The death of Terri Schiavo can be met with only one emotion – profound sadness. Sadness at the tragedy that befell her 15 years ago, leaving her severely brain damaged. Sadness at the acrimony that developed between her husband and parents, resulting in a seven-year legal battle that culminated in Congress taking the unprecedented step of intervening and ensuring that federal courts reviewed the case again last month.

Now that Ms. Schiavo had died, activists will use her case to press their agenda. Conservatives have already threatened to use this example to push for more right-leaning judges on the federal bench. Right-to-die advocates have used the case to highlight the need for more clarity in end-of-life decisions and who makes them.

The Schiavo case, however, was extreme, and laws should not be made based on aberrations. Every day, families decide whether to keep severely injured or ill spouses, children and parents alive. Few of them make the news. The Schiavo case was extreme because of the intensity of the disagreement between her husband – who said she would not want to be kept alive by a feeding tube – and her parents, who said she would. It was also full of twists. For example, her feeding tube was removed twice only to have a judge order that it be reinserted. The tube was removed for a third time in mid-March and although her parents appealed to all levels of federal court, the decision stood and Ms. Schiavo ultimately perished from a lack of nourishment and dehydration. When she was 26 her heart stopped briefly due to a potassium imbalance likely brought on by an eating disorder. The lack of oxygen to her brain left her in a persistent vegetative state, according to doctors who examined her. Her parents disagreed with this assessment and believed she could improve with therapy.

Instead of seizing on the Schiavo case and demanding that laws be passed to limit the instances when feeding tubes or other life sustaining treatments can be removed, as some conservatives have called for, a quick review of how the current system works is in order. It is likely that, despite the rare headline grabbing cases, the current system works well.

Further, before they call for legislation to allow parents to insert themselves into their children’s marital matters, conservatives may want to remember that they are the ones touting the sanctity of marriage. Conservatives are also the standard bearers for state’s rights and, it appears, that state laws governing who makes life-ending or sustaining decisions work in most instances so that federal intrusion is not necessary.

Decided when to let a severely injured or ill loved one die is heartbreakingly difficult. It is made more so when activists and, in this case, politicians, get involved. Terri Schiavo, who was shy and self-conscious, according to friends, would likely be horrified by the media circus the end of her life became. She would also want to be remembered as a vibrant young woman with bright brown eyes and an infectious laugh, not as the incapacitated patient repeatedly show in videos.

If politicians and activists truly care about her legacy, the best they can do is stopping using her to push their agenda.