With the controversy of the Terri Schiavo case, the issue of whether the state can assume guardianship in an end-of-life decision is an alarming one.

Schiavo, the 41-year-old, brain-damaged woman from Florida who has spent the last 15 years in a vegetative and comatose state, has been the center of a public dispute.

Public officials, especially with late-night congressional meetings, have put their noses where they do not belong. This was obvious when Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, backed by a petition from the Department of Children and Families, asked for her to be placed in state custody Thursday.

Gov. Bush wanted Schiavo placed in custody to allow more time to investigate domestic abuse claims.

Although good intentions underlie his proposal, the state could and should never replace the guardianship of her family members, who have known her all of their lives.

Now, there is no denying that the decision on whether to remove her feeding tube is a difficult one for courts to ponder.

Deciding whether her husband or parents should assume guardianship and, ultimately, who should make the final decision is an essential element in the case.

Yet, when deciding among family who is the guardian, the state will almost always be the worst choice.

In similar cases, families have had the right to decide whether to put a loved one to death.

The governor, in this case, should have chosen a member of the family to make this important decision on her behalf, not nominate himself to do the decision making for her.

What is most alarming about this case is that it could set a horrible precedent that could be used to justify making such decisions in the future.

There may have been good intentions behind the idea. But even with the best intentions, the decision to grant state guardianship over family members without good reason sets a precedent vulnerable to abuse and neglect.