Surely, you do not think for a moment that Mrs. Finn would have removed the feeding tube had it been one of the three children in that situation, rather than her husband. Blood (birth) is thicker than water (marriage).
Your comment presupposes that the reason for removing the feeding tube is insufficient (or at least lesser) love for the subject. Of course, there are exceptions to every rule, but that is certainly not the rule.
In fact, to the contrary, I think the primary reason that relatives maintain drastically-impaired people is that the relative can't bring themselves to let go. While that is understandable, it is no less sad. I think it is our duty as Christians to think of the best for the drastically-impaired individual, not what is best for us, the bystanders.
Terri's situation is a good example. The easy thing would be to hook her up again. It surely serves her no good; her brain will not grow back. At some level, it makes us feel good, because we can feel we have prevented the irreparable break (between her and us) of death. It allows us to avoid the reality that the 'break' has already occurred with the loss of her brain. It is natural and understandable for people to want to hook her up again for their own sakes, but it is not excusable. It is best for Terri to die. That is what she wanted and it stops the abuse of her body. But we know it is morally best when we look to Jesus' analysis.
I have tried several times on other threads to get our Christian brothers and sisters to think seriously about Jesus' formulation of the Golden Rule: "In everything, treat others as you would want them to treat you." (Mt 7:12) Much of the invective on FR is directed toward those who would "kill" or "murder" others. I think it is much more productive to start the analysis, as Jesus does, with what we would want for ourselves. Generally, it is much easier for people to admit that they, themselves, would not want to continue to live in the circumstances afflicting Terri. That is certainly true for me; and I have to believe that for those who are honest with themselves, for them too.
Once we admit that, then, again following Jesus' analysis, we can see what we should do to help others attain that which we would want for ourselves. Because He told us, mutatis mutandis, to "Treat Terri as you would want Terri to treat you (if the circumstances were reversed)." Because it is much easier for me to know what I would want Terri to do for me, were the circumstances reversed, it helps me to see what I need to do to help Terri.
That is why I believe Judge Greer's order is not only the only lawful answer under our system of law, but also the 'Christian answer' to Terri's predicament as well.