Who holds the Right to Die?

One of the most important events in human history happened is recogization of private property and the lack of control of such property by the kings, emporors, lords among others who previously had regulatory control over the private property of "free humans". This was the seed that lead to higher commerce, the emergence of bourgeoisie and finally to an re-introduction of the bill of rights in the western world. (I am not sure if eastern cultures had anything similar in the broadest sense of the word, I can assume some parties were more favoured by the king than others.) Althrough started out for selected groups/classes of people, during the last 250 years, it has progressed to everybody (atleast in theory) including the animal kingdom(slight changes were made appropirately).

The Universal Decleration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations is the most widely agreed upon set of Human Rights. The declaration's importance is mainly due to the second article which enpowers everybody born on this planet.

Article 2.

Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

I am more interest in next article which basically states this:

Article 3.

Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

So you have no right towards other's right of life nor have any control over their death. Any such offence is legally punishable. (There are ofcourse various ifs and buts, but you get the general idea) Mind you, the right to life, not death. This article does not say weather you have the right to take your own life or not. Sucuide is not discussed here, nor is "ethical murder" by the doctors.

Article 4.

No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.

No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

If I were an lawyer, and let me give an disclaimer that I am not one, I would cite the article 4 and 5 for legal right towards death. That i believe, i am under some kind of torture and I can take or let somebody assist in my death. Facing a brain-dead life under intensive care for the rest of my life, with little hope for recovery would give me the right towards death. I.e., nobody can question weather i am doing something legally wrong or not. Eithically, I would assume that i am doing the right thing. The two reasons which are pro are

1. I have the total control over my body and brain.
2. I am not going to be burden on the society.

The negetive con reason, the main reason why many regilious texts ban sucide, is because of the discomfort, distress caused on people who love you. You have no right to casuse pain (Article 4) on others. And lets look it in more rational way, if everybody decides to die and it is ok, why bother live. So ethically speaking, the correct answer is very hard to decide and can be judged only on a casetocase basis by the persons effected themselves. ( Not lawmakers, nor courts)

I understand this issue is more a battle between lawmakers and the judical system in united States, with huge influences by the regilious right. However, I believe the husband is doing the right thing. Thus, i fully support the decision of the courts not to meddle in the life of Terri Schiavo.