Should Terri Schiavo have been allowed to die? The answer is "Yes", as dictated by the law in this case. However, the withdrawal of treatment in the name of the "right to die" is a particularly cruel way for someone to meet their end - this case should set a precedent for future conduct in such situations. I think that it's hypocritical for a country to legalise abortion and capital punishment, and yet persist in keeping euthanasia illegal. Where an individual wants to take their own life, then it's arguable that there's a need to make more effective and faster methods of euthanasia legal, and regulate it to the best ability of the law to supervise and sanction such a procedure. It's one thing to believe in the sanctity of life; it's quite another to deny a person the power to end their own existence if they were intending to do so by adhering properly to a series of legally sanctioned protocols. Robert Lindsay, London

More than twenty courts have ruled on the Schiavo case. All have agreed with her husband that allowing her to die is the right thing to do. While it is certainly unreasonable to expect a just outcome from British courts (ask Linda Walker), even in the UK a 20-0 scoreline would kill all debate. This is a straightforward, open-and-shut case that is only debatable when the facts are distorted, edited or omitted – as they have been by all disputing ideologues. It's been an ugly and dispiriting spectacle. Jess McAree, Walton-on-Thames

It is a great shame that psychological counsellors and mediators could not have worked with Terri Shiavo's elderly parents to help them understand the true implications of her profound brain damage and the principles of humane palliative car and to cope with their feelings of grief and guilt. This is a case that should never have reached the courtrooms. Close scrutiny during the medical malpractice trial established Ms. Schiavo's debility and its causes. Mrs Schiavo's husband arranged aggressive therapy for her for four years, without progress. Judges able to consider the full record under proper rules of evidence and unbiased medical reports concluded that Mrs Schiavo had told several people other than her husband of her wish to die rather than be maintained in an unconscious state . There should be safeguards and due legal process. But when it has been followed, and appealed, all should accept the verdict. I feel for her parents but believe that true love for their daughter would have demanded ending her suffering and allowing a natural death. Their time might be better spent raising awareness of the kind of eating disorders that really killed their daughter. Name and address withheld

What is at question here is the Hippocratic oath of a doctor: to preserve life. If you withdraw the means of life-support from a patient unable to feed herself, then in plain English you are taking action to kill her. That is a violation of the Hippocratic oath, and there is no way round it. If you start meddling with the Hippocratic oath by introducing the factor of the "quality of life", then the next step is the "quality" of the person under care. Edmund Burke, Kingston-upon-Thames

If there is a lesson to be learned from this tragedy, it is that we should consider lobbying our respective governments for a change in family law. At present, on the day you marry, your parents - the people who have loved you and will continue to love you unconditionally, always with your best interests at heart - no longer count in law and give up all rights of guardianship and hand them over to your spouse. And the only way to partially mitigate this risk is to foresee every eventuality and express your wishes in writing prior to the event. Fiona Cummings, Naperville, IL, USA

My wife and I have a verbal agreement that neither of us would wish to be kept alive in a state where the quality of life is similar to that which is obvious in this case. Is it not, therefore, likley that others might have a similar agreement? After 15 years surely the husband's rights ought to take precedence? As for the intervention of other "interested" parties, they sould leave such a case to the legal guardian of this poor woman who must act under the checks and balances that are provided by the laws that govern such situations. Keith Manton, Marietta, USA

I feel that Terri's parents should have let her die a long time ago. The motivations of her husband might be suspect, so we need to look at the situation only from Terri's point of view. She was in a vegetative state and had no real chance of recovery. She certainly couldn't speak or debate in a coherent way. Many religions teach that in such circumstances, it is very important to let the sick person die in calm and peaceful surroundings. However, in this case it was the parents of Terri who needed her to go on living. Jon Aristides, Manama, Bahrain