More than 14 years ago, Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage when her heart stopped beating…. More than 14 years ago, Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage when her heart stopped beating. While she can breathe on her own, she is kept alive by a feeding tube. Some medical experts declare that she is in “a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery.” She left no written instructions for her care in the event she became incapacitated.

Her husband, Michael, is convinced his wife would not want to be kept alive. But her parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, believe that some day, their daughter may regain some of her faculties. So starts the soap opera-like drama that has made its way to the Florida Supreme Court.

A judge has already ruled that the evidence proved Schiavo would not want to be kept alive artificially. So last October, her husband removed the feeding tube. How, then, can this woman be the center of debate?

In a move that circumvented a court ruling made after six years of litigation, Gov. Jeb Bush signed “Terri’s Law” to keep the woman alive and reinstate the feeding tube. The Florida Supreme Court will now decide if signing that law violated both Schiavo’s constitutional right to privacy and the separation of powers among the branches of Florida’s government.

When the court hears this case, it will not be choosing the side of a husband who has watched his wife barely hold on to life for more than a decade, or parents who are fervently keeping hope alive for their daughter’s well-being. The court will be deciding the limits of an executive’s power.

While the lawyers representing Michael Schiavo, who is suing Bush, contend hat Terri Schiavo is being force-fed and the governor is imposing his will on her, Bush’s attorney counters that the law is merely an added layer of protection for the disabled in unusual cases in which their desires are unknown.

Is it ethical to take out her feeding tube? She is brain-damaged — not brain-dead. And she is on a feeding tube, not life support.

The decision should not be made by one man — Bush — who is so far removed from the lives of those involved, especially when the proper authority has already made a ruling.

Her parents are not wrong for doing all they can to keep her alive, if they believe she has a chance. Her husband isn’t wrong, either. He is convinced his wife would not want to be kept on a feeding tube. After more than 14 years, this family has been frustrated, conflicted and tangled in the court system. And Terri Schiavo has been at the center of the case while her life is on the line. Yet, she has no voice of her own.

When the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of Bush’s legislation, they should consider the evidence as it stands: A woman is suffering and medical experts deem her case irreversible.

Regardless of the emotion and political activism that led to Bush pushing “Terri’s Law,” there is a system of checks and balances in place to ensure that no one person makes a decision that could be a matter of life and death.