How can one have enjoyed due process when another who wants her dead speaks for her. The husband stands to gain financially and would be able to marry his fiancee. He also may have an interest that she not recover to possibly remember how her injury occurred. I might also add the fact that he has used funds provided for Terri's care for the process of legally having her killed.
One other thought, the law that allows the tubes to be removed was passed many years after her accident(?). Isn't retroactive application of a law prohibited?
In most cases, yes. But that's not going to work in this case, because the law applies to someone's current condition. The timing of the cause of the condition is irrelevant.
An analogy would be a new speed limit that goes into effect at midnight. You can't argue that since you started driving at 70 mph at 11:45 pm, the new law doesn't apply to you.
It is insane - and if not illegal, then it should be illegal - to have an estranged husband such as Michael (who might have put her in that condiction) be Terri's guardian. In Sunny von Bulow's case the children, not the husband, was given guardianship.