Oh, you are absolutely correct. My mom's was initially capped off, then removed entirely. Luckily, she didn't suffer any infections while the tube was in place. How about permanently removed to deliberately bring about death due to starvation and dehydration?
I'll remember that for future arguments :)
The question of removing the feeding tube is bogus, since the real question should be one of denying food and water (Terri would have died about as quickly had the tube not been removed; perhaps a little longer if she avoided the initial infection, but not much). The real statement that should be made is this:
The purpose of food is to prevent starvation and malnutrition. The purpose of water is to prevent dehydration. The provision of food and water shall not be considered futile if it achieves these objectives. The provision of food and water may be considered futile when, and only when, denying it would not cause the patient to die any sooner or less comfortably than would supplying it.
If someone has a 4" hole in their stomach, feeding them--whether by mouth or g-tube--isn't apt to be very useful unless or until the stomach is repaired. If someone is in the last stages of dying from cancer and is apt to die in the next hour, giving them their next scheduled meal would likely not be very useful (if they don't die within a few hours, though, giving some water would likely be appropriate; if they live longer than that, they should get some food, too).