The problem with ignoring this as just one case in Florida is with the way our legal system works. Everything is tied to precedent. This case sets a precedent that should be frightening. What if some father decides to use this case to fight to terminate the life of his retarded child?
That said, I will always wonder what would have happened if the family lawyer had filed for the de novo hearing provided for in the Federal law instead of trying to argue the case on grounds that were not covered in that law.
None of the courts in this case have legislated new "rights" or laws in this case. There may have been some bad findings of FACT, but the courts didn't grant Michael Schiavo any new rights that I can see. The right to remove the tube was created in the Florida code by Florida legislators.
Admittedly, the right to remove the tube was first found by the Florida Supreme Court, but I don't think it was in the Schiavo case. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. I was hardly following this case in the late 1990s. It was after that decision that the Florida lawmakers put it into the Code.
After that point, there hasn't been judicial activism that I can discern. We may not like the decisions in this case, but that doesn't make it rise to a precedent.