Man, I gotta tell you...your reading comprehension sucks. I don't think it's okay to "kill" anyone. I do think it is not only right, but proper to allow people to make end of life decisions in the best interests of their loved ones when a written directive is not present. I would remind you (and I'm sure you are completely unaware) that written directives are often ignored by family members who still hold out hope or refuse to let go. It is ultimately the responsibility of the family to ensure that the patients dignity, rights and desires are honored. What you feel about it is irrelvant.
...who's next? Me??
If I were your family member, I might have to come to the determination based on what I've read on this thread that your level of cognizance is no higer than a carrot.
Our reading comprehension doesn't suck, it's just that you are not making any sense.
If they did not pull the feeding tube and prohibit any attempt at oral intake, would TS be dead in 2 weeks? NO.
Therefore, she was killed (you will notice I did not say 'murdered').
There is a major difference between passive non-intervention in the natural course of an illness (say if she developed pneumonia and they did not provide antibx or put her on a ventilator) and restricting a human being ANY source of nutrition/hydration.
Whether you accept it as 'killing' her or not does not alter the fact that she was 'killed' by the active removal of nutrition.
You and the rest of your euthanasia cheerleaders can just do us all a favor and save Social Security at the same time - just off yourselves now.