"The cold hard fact is that no judge has the right to decree whether an person lives or dies."
Unfortunately, you are wrong.
The issue here is whether Terri's appointed legal representative (husband) could direct her care in the ways that he wished (however awful they might be). Technically, the judges have reaffirmed the husband's rights, which is not the same thing as ordering her death (although with the same outcome.
Courts, by the way, have made such decisions for decades (or longer). They would routinely make such decisions if abortion was only available in cases of rape, incest, etc.
The issue here is whether Terri's appointed legal representative (husband) could direct her care in the ways that he wished (however awful they might be). Technically, the judges have reaffirmed the husband's rights, which is not the same thing as ordering her death (although with the same outcome.
Courts, by the way, have made such decisions for decades (or longer). They would routinely make such decisions if abortion was only available in cases of rape, incest, etc.
A guardian may refuse any medical treatment, but drinking water is not such a procedure. It is not within the power of a guardian to withhold, and not in the power of a rational court to prohibit.
And keep in mind from the Ralph Nader-Wesley Smith report: "The courts . . . have [also] ordered that no attempts be made to provide her water or food by mouth. Terri swallows her own saliva. Spoon feeding is not medical treatment. This outrageous order proves that the courts are not merely permitting medical treatment to be withheld, they have ordered her to be made dead."