According to Wm. Blackstone, 18th century jurist and author the multi-volumned "Common Law" upon which most of our law in the United States is based on, wrote that one of the purposes of government is to act as guardian to those persons who, through age, disability, circumstances, etc. require someone to stand for their interest but have no one,i.e. the minor, the retarded, the infirm, the aged, etc. etc.
IOW,
1) The government acts as a guardian where the person in question has no guardian/ someone answerable. This was not the case with Schiavo. And even it were, government guardianship does not automatically mean that that person has a "right" to life irregardless, and that the government can never order medical support be suspended.
2) Despite her physical condition the fact remains that Schiavo was not a minor, ergo her parents were not her guardian. Like it or not, her husband was -- b/c under the law when a man and woman marry they become one. If the situation had been reversed she would have been his guardian,not his parents.
3) The parents of Mrs. Schavio sought to use the court to reassert their role as her guardian; a role they surrendered when she reached 21 (or 18 depending) years of age. They demanded legal guardianship over Schievo their grown daughter over Mrs. Schievo, who happened to be their daughter.
4) Bare in mind that while it may be morally reprehensible, it is not a crime to live with another woman and have children by her. To marry that other woman while still married is to another is against the law; to "live in sin" is not. Mr. Schavio's private life may have been open to criticism by some, but it was not illegal and therefore no grounds to denial of his guardianship over his wife.
Your post didn't have much to do with what I posted (that the govt did indeed have a role to play in the protection of a citizen).
susie
Actually, Michael's actions in that regard were illegal, though the laws would probably be unenforceable since they've been widely ignored for years (though I don't think ever in a case so outrageous as this).
On the other hand, the facts that a person wants to marry a woman not his wife as soon as his wife is dead, and that the person is trying to have his wife killed, would suggest a conflict of interest so obvious and blatant as to disqualify a person from guardianship.