Read Cruzan. There is a strong sentiment in favor of permitting the patient to exercise his wishes regarding medical treatment, even when those instructions result in death. Two things really bug me about this case. I have reasonable doubts that Greer's factual conclusion, that Terri would choose to starve to death , is correct. And, the use of starvation as a means of death. The starvation angle plays into both the patient's choice regarding medical care (nobody that I know of considers food and water to be medical care, they are basic necessities of life), and the basic ethical/humanity inquiry into using forced starvation as an instrument to cause death.
CRUZAN v. DIRECTOR, MDH, 497 US 261 (1990) <-- Link. US Supreme Court Case.
This is the nub of this case.
I am very familiar with these issues, personally and professionally.
Although food and water are indeed basic necessities, the use of feeding tubes or other devices to deliver them is sometimes undesirable. Removing a feeding tube (or, usually, asking for it not to be re-inserted after trauma or infection) is not per se homicide.
Referring to this case as "forced starvation" is not exactly correct.
Take a person dying naturally at the end of their life. First, they don't get up. Then, they don't eat. Next, they don't drink. Then, they don't wake up. Finally, they don't breathe.
This process does not become "forced starvation" because a feeding tube has not been used, does it?
Now, there's little question that Terri Schiavo would have entered these stages of death many years ago but for the use of tube feeding. Her death would have resulted from her injuries, just as the deaths of many other brain-injured persons so result.
What's bad about this case is the result vis-a-vis her so-called "husband". This appears by commonsense to be wrong-that he, or anyone, should gain immediately and directly by her death has the decisionmaking capacity to bring it about.
But this scenario is quite common-feeding tube refusers or removers (designated decision-makers) almost all benefit in some way from their surrogate decision, sometimes very dramatically.
The use of so-called "living wills" was society's well-meaning effort out of the basic dilemma. The problem is, most people who have expressed the wish not to live if sick when healthy change their minds. We only kill the ones who are unable to express that change, because their illness affects their brain.
You are all right that an injustice is being done in Florida. But I think you are wrong that it is a murder.
If it's a murder, all the "living wills" in America are void (you cannot consent to be murdered), and we'll have to go back to the old way.
The old way was much, much better, but we've moved on and we aren't going back there.
Take comfort if possible that Terri is going to a much better place, and unquestionably will never have to see Michael again.