Here is a hopeful sign that Terri's death may have not been in vain (small consolation I know). This on the AP:
The arguments surrounding Terri Schiavo will live on in statehouse debate and
new laws if an 
emerging coalition of disability rights activists and
right-to-lifers succeed in turning the national agony over her case into a
re-examination of when and how our lives come to an end.
So far, only a few legislators in a handful of states have sought significant changes to their laws, which define the fundamental elements at stake - how a person can set limits on their medical care, who gets to decide what their wishes are, what evidence is needed to prove it.
None have yet become law and the chances for most, if not all, are slim this year, with some legislatures finished and many far along in their work for this session. But both Republicans and Democrats say the arguments aren't going away.
The debate is an effort to strike a new balance between one stance that argues that medical care and morality mean life must be pursued in nearly all cases, and another stance, crafted over decades of changing views about death, that some may choose to end drastically damaged lives that depend on artificial means. Hat tip Judith W, Liberal Hawk
IN OTHER SCHIAVO RELATED NEWS:
This poll reveals disquieting insight on America's prejudices and priorities;
Civil Rights In The Schiavo
Case
Controversy over the case
of Terri Schiavo has left a divided public grappling with fundamental
questions about the right to life and the breadth of government power. A new
Zogby poll conducted for the Christian Defense
Coalition found that 57 percent of likely voters agreed that the "representative
branch of government should intervene when the judicial branch appears to deny
basic rights to minorities," compared to 33 percent who say it should not. But
when the same question was tweaked to change "minorities" to "the disabled," the
number of people who agreed with government intervention dropped to 42 percent.
Forty-eight percent disagreed.
According to the poll's analysis, the survey found overwhelming consensus
when the question turned to government intervention in cases when civil rights
were denied. Nearly three-quarters of respondents said it is proper for the
federal government to intervene in such a case; about one in five disagreed.
Hat Tip Catherine the Great, Liberal Hawk
