But consider the following:
First, and most importantly, "living wills" are usually revoked by their authors when they become sick. The intentions of healthy people, especially healthy young people, almost never correspond to their actual intentions when ill. (I know this from thirty years of practice, much of it with seriously or terminally ill people). Only persons who cannot communicate "stick to" their prior wishes, but they have no choice.
Secondly, you cannot consent or make a contract to be killed. Jack Kervorkian is (rightly) still in prison for his crimes. Dressing this contract up as a "living will" does not change the issue.
On the contrary side, management decisions are made every day by hundreds of families on behalf of seriously ill patients that result in their death (or, more properly, that change the timing of their death). These decisions are not murders, and are usually not intentional killings, which remain very rare despite the fact that no true "mercy killing" has ever been successfully prosecuted.
The Schiavo case exists because of widespread confusion regarding the above issues, and the unsuitable surrogacy of Michael Schiavo. People want more from "living wills" than they can possibly deliver.
I fear that the result of this is going to be legalized direct killing a la the Netherlands.
So do I, and why for one moment should we compare it to 'the Netherlands' when another viable comparison is the Third Reich?
Who shall be the 'judge' of 'viability,' and what will be the criteria?