You are right in that I read the comments to my post and thought I saw a common undercurrent. So, the response wasn't to you specifically.
The government has only stepped in here because the Schindlers forced it too. The procedures and rules for this situation predated TS. The only people trying to change them are the Schindlers, their followers, and activists. For activists to then suggest that the government is actively trying to kill people is disingenuous. The government wanted nothing more than the historical status quo.
For that reason, the slippery slope argument is a red herring. This red herring has been gobbled up by certain factions. While I think it started as red meat for the radical pro-life crowd, I think it's clear now that many political groups see this as a great opportunity to divide and conquer. The media plays it 24/7 - in lieu of reporting successes in Iraq. The "religious right," as diverse as I think it is, can now be portrayed with some effect as wackos because they don't care about rules, laws, or anything else other than getting THEIR way.
You presume any of us knows what Terri wants. We don't. The law says her husband gets to decide. What if the law said her parents got to decide . . . but they wanted her tube removed . . . while the husband wanted her alive. There is no one answer. The outcome here is within the realm of compassion.
Terri, the Schindlers, and those of you screaming bloody murder have been taken advantage of. To the extent some are worried about an intrusive government controlling our lives and deaths . . . their actions are doing more to make that likely than anything Michael Schiavo ever thought of doing. Public opinion and political prices will villify the radicalness of the circus that is TS. If the radicals amongst you insist on their current path, TS's legacy will be an increasingly socialistic government put in place by people who feared radicals proposing the overthrow of the rule of law.
How's that? Is that what "you" want? I think the term is irony.
Therein lies the problem.
The law says her husband gets to decide.
Actually, the law says that an appointed guardian gets to decide. The husband doesn't automatically reign supreme. The law also says that a guardian should be free of any conflict of interest that may compromise his decisions.
You also said
The procedures and rules for this situation predated TS. The only people trying to change them are the Schindlers, their followers, and activists. For activists to then suggest that the government is actively trying to kill people is disingenuous. The government wanted nothing more than the historical status quo.
That is patently false. The existing "end of life" laws were only revised in 1999 - 9 YEARS AFTER Terri's collapse.
Back in 1990, feeding tubes were not legally considered life support in FL. In addition, a PVS state was not considered a terminal illness for which life support could be removed.
It was only through the activism of people like George Felos (who agressively lobbied for the above statute changes) that the law was revised. The "historical status quo" is a mere 6 years old.
Read for yourself. This is a link to 1999's chapter 765. Read the descriptions for "life-prolonging procedures" and "terminal condition." Then navigate the site to pull up the statutes for 1998 and see how they were changed from one year to the next. 1998 makes no mention of artificial hydration/sustenance, nor does it mention PVS.