OK, at least read before you start throwing spitballs.
The Terri Schiavo case has been decided right along the guidelines set out in the Nancy Cruzan case of 1990. Nancy Cruzan was severely injured in an auto accident and had no hope of regaining consciousness. Her family wished to remove feeding tubes keeping her alive. The hospital refused and the case when to the US Supreme Court.
http://www.tourolaw.edu/patch/Cruzan/
By a 5-4 decision the Supreme Court ruled that her right to refuse medical treatment, including artificial feeding and hydration, was a valid request. The tubes were removed and she died (or maybe completed the dying process) shortly afterwards.
Here's where it gets strange. There are 5 justices on the Supreme Court that ruled in that case that are still on the court. The majority opinion, that the tubes should be removed, was written by the William Rehnquist. He was joined by Scalia, O'Connor, and Kennedy as well as White [dead].
The dissenting opinion, that it was cruel and inhumane to remove the tubes from a brain dead patient, was written by the very liberal Brennan. He was joined by liberals Thurgood Marshall and Blackmun. The other justice still on the court is John Paul Stevens. He wrote his own dissenting opinion, giving very different logic, but still saying that feeding tubes cannot be removed.
The juxtaposition to today is incredible. Conservatives have adopted the thesis of the liberal dissent -- never remove feeding tubes. Liberals have adopted the conservative majority opinion -- Feeding and hydration tubes can be removed if the court determines that was the patient's wish.
Now that's settled, think I'll go out an buy a pickup and some NASCAR tickets and head down to Crawford for some Barbeque. Then pop up to DC for Scalia's seminar on judical restraint...
/snark off