Well, its interesting that you say there isn't legal BS and then you start right in on some. The point I tried to make and apparently missed, is that we will never know what SHE wants. We have one set of legal experts with their second hand BS against another batch. Now we will advance the purity of this argument by getting a jury involved who will make their decision, [which will be final in Terry's case, but will NOT be Terry's decision], based on the legal BS spoonfed from both sides. Throw into the mix every political action group from the entire spectrum each with their own agendas and you have the makings of a grand circus. Meanwhile this woman is treated like an object, or worse yet, like a trophy to be fought over.
This thing needs to park all the above mentioned crap and find out directly from the woman what she wants. If she says no then thats it. If she says yes she wants to leave, she should not have so suffer through starvation or writhing in pain as treatment is withdrawn. There should be lots of checks to let her change her mind and make sure it is not merely an emotional impulse. In the end it must be her choice to go or stay.