Regardless of Schiavo's condition or prognosis, her parents agreed to take care of her and keep her alive as long as possible. She was essentially put to death because she didn't meet a criteria for 'quality' of life. This is a very dangerous precedent, a 'slippery slope' we don't need to start down. Many people have defied science and medical technology, and overcome the most perilous conditions, so where do you draw the line? How do you make the personal determination of 'quality of life' for someone else? Because her life didn't meet your particular standards for quality, doesn't mean her life had no quality. Obviously, her life brought joy and love to her parents, and it was against their wishes for her to be killed. Their wishes should have been respected in this case.
Some religious people will be angry at me for this, but I believe euthanasia is acceptable, IF all parties involved, are in agreement, including the patient. I have a real fundamental problem with courts, judges, and lawyers, making that determination, against the will of the family. The ex-husband had remarried, and the parents were willing to accept any and all responsibility for her care, it was not a burden on him in any way. Yet, he was able to use the law to execute her, with the cheers from Liberals nationwide. It wasn't right, it won't ever be right, and you can try and justify it all you like, it still doesn't make it right.
