Everyone needs to get his or her facts straight on Terry Schiavo. The whole premise of the court case was "what did Terry want?" not Michael's right to kill her and not the parent's right to keep her alive.

According to the judge, only Terry could make that decision. The problem isn't with the right to die, but this case's specific circumstances.

The first problem is that the only evidence she wanted to die was a comment only Michael heard during a TV movie.

The parents doubt this because he reversed his opinion, mentioning this only after winning 2.5 million in insurance money claiming he needed it to take care of her, but most of which he's kept for himself. Even worse, after the accident, he stood by idly for six minutes without performing CPR, which he knew. This seems deliberate, since seven minutes is when most brain cells die from lack of oxygen.

Considering there are also signs of abuse, I'm very suspicious of trusting this man.

The second problem is that the parents at least want Terry to die quick and painlessly, something you don't get from starvation.

Terry is not entirely a vegetable: She smiles when her mother enters the room and is capable of some motion and speech, and because of this, it is believed she would be in great pain.

The parents would rather a more humane way to die, but the judge will not allow it.

Isn't the whole purpose of right to die dying painlessly?