In response to tKathy in #2, maybe you could compare the horrors of "prolonged feeding tubes" to starving to death.
Religious conservatives are hurting Terri's case by injecting this sort of ideological zealotry into the discussion. This argument is not about Terri, it's about the personal religious ideology of those making it. Most Americans, and particularly most well-educated Americans such as those who are involved in making the decisions in this and similar cases, do not question the premise that people should be allowed to choose not to continue life-sustaining treatments, when they believe their quality of life no longer justifies it. Many of us are horrified at the thought that these religious zealots may one day manage to take over our own lives, and force us to stay alive well beyond when we want to, using huge amounts of personal, taxpayer, and insurer funds that we don't think should be expended on unwilling patients.
But none of this has anything to do with Terri Schiavo, who left no instructions as to her wishes, and who is unable to clearly express her wishes now. That's where the focus needs to be -- on what constitutes legally valid evidence of a patient's choice not to continue life-sustaining treatment. And the much-belated "memory" of a husband who has both personal and financial interests in ending his brain-damaged wife's life should most certainly be found NOT to constitute such legally valid evidence, especially in the face of conflicting testimony and wishes of other close family members.