P.Z. Myers first takes what I consider to be the only consistent position one can assume in the Terry Schiavo case, on the assumption that she is indeed effectively dead: let her (or rather, her husk) live, for her parents' sake, if for no other reason, as a dead person has no "dignity" worth respecting. Unfortunately, he then reconsiders his position and takes a stance which I consider fallacious: if Schiavo should be allowed to die "for the sake of the living", that is just as much reason to keep her alive, as her parents are living too, and what is more, they not only have a closer connection to her than her husband does, by virtue of their being her parents, but they also have two votes to his one. Why should Schiavo's husband's needs come before that of those who bore her? I find the following statement by Myers to be particularly unconvincing:
If someday I were to be a mindless hulk, I would want my wife to be able to do what she felt was best. And damn any superstitious ninnies who get in the way of allowing her to find peace and closure and dignity because they think my idling quasi-corpse needed salvation.
That's all fine and dandy for him, but not everyone would agree with such a position, and left to me, I would make a different decision than he would, which goes to show why this argument from personal feeling is no worthwhile basis on which to decide such an issue.
But ignoring all the above, there is one overwhelming reason why I can never bring myself to agree with those who want to have Schiavo starved to death, and that is this: there is no evidence whatsoever that Terri Schiavo ever claimed while sentient that she wanted a "death with dignity", other than the claim of her (self-interested) husband, and I cannot abide by any ruling which sets the precedent that people's lives can be terminated based solely on the say-so of their spouses or anyone else. At the very least, the state should demand written evidence of such planning in the form of a "living will" before acquiescing to what is essentially murder; to require anything less is to set down a road the world has travelled before to its regret.
If one is to err, it ought not to be in favor of killing, and this is a sound principle whether or not it is espoused by "superstitious ninnies", who were also the main opponents of concepts like euthenasia and "life unworthy of life" back in the 1930s. Just because one's opponents take a position doesn't make it dubious, even if they adopt their position for what one considers to be ridiculous reasons.