Terri Schiavo case

===Disability rights===
During the years of legal proceedings, [[disability rights]] groups and activists closely monitored and involved themselves in the case. In March 2003, twelve disability rights groups, led by [[Not Dead Yet]], along with four other ''amici'' filed an ''[[amicus curiae]]'' brief in which they opposed the removal of Schiavo's feeding tube.<ref name="amicus brief">{{cite web|last=Townsend|first=Liz|title=Disability Rights Groups File Amicus Brief in Terri Schiavo Case''|url=http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-98775346.html|publisher=National Right to Life News|access-date=November 20, 2012|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140610055842/http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-98775346.html|archive-date=June 10, 2014|url-status=dead|df=mdy-all}}</ref> They also used the Schiavo case to advocate for federal review in cases where third parties decide to withdraw life support from patients unable to give consent.<ref name="disability rights"/><ref name="Congress Debate">{{cite news|last=Stolberg|first=Sheryl Gay|title=Congress Ready to Again Debate End-of-Life Issues|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/politics/28cong.html?pagewanted=print&position=&_r=0|newspaper=The New York Times|date=March 28, 2005|access-date=February 13, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150402132316/http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/28/politics/28cong.html?pagewanted=print&position=&_r=0|archive-date=April 2, 2015|url-status=live|df=mdy-all}}</ref>
They argued that persistent vegetative state is frequently misdiagnosed, and that the reasons for withdrawal of life support from a patient should be scrutinized since even family member surrogates can have conflicts of interest. The Palm Sunday Compromise granted the federal review they sought, but it was limited to only the Schiavo case.<ref name="disability rights"/>