Regarding the Terri Schiavo matter: I think Scott Rosenberg says it well.

I’ve been fascinated by the case these last few days. Putting aside the political circus, I don’t understand why parents would want to keep a daughter alive who’s been brain-dead for 15 years. I’m not a parent and I can’t fathom the emotions and pain involved in such a decision, but it seems to me that after 15 years, now that “much of her cerebral cortex is simply gone and has been replaced by cerebral spinal fluid,” it’s time to let her go. Aren’t there any other family members or friends who can convince them of this? What’s the point in being technically alive if you don’t even know you’re alive? How does Terri benefit from this?

As far as who has the legal authority to make the decision, it’s clearly the husband. He is her next-of-kin.

It makes me wonder, though: imagine this is in Massachusetts. The brain-dead person has a same-sex spouse, who — reverse the roles here — wants to keep her alive. The parents, meanwhile, are suing to let her die. What would the far-right conservatives do? Would they support the legal right of the same-sex spouse to keep her alive? Or would they support the parents’ desire to let her die?

Eh, they’d probably find a way to have their cake and eat it, too. Still, one wonders.