Well, I'd have to agree with Tom and Karen on the Schiavo case. Letting the husband decide this matter violates basic human decency, but even if one is employing Rothbard's analysis from the Ethics of Liberty, it would seem that Terri's "husband" is on quite shaky ground.
Since she can't make her wishes known, and since the husband has obviously, in real terms, abandoned her in the same way as any husband abandons a spouse, those who have assumed financial responsibility for her care (i.e. her parents) must be allowed to make such decisions in the absence of any real evidence of Terri's wishes.
Butler asks good questions about self-ownership and who can assume responsibility for Terri's care. Of one thing we can sure be of, however - given his lack of interest in Terri, save his effort to starve her, the "husband" has certainly abandoned any claim to being her guardian and benefactor.
