In effect though, the US government was the final arbitor here. They decided the death should go ahead. If they had said no, she would still be alive. So did they not reaffirm that she should die?
Yes, they were the arbitor in deciding whether Terri would be allowed (or "forced" as some here might prefer) to die. And yes, she would presumably still be alive if they hadn't made that decision. But that is not affirming that she should die, just that she could die in such a way.
I agree with your statement. I don't want a ferderal court to be the final arbitor of that though. It's government sanctioned killing. Let the people decide that. The court's are just the enactors of the legislation. Legislation should be passed clarifying what should happen in these cases.
Legislators, courts - it's still the government. Despite the idealism behind it, legislators aren't "the people" and aren't particularly responsive to us either.
There is some legislation going on at the state level and the people in Oregon did speak. They now allow assisted suicides. Most polls I've seen were in favor of what happened in the Shiavo case and the majority of people want to choose how to die. Letting the people decide will probably result in a different outcome than you may want. You'd be ok with that?
