Should the government (state/federal) have a say? v. Terri Schiavo

The fundamental question: is terminating the life of a person in a vegetable state (removing feeding tubes, taking off life-support, ect.) wrong and should government be able to decide if its wrong?

The answer is no.

Moral values and religious beliefs aside, such a case is, plain and simple, a private issue. Assuming that a family member knows one of their own better than the federal government, the final decision should be left with the loved ones of that individual. While the government may be free to persuade and influence a decision, it is not their duty to make decisions which should be reserved to individuals on whether or not someone is in a state worthy of life or not. What involvement or personal attachment does it have to that specific family's case? None. It is simply an attempt to impose moral, perhaps even religious, beliefs upon a situation which requires judgement based on the level of hope in the situation and the invidividual beliefs of the family.

Of course, one could argue that government could put in place a law to prevent rash decision making in a case where the outcome is not yet certain and the said person's life may not truly be doomed. However, in a situation where the life of a family member is reduced to a vegetable state, a state in which the individual loses the ability to operate independently and make his own decisions, the responsibility should fall on the shoulders of that persons family, not government to judge the "sustainablity" of that life as well as its future.