FWIW, my take on this is as follows. First, I do tend to agree with Hornberger's comments. One need not glorify the state's judicial system to hold this view (in fact, I tend to agree with libertarian law professor John Hasnas's view, in The Myth of the Rule of Law, that (my summary):
Despite common belief to the contrary, there is no such thing as “a government of laws and not people” (the so-called “rule of law”). Such a myth serves to maintain the public’s support for society’s power structure. The maintenance of liberty requires not only the abandonment of the ideal of the rule of law but also the [abandonment of the] commitment to a monopolistic legal system. The preservation of a truly free society requires liberating the law from state control to allow for the development of a market for law.)
Hornberger also pointed me to two other pieces on this case: one by Sheldon Richman; another by Bruce Fein.
As I see it, we ought, as libertarians, to recognize the following relevant points:
Given these considerations, it seems perplexing to me that everyone seems to assume that the woman must be kept alive unless it can be proved that she wouldn't want this. I don't think I have ever met or hardly heard of anyone ever expressing a desire to be kept alive in such cases. It seems therefore to me that the presumption ought to be that Schiavo would not want to be kept alive in such a condition. I wouldn't, you wouldn't, everyone I know wouldn't. Why assume she was some strange oddball?
I do agree that 15 years down the road, and with possible pecuniary interests at stake (I have not followed it so am not sure), the husband's testimony ought to be perhaps taken with a grain of salt. I have no reason to think he is sleazy for having moved on eventually and found another woman, but as I said, I have not followed the details.
As far as I can tell, Schiavo died 15 years ago. Her parents understandably don't want to admit their little girl is gone. But if it is the case that the husband here knew of his wife's wishes--and even if he didn't, he could reasonably assume she was like everyone else in the free world and would indeed want the plug pulled--then he can hardly be blamed for carrying out her wishes, even in the face of her parents' opposition and even though he has effectively re-married. (I do assume that she is effectively brain dead; if she were like Stephen Hawking or someone whose body was kaput but whose brain still worked, it would be a different story--but then, presumably, she could communicate her wishes with eye movements.)
I cannot know whether the courts in these cases made the right decision but it seems reasonable to me. I am a little mystified how so many opponents seem to think they know the courts made a mistake without looking closely at what the courts did. Much of the hullaballoo about this case is coming from the anti-lawyer, sort of incoherent conservative right-to-life crowd. The same crowd who would oppose pulling the plug even if Schiavo had left a living will--because they don't believe, as libertarians do, in the right to commit suicide.
Remember also: if you are not clear what is the right stance on a given issue, taking the side opposite that of the religious right and Republicans is not a bad rule of thumb. Even libertarian pro-lifers ought to hesitate before endorsing the stands of the pro-life movement.
As for the morals of this matter... Pope Pius XII in 1957, speaking to an International Congress of Anesthesiologists, who had presented to him three questions regarding the use of resuscitation and respirators, technologies that were new at the time, said:
But normally one is held to use only ordinary means [to prolong life]--according to the circumstances of persons, places, times, and culture--that is to say, means that do not involve any grave burdens for oneself or another. A stricter obligation would be too burdensome for most men and would render the attainment of the higher, more important good too difficult. Life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends.
He also said that:
"natural reason and Christian morals" require us to accept necessary treatment to preserve life and health, "normally one is held to use only ordinary means- -relative to circumstances. . .- -means that do not involve any grave burden for oneself or another." To require more "would render the attainment of the higher, more important good too difficult. Life, health, all temporal activities are in fact subordinated to spiritual ends".In particular, the Pope pointed out that:
1. It is up to the medical and scientific professions to "give a clear and precise definition of ‘death’ and ‘the moment of death’" and to provide criteria for diagnosing permanent unconsciousness
2. Resuscitation and respirators may be used, but only with consent of the patient or family
3. In "hopeless" cases, including cases of permanent unconsciousness, treatments such as resuscitation and respirators "go beyond the ordinary means to which one is bound," and thus there is no obligation "to give the doctor permission to use them".
4. Stopping artificial respiration "is never more than an indirect cause of the cessation of life, and one must apply in this case the principle of double effect".
BTW, the Texas Bar just posted some free sample medical directives and living wills for those interested (those in Texas, anyway).
