As I said before (people seem to have a real problem reading and listening where this subject is concerned), there is a huge amount of difference between allowing a person to die and killing them. The refusal to acknowledge this difference has stalled the debate on this question. An abortion is a killing. A miscarriage is not. A knife in the heart is a killing. A person who cannot drink, eat, or function on their own expiring is not. The fact that these lines are difficult to acknowledge does not negate the fact that they are very clear in most cases. Terri was going to stare at the ceiling for twenty-five to thirt more years. She may have been in great pain, perhaps not. She was allowed to pass on. To expire. To die. But she was not murdered. Mike did the right thing, even if he had every incentive to do it (insurance money, move on with his life, new family).
Should parents who fail to feed their children be charged with a crime?
Should pet owners who fail to feed their pets be charged with a crime?
Are wives the property of their husbands?
She wasn't dying. She was alive and had no medical problems other than having a feeding tube. She was murdered through withholding of food and water. She died a horrible death that would be illegal to do to a dog. "Mike" as you call him is an accessory to murder and should be in jail along with his accomplices Felos and Greer.
I have a neice who is pretty much in the same condition as Terry Schivo was, only not quite as much in a vegetative state. Terry had to have a feeding tube to live. My neice needs someone to feed her because she cannot control her motions. So according to you if you can't feed yourself you should die and it would not be murder if no one put the spoon to your mouth. I guess that would even include babies.