A quote from the parents of Terri Schiavo struck me as selfish. As described by the Associated Press:

In the emergency Supreme Court filing, Bob and Mary Schindler say their 41-year-old daughter faces an unjust and imminent death based on a decision by her husband to remove a feeding tube without strong proof of her consent. They allege constitutional violations of due process and religious freedom.

"Without strong proof of consent"? Do they expect Terri's husband to provide strong proof of consent?

And where the heck did "constitutional violations of due process and religious freedom" come from?

So let's analyze this more carefully. Pulling the feeding tube from someone is a violation of religious freedom. Hmmm. They've completely got me stumped on that one.

As for the violation of due process, what, are we supposed to hold a court session, with arguments on behalf of the parents and husband on whether the tube should be pulled? Well look, if the parents want to court to decide, I think the parents will lose. The same article quoted above goes on to say that:

...Court appointed doctors have declared her as being in a vegetative state with no hope for recovery.

That pretty much seals it. Even a judge would agree that if he or she was in a vegetative state, they'd want to be taken off of life support.

Never mind that Terri can smile, or move her eyes, or do other things. If she is a vegetable, then she is a vegetable.

If we need to make any modifications to our laws, it is that the spouse automatically gets the power of consent in cases like Terri's. Let's just avoid all future lawsuits and Congressional actions right now, and make it simple.