Your question about letting a baby starve to death because they can not feed themselves and might be seen as a burden is a very good one.
There are obvious differences ethically speaking but maybe only in an ethical sense.
I do not support the removal of Terri's feeding tube but as a defence and the only defence I could offer on Michael's behalf is that he is honoring his wife wishes.
Having said that he does lose all credibility when he takes on a mistress and fathers children with her.
We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God.
I pray I never find myself in his situation.
I can not for the life of me understand why he did not just divorce her unless he doesn't believe in divorce on some religion ground. Which I can understand. But if he has those kind of religious beliefs then having his wife starved to death should factor in a little higher than divorce.
I would probably be a vocal Michael supporter if it weren't for his infidelity.
Like I said earlier in this thread I have no reason not to believe what this article says. I don't know him or Terri or any of the parties involved and what his brother says about him and his reasons for why he is doing this seems more logical than many of the other theories I have heard expressed.
Terri is Catholic, I'm not sure what religion, if any Michael professes. Seems to me he professes the religion of EGO and convenience (i.e. kill the burdensome disabled wife, move on to a new family, etc...).
But that aside, although Catholics don't really belive in divorce, he is committing adultery with this new woman and therefore has abrogated the marriage covenant.
Also, I would think the Church would look upon divorce as opposed to murder as the lesser of two evils.
I, too, would be in favor of her "right to die" under a few conditions:
1) She had expressed her wish to be starved in writing AND she is terminally ill.
2) Absolutely everything had been done for her (therapeutic efforts 15 or so years ago just don't cut in in light of recent advances in technology). Particularly efforts to help her eat "naturally".
3) Michael is indeed the loving husband he claims to be. Becoming involved and having children with another woman while your wife is disabled does not demonstrate that you have her wishes and best interests at heart.
Even under those circumstances, I would support terminating her feeding extremely reluctantly, as I just can't wrap my brain around the concept of taking affirmative steps to starve a person to death, unless they are terminally ill and the person's entire family supports it, not just a spouse who has already moved on with his life.
Bottom line, he should divorce her, not kill her. He absolutely has the legal right to do so but refuses. This is the fact of this case which bothers me the most. She has people ready, willing and able to care for her but he refuses to let them do it. It is indeed a sad situation.