The side in favor of terminating life support assumed that Terry Schiavo herself would not have wanted to live indefinitely in a persistent vegetative state, especially given the financial and emotional burden placed on her family and society. The side in favor of terminating life support also assumed that had Terry been able to speak she would have agreed with her husband rather than her parents. The side in favor of terminating life support emphatically underscored the primacy of individual rights and patient autonomy over a state-directed morality. Finally, the side in favor of terminating life support assumes that the persistent vegetative state is an undignified way to live or to die. The side in favor of artificially extending Terry Schivo's life assumed that Terry might have wanted to life as long as possible, and also would not rule out a miraculous recovery. The side in favor of extending Terry Schiavo's life placed religious authority over personal wishes or the wishes of the state. In...

The side in favor of artificially extending Terry Schiavo's life assumed that Terry would have agreed with her parents over her husband. The side in favor of artificially extending Terry Schiavo's life assumed that it was always morally wrong to allow an organism to die if preventing death were possible -- regardless of whether or not the organism felt pain. Neither point-of-view is totally valid without the input of Terry Schiavo herself. The law was ultimately moot too, given that Terry Schiavo had not created a formal living will.