Whose life is it, anyway?

First, a US federal court denied a request to keep Terri Schiavo alive. Then an appeals court upheld that ruling, denying her parents' emergency appeal to stop her slowly starving to death in a hospice in Florida.

Mrs Schiavo, 41, collapsed in 1990, leaving her severely brain-damaged. Her husband, Michael, was awarded US$1.3 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit that included money for her care, which he subsequently refused to fund. Along the way, he moved in with a woman and had two children. Seven years ago, he petitioned the court to remove Mrs Schiavo's feeding tube and was finally given the go-ahead last Friday. US President George W. Bush signed legislation allowing the federal courts to review the case.

Virtually no one disputes Mrs Schiavo's right to choose whether to live or die. The problem is that we do not know what she would decide. Her husband says that she said she wanted 'no tubes', a claim backed by his brother and sister-in-law. But no one else heard her talk that way. Mr Schiavo did not cite her alleged sentiments when requesting money for her care.

Although Mrs Schiavo is disabled, she may not be in a vegetative state, defined by Florida as 'the absence of voluntary action or cognitive behaviour' and 'an inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment'. For instance, she seems to respond to visitors and events. Some experts have dismissed the significance of her actions, but neuropsychologist Alexander Gimon contended that they 'are completely inconsistent with a diagnosis of vegetative state'. Other specialists echo his views. Her family has raised questions about Mr Schiavo's violent nature and the circumstances of her collapse. His de facto remarriage and failure to fund the rehabilitative care raise doubts about his motives. More damning, according to one legal deposition, was his question to nurse Carla Iyer: 'Can't you do anything to accelerate her death?' She also claims he asked: 'When is that bitch going to die?'

Traditionally, the Republican Party has advocated maximising state autonomy to decide issues within their borders. Towards that end, Congress restricted federal death penalty appeals from state courts. Yet, the emergency legislation granted a federal district court in Florida jurisdiction over withholding food from Mrs Schiavo. The provision, although limited, allows national judges to trump the Florida courts.

Many Republican politicians believe that an injustice has been done to Mrs Schiavo and her family. Yet they are not above using the issue for political advantage. A memo distributed to Republican senators - although their leadership denies writing it - characterised the case as 'a great political issue', especially useful in winning support from conservative Christians. Ironically, when he was governor of Texas, Mr Bush signed into law a bill allowing hospitals to end life support if the patient had no means to pay for care that was thought to be futile.

The Schiavo case might not be decided quickly. There seems to have been a serious miscarriage of justice at the state level. But that decision resulted from the normal operation of the rule of law. Thus, as a matter of principle - principle normally embraced by Republican legislators and presidents - Washington should stay out of the case. Setting the precedent of intervening in this very personal legal dispute will encourage Congress to overturn other state judgments.

There is a simple way to end the legal wrangling. Transfer Mrs Schiavo to the care of her parents and allow Mr Schiavo to get on with his life. There is nothing simple about the case. Whatever happens next, the interruption of her young, vibrant life will remain a tragedy.

Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute in Washington and a former special assistant to president Ronald Reagan