None of us controls whether someone's health falls to the point that he (or she) cannot eat. The question is only how far we'll go in employing unnatural technology to sustain one part of what that person needs to live. We aren't starving anyone by refusing to employ that technology. The disabled person is starving because his health has failed and God hasn't acted to save him.
It's obvious that I won't convince you of anything, but it's also obvious to me that you are the one with the God complex. That's why most of the American public doesn't want to put you in charge of their medical decisions.
"The disabled person is starving because his health has failed and God hasn't acted to save him." What utter rubbish! Who made you sovereign of the universe to deny that the doctors sent to insert the tube for food and water are not 'there by God's grace'? Following your flawed logic, every ... oh never mind. You aren't worth the trouble to debate.
Of course Terri's folks were never allowed to find out if she could eat or drink. And this doesn't even apply to several previous cases where the people could eat and drink, but it was time consuming so feeding tubes were put in to keep staff costs at a minimum.
Christine Busalacchi ate and drank on her own well but her father had her dehydrated to death because of her incontinence.
There have been many other cases where people who ate and drank pretty well were dehydrated to death by family members for other reasons. So the feeding tube is not what this is all really about.
It is about killing the (expensive) disabled off in institutions.