Marta has posted that the Shaivo case is about disablilty.
With respect, this is wrong.
Terry Schaivo has neither disability nor ability. She has a flat EEG. There is no there there (to paraphrase the divine Gertrude). It makes no sense to identify a state of inability as a disability, since disability (to me) denotes a state of impairment and not one where there is no ability whatsoever.
This case is about privacy and liberty. A person has the right to control her body. When she marries, the right of guardianship in case of inability passes to her spouse unless she has made other arrangements. The government, religious persons, her parents may all be concerned with the situation, but they have no right to interfere.
As for liberty, people have the right to end their life as they wish. If they are unable to make that decision, as a person with a flat EEG is unable to, then that right falls to the person's guardian. Others are free to disagree with the decision made, but they should never be permitted to interfere with its implementation.
Brian Dauth Queer Buddhist Resister