I agree. Keep in mind that it was Michael who first asked the state to intervene -- in 1998. It was the state that prevented private medical decisions and prevented Terri's family from having any say in those decisions. It was the state that ordered her death by dehydration / starvation.
It was the state that ordered her death by dehydration / starvation.
I think that's a misleading characterization. The treatment did not originate with the state; the court ruled that the guardian's proposed treatment was legal, reasonably represented the wishes of the patient and he could go through with it. Had the guardian wished another course fo treatment, the court would have ordered that course of treatment followed.
You might consider this a small difference perhaps, but it is important to keep these things clear.