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.
It isn't. You should read Judge Greer's order. It was ultra vires in withdrawing not only medical care (arguably legal) but also oral nutrition and hydration (which is not withdrawable medical care in law). Iow, Judge Greer, on no legal authority whatsoever, ordered Terri's death.
...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....
What you call "treatment" was forcible, agonizingly painful killing by dehydration / starvation. It was an execution, not medicine. It took away all treatment. It took away all medical care. It took every crumb of food and drop water away from a helpless crippled woman. It denied her the bread and wine of holy Communion. It wouldn't let her have ice chips in her mouth to ease the torture (ice chips are standard medical care). It inflicted terrible pain and death upon a blameless disabled patient.
"Treatment" you call it! Torture and death "reasonably represented the wishes of the patient"!