It is a tough one. I don't envy any judge who has to deal with this. The first problem in my opinion is the unreliability of medical expert evidence. I have not looked into each and every detail in this case, but one of the basic elements here seems to be if this lady is in a totally vegetative state or not. Her parents claim she is not, her husband claims she is. Both sides can shlep tons of doctors into court for their side. My gut feeling here is, that those "experts" themselves do not really know.
But this is the pivotal point here. According to what I hear Terri Schiavo has expressed the wish not to be kept alive artificially if she would be in such a state. So if a judge is convinced by those medical "experts" who say she is, he will try to uphold her alleged wishes.
That of course is the next problem I have: She nowhere has put down these wishes. As far as I know only the husband is a witness for this, and he definitely has other interests in this case, too. So I am a bit wary of this issue.
And then of course, there would be the issue for me, what the law really wants. So far most cases of this kind dealt with people who clearly were unconcscious, in a coma, often not even able to breathe without a machine. You switch off the machine and they die within minutes.
Here we have a case where the person almost appears to be "normally" disabled, she at least appears to be able to live with a little help like a feeding tube. Letting her die means a long drawn out process. She will die of dehydration. This appears to be very inhumane. Just imagine we would try to execute the death penalty by just refusing to give the convict water. I can hear the whole world cry "cruel and unusual punishment" and right they would be. So I wonder, is that really what the law wants? Should the judges have drawn the line here? Do we need better, new laws?