I am fairly certain that it is only his testimony that she would wish to die, the courts should err on the side of caution, and release her into the care of her parents. In my opinion, Congress was hoping that a federal court would do this, since state courts had thus far failed in that duty.
Hard cases make for bad law, and this is a hard case. It does make clear the need to have this discussion with family members beforehand, and, more importantly, to write it down.