I cannot believe this debate is still going on - so I'll finally add my two cents.
Before I begin I would like to state that I am pro-life and firmly against the idea of euthanasia.
Now let's look at the facts:
Terry Schiavo is under the guardianship of Mr. Schiavo. Regardless of what one thinks of Mr. Schiavo, he had the most intimate relationship with Terry. If any one person knew or could deduce what Terry would have wanted, this is the person. Terry's parents say Terry would have wished to be kept alive while in this state, but aren't they really looking out for their interests not what Terry may have wished?
"Terry", as the world knew her before the heart attack that brought on her PVS, is effectively deceased. Her brain can no long sustain higher cognitive functionality that would qualify her as a person; she is not aware of herself. This loss of consciousness where someone can no longer tell if they are even alive is commonly referred to as "death".
Terry's parents love her. They have her body with all it's involuntary and reflexive behaviour to remember her by. They want to keep that alive. They have even mentioned that they will go to such lengths as quadruple amputation when it comes time for that inevitable operation to occur to keep her body warm and her breath flowing. Unfortunately, they cannot be selfish. They must learn to let go, and they must live with the reality that though they have Terry's body, they no longer have Terry.
Some have tried to use this instance to pander to what they believe to be their constituent's interests. While doing so, they have managed an improper and sloppy attempt at skirting the court's ruling. Terri's law is more poor legislature designed by opportunist politicians. The Florida Supreme Court ruled unaminously that the legislative and executive branches were unconstitutionally interfering with the judicial branch's duty - to interpret the law. This is true but the court noted something else even more important - Terri's Law was a prime example of what is known as "Retroactive Legislation".
Retroactive legislation happens when a law changes the nature of things that have happened before the law was enacted. In most countries retroactive legislation is deemed unconstitutional.
Surprise, we're one of those countries.
In our legal system, we've been just and correct to Mrs. Schiavo. Our court system was deliberate, rational, and exhausted every avenue to bring proper, tailor fit justice to this unusual case. Some would rather wrapping Americans such as Mrs. Schiavo in a broad social and spiritual blanket where private family matters are subject to mob rule, but this time, the blanket was simply too tattered.
oh yeah...
On March 11, media tycoon Robert Herring (who believes that embryonic stem cell research could cause Schiavo's condition to be curable in the future) offered $1 million to Michael Schiavo if he agreed to waive his guardianship to his wife's parents. He rejected the offer, as he had rejected other monetary offers, including one of $10 million. The offer expired on March 14, 2005, four days before her feeding tube was removed. Schiavo's attorney, George J. Felos, said his client found the offer "offensive".
It's easy to see that Mr. Schiavo has made a principled decision. One that he stands by to the tune of $10 million dollars.
Sources:
------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Schiavo