More to the point, the prohibition of oral feeding goes far beyond ending artificial life support. Had the parents been allowed to attempt oral feeding, and been told that if they succeeded Terri could live with them, I would not have had such a strong opposition to discontinuing gastrostomic feeding (largely because Terri probably could have eaten by mouth). But Greer's order would kill anyone upon whom it was enforced. As the order was written, even if Terri had gotten up the strength to get herself a glass of water she would still have been denied it.
AND THIS may have been the point upon which action from the federal level, or even the state level could have taken place.
The Florida law now classifies a feeding tube as 'life support,' and it was this that allowed Greer to order it removed.
But Greer ALSO ordered that there would be no oral feeding. In short, oral feeding must also be considered an extraordinary measure of 'life support.'
But, if that's true, WE'RE ALL on life support. Greer expands the meaning of the law, and exceeds his authority-- either that, or we're all ripe targets for a court order to keep us from food or water.
I'd suggest that Judge Reaper exceeded his authority, and THAT would be grounds to seize Terri and null the order.
There must be a million comments here already, but you are absolutely right and I had to say so and agree...it's completely inexplicable to me that anyone's "right to be allowed to die" would include under any circumstances a pro-active and enforced order to die.