Our exchange on this point is summarized verbatim above. You still haven't answered the question, which was, "Is the removal of the feeding tube the initiating agent of demise in these 'hundreds of times a day?'"
And, I will note, that since Terri's doctors recommended the tube be removed in '93, and he resisted for 5 more years because he thought it was cruel until he saw his parents die this way, that yes. He could have followed the doctors recommendation in '93 and had the tube pulled and we wouldn't be where we are today.
Thanks for the link, haven't read it yet.
They also noted that Michael did not make the decision - he asked the court to listen to both sides and for the court to take his role in this matter of her tube. He did not have to do that. He could have forced he parents to challenge his legal decision from a less powerful position.
Got it on that point. The "he didn't have to do that" is a reference to the roles of various players in a legal proceeding, and not to the ultimate authority to deny food and water.
Yes. The removal of a feeding tube is the result of their ultimate demise.