I'm glad to see other blogs posting how they think the end-of-life laws should be modified, that is the correct line of discussion, not this wacky obsession with the courts that kept coming up the past few weeks. I'll chime in a bit later, when I have the time, but my short take is we should stop worrying about what is or is not an "extraordinary" means of keeping someone alive. The whole ordinary/extraordinary dichotomy is a practical one, not a moral one. If a means of life support can be afforded we are beyond practical considerations and purely in the realm of moral considerations.
Where the law needs to be more clear is on what level of brain damage leaves the person in a state morally equivalent to dead.