If we assume that her wishes are not known, then according to the marital contract between her and her husband it must be left to her husband (either as next-of-kin or legal guardian - which is it, I'm not sure) to make decisions for her.
I haven't been following this subject much at all, but I caught an interview on Late Edition last night which made me scratching my head. Maybe you can fill in the details, especially regarding this last bit about spousal rights. Please read the whole thing before answering.
While undoubtedly many Reps are using this as a tool to make some sort of statement regarding "life" and "values", one of the writers of the legislation did not seem to me to be overtly trying to anything of the sort. While a bit hyperbolic in his analogies regarding criminals (they get review but Schiavo can't), he dismissed the political and to a great extent the religious aspect of this legislation.
What the guy laid out was that the legislation acts to give federal review of cases involving termination of life support, when there are no specific laws governing aspects of the case (or the minutiae of the case), and there is a dispute between family (or significant others) regarding whether to take the person off medical support. The review board will simply make sure the facts have been substantiated and the processes properly followed.
That to me, no matter what drama the anti-abortion or proXian people want to throw over it, does not seem offensive. It adds a layer of legal oversight on cases where a dispute exists.
The congressman said that there were some serious questions about the medical facts, as well as about spousal rights (whether they actually hold in this case). Since I do not know the full story, what he went on to say certainly did raise some questions in my mind.
As far as medical facts go, she does not appear to fit the traditional vegetative state criteria. Not that I would want to live like she does, and maybe she does not, but it does seem a bit odd to say that she is in a complete vegetative state. The congressman went on to show that he was not simply a bible-toting "life thug" by admitting freely that as a physician he himself had pulled feeding tubes based on the requests of families and understood that was a valid choice for those within vegetative states. He questioned whether she was actually in that state based on his experience as a physician.
As far as spousal rights, both he and Terri's brother stated that the husband has since moved on to another woman and has essentially lived with her in what would be a "common law" marriage situation for a number of years. Thus there seems to be a valid question of whether the rights he had would at this point have been forfeited and revert back to her family, just as a matter of normal legal procedure.
I'm not trying to defend fanatical Reps (and some Dems) on this, just saying that interview made it sound not so insane as it did through the filter of proLife hysteria surrounding it as well as the antiRep demagogues.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
™ Version 4.2