Yes, this is quite a statement (where did you find that one?)
The statements of the presiding judge (thanks to Arthur) are equally interestingly summarised in a CBS article:
<blockquote>"In resolving the Schiavo controversy," Judge Birch wrote, "it is my judgment that, despite sincere and altruistic motivation, the legislative and executive branches of our government have acted in a manner demonstrably at odds with our Founding Fathers' blueprint for the governance of a free people - our Constitution."<br>Terri Schiavo & The Constitution</blockquote>
Though I really think that the "altruistic motivation" should have been ... something else, something more euphemistic.

Oops - Tom Delay, House Republican Leader said that.

The Washington Post's editorial linked above has a good final passage:<blockquote class="smalltext">This country has an independent judiciary precisely to shield judges who make difficult decisions under intense political and time pressure from the bullying of politicians. It is essential that the judges who stood up to Congress now receive ample support -- so that judges will feel secure in emulating them.</blockquote>

States rights and the sanctity of marriage went out the window along with nineteen court rulings on this one. Meantime, at least one child in Texas has been recently pulled off life support over the parents' objections and no one has a word to say about it.

Them, too, and the case of the child was, I suspect, due to Gov. Bush of Texas's bill to stop public funding of medical life support against the wishes of the family. Choose life if you have the money and deny God's decision to choose the time. Remember when we all called Jim and Tammy Baker's PTL CLub the "Push The Lord" Club?"

Practically, in the sad Florida case it was a matter of money, too, as the malpractice award funding for the hospice was just about up. If the parents had won they would have had a few months before they were impoverished by the burden and they they would have been stuck without a choice. None of this is dishonourable but it simply costs money to have a staff of 10 or 20. One commentator yesterday asked what if every Baby Boomer were to sign living wills that say "keep me in a vegatiative state no matter what." But the time they all hit 90, their care would be a massive drain on the economy. Courts would simply start to overturn their directions as they would be unfeasible. Like the legislative branch would ever be able to be that practical.

|the two fascinating questions taken from this sad case are what and when is death and
|what is the court - the first in the era of new technology and the second in the era
|of attempts against reason's primacy.

The WP has an article about how it works in Europe (with special attention to Holland), see here. I feel uncomfortable with this article though; I think it overstates the role of physicians - they really act as advisers.
Also note that families in Holland have almost the same physician for a very long time; so there are somewhat personal ties between physician and family.

Alan, for some reason I think you'd enjoy this piece too (from a cognitive scientist).