The Case of Terri Schiavo

I am sure that most of you are familiar with the case of Terri Schiavo. In 1990 Terri Schiavo collapsed in the hallway of her apartment. When the paramedics arrived they found her face-down and unconscious. She was also not breathing and had no pulse. She remained in a coma for two and a half months and then emerged into a vegetative state and was being fed by a feeding tube. Terri's husband and parents disagreed about whether or not to keep Terri alive on the feeding tube or to let her die because there was no hope for her to get better. In 1998 Terri's husband filed a petition to remove Schiavo's feeding tube, which her parents opposed. Since Terri didn't have a living will,a trial was held in 2000 to determine what her wishes would have been regarding life-prolonging procedures. Eighteen witnesses gave testimonies regarding her medical conditions and what they thought Terri would have wanted. Terri's husband claimed that she would not have wanted to be kept on a machine when her chances or recovering were slim. Terri's parents on the other hand claimed that "Terri was a devout Roman Catholic who would not wish to violate the Church's teachings on euthanasia by refusing nutrition and hydration." After many hearings, petitions, and the passing of "Terri's law", which all tried to give her parents more say in the matter, Terri was taken off the feeding tube. She died after 14 days of dehydration.

The case of Terri Schiavo kind of reminded me of when we were talking in class about which is worse, killing your spouse or killing your parents. Not in the sense of murder but about which relationship is stronger, the relationship between spouses or the relationship between the parents and a child. So my question is this, do you think the judge ruling that her husband had more say was fair or do you think her parents should of had more say in the matter?