You so very obviously haven't read the report. There are dozens of angles that make it okay to withhold food and hydration and Terri fits into a couple of them.
I have read the statements. I have also read the statements from Vatican Officials that affirm that the removal of Terri's feeding tube violates Catholic teachings on Euthanasia and the Dignity of life.
Cardinal Sgreccia Noted that, “the removal of the gastric probe from her, in these conditions, could be considered direct euthanasia, because it is an integral part of the way in which Mrs Terri Schiavo can be fed and hydrated.
Statement of Cardinal Renato Martino,
President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace
Vatican City
7 March 2005
The courts have ruled again and again. Unfortunately, the deadline for the removal of the tube delivering food and water to Terri Schiavo is quickly approaching. I am sorry to have to use the word “deadline” but this is the most accurate way to describe what will happen. Without the tube which is providing life-giving hydration and nutrition, Terri Schiavo will die. But it is not that simple. She will die a horrible and cruel death. She will not simply die; she will have death inflicted upon her over a number of terrible days, even weeks. How can anyone who claims to speak of the promotion and protection of human rights - of human life - remain silent? Is this not a question of the right to life? I believe that I must speak out about this in the same way that I would speak of the protection of the unborn and just as I would concerning any injustice.
And a statement by Pope John Paul II leaves no wiggle room.
In speaking about patients with PVS the Pope said.
Providing food and water to such patients should be considered natural, ordinary and proportional care - not artificial medical intervention, the Pope told members of the conference, which was organised by the World Federation of Catholic Medical Associations and the Pontifical Academy for Life.
"As such, it is morally obligatory," to continue such care, he said.
Since no one knows when a patient in a vegetative state might awaken, "the evaluation of the probability, founded on scarce hope of recovery after the vegetative state has lasted for more than a year, cannot ethically justify the abandonment or the interruption of minimal care for the patient, including food and water," he said.
Repeating 113 above ... quoting peach, and then a paragraph from the link peach provided ...
For those interested, this is the official position of the Unitd States Conference of Catholic Bishops. There are a great many instances, including Terri's, where death by starvation is permitted within church doctrine.
When a patient is not competent to make his or her own decisions, a proxy decisionmaker who shares the patient's moral convictions, such as a family member or guardian, may be designated to represent the patient's interests and interpret his or her wishes. Here, too, moral limits remain relevant -- that is, morally the proxy may not deliberately cause a patient's death or refuse what is clearly ordinary means, even if he or she believes the patient would have made such a decision.