Would I have had a problem if some loonies in "... the legislature pass[ed] a law that the husband's instructions for public policy reasons sufficient to them give the circumstances should not be followed ...." You bet your bippy.
While that was the worst decision I have ever had to make, there simply was no one in the world better positioned to make that decision than me. No judge, no panel, no doctor, and surely -- surely -- no legislature.
I hate to think what I might have done if someone had tried to interfere and make my wife continue to suffer. I might not be a free man today.
I don't see how ending chemotherapy compares to starvation?
You stated that you "made the decision to end chemotherapy and pursue hospice care only" -how did this end your wife's suffering?
Ending chemotherapy and going to a hospice is a completely different situation. A person who is dying of cancer can have their life prolonged sometimes with additional chemotherapy but at a cost- often in suffering and (lack of) quality of life. In a hospice, the patient can be made comfortable, given morphine or other strong pain killing drugs as they die of their cancer. The difference here is that instead of being defensive, the judge and m. Schiavo are being offensive. They aim to literally kill Terri- not allow her to die naturally. I am a perfectly healthy 50 year old woman but if I were not allowed food or water, I would die, too.
Both lead ineluctably to physical death. Both involve the withdrawal of human intervention to prolong physical life. When that withdrawal occurs, death is inevitable.
You stated that you "made the decision to end chemotherapy and pursue hospice care only" -how did this end your wife's suffering?
She passed away and the suffering ended. Hospice care is solely palliative, i.e. pain reduction; it abandons all efforts to cure or extend life.