[Luis Gonzalez]

"Krauthammer argued that where there was a disagreement between the spouse and the parents, and no living will, the party who was willing to care for the person in PVS state should prevail."

Agreed.

However, in Terri's case, Florida Law, not a Charles Krauthammer Op Ed took precedent.

[Torie]

You are clearly correct. New laws are needed. Clearly.

[KDD]

Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.

As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.

Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.

The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.

He should have just made the decision himself...But by taking into account her parents wishes and letting a court decide he gave his Guardianship over to the courts. Maybe when it came down to it he didn't want to make the hard decisions. If he had we would never even heard of Terri Schiavo.