XZ: Only in the sense that sometimes the taking of a feeding tube is appropriate.
Either we are making progress or your new-found 'friends' will now turn and eat you alive.
Pray tell, when are those "sometimes [that]the taking [out] of a feeding tube is appropriate"? When the victim -- er, possessor of the tube has previously expressed his wishes not to be so maintained?
Or when the moon is full and the planets are aligned? When?
I don't know anyone who always rejects the removal of a feeding tube. They object in this case because of the facts surrounding the case, particularly the discrepancy between the husband's report of the wife's desires before the lawsuit and his report of the wife's desires after the lawsuit.
The family says she would not voice a desire to be terminated in such a manner.
Prior to the lawsuit the husband presented her case as one in which he claimed damages just so he could continue her care. His argument, if effect, was that she wanted to continue living in that manner.
After the lawsuit, he suspiciously remembered that she wanted to die in such a situation, but in some unguarded moments he has slipped and indicated he doesn't know what she would have wanted.
For me, it's a simple thing. Give a full hearing that includes a review of all old and all new evidence. Give the girl a chance to recover.
Finally, don't pretend it's a natural death when you forcibly prevent natural feeding.