If I understand the holding of the Florida courts, you folks may have misunderstood the court's rulings. The State of Florida is not going to withhold food and water; the husband is going to do that. The State of Florida has merely ruled that he is allowed to do it under Florida law and they are not going to displace him as guardian.
On the other hand, I was also not aware of the report of the special guardian ad litem who was appointed at the request of Governor Bush. After visiting Terry several times, Dr. Wolfson issued a detailed report and concluded,
The [guardian ad litem] concludes that the trier of fact and the evidence that served as the basis for the decisions regarding Theresa Schiavo were firmly grounded within Florida statutory and case law, which clearly and unequivocally provide for the removal of artificial nutrition in cases of persistent vegetative states, where there is no advance directive, through substituted/proxy judgment of the guardian and/or the court as guardian, and with the use of evidence regarding the medical condition and the intent of the parties that was deemed, by the trier of fact to be clear and convincing.
Particularly touching -- and relevant to the comments of many posters here -- is the earlier comment of the Court of Appeal,
The judges on this panel are called upon to make a collective, objective decision concerning a question of law. Each of us, however, has our own family, our own loved ones, our own children. From our review of the videotapes of Mrs. Schiavo, despite the irrefutable evidence that her cerebral cortex has sustained the most severe of irreparable injuries, we understand why a parent who had raised and nurtured a child from conception would hold out hope that some level of cognitive function remained. If Mrs. Schiavo were our own daughter, we could not but hold to such a faith.But in the end, this case is not about the aspirations that loving parents have for their children. It is about Theresa Schiavo's right to make her own decision, independent of her parents and independent of her husband. In circumstances such as these, when families cannot agree, the law has opened the doors of the circuit courts to permit trial judges to serve as surrogates or proxies to make decisions about lifeprolonging procedures. [Citations omitted.] It is the trial judge's duty not to make the decision that the judge would make for himself or herself or for a loved one. Instead, the trial judge must make a decision that the clear and convincing evidence shows the ward would have made for herself. [Citation omitted.]
It is a thankless task, and one to be undertaken with care, objectivity, and a cautious legal standard designed to promote the value of life.
What more can be said.
You have misunderstood the Florida Courts. From the Court of Appeals:
"In this case, however, Michael Schiavo has not been allowed to make a decision to disconnect life-support. The Schindlers have not been allowed to make a decision to maintain life-support. Each party in this case, absent their disagreement, might have been a suitable surrogate decision-maker for Theresa. Because Michael Schiavo and the Schindlers could not agree on the proper decision and the inheritance issue created the appearance of conflict, Michael Schiavo, as the guardian of Theresa, invoked the trial court's jurisdiction to allow the trial court to serve as the surrogate decision-maker."
IOW's, the state has the power to order a citizen the death of a citizen under preponderance of evidence rules without the Executive being able to grant clemency.
Now a question for you, who grants that power to any state and should any state have that power? Another question with a self evident answer.