Killing someone by decree without a trial by a jury of their peers is tyranny...
I know that you want to blur the distinction because it suits your political ends, but there is a legal and moral distinction between "killing" and removing treatment from someone who does not want it.
If I get terminal cancer, and want to stop the treatment and let the cancer take its course, would you say that my doctors "killed" me?
Yes, damn it, she better damn well be able to stop your treatment. No antibiotics! The uncommunicative patient refuses them!
What?? There isn't any "someone." You assured us that Michael made the decision; Michael and nobody else. It was, you added, his complete legal right and moral obligation! You wrote,
> It is his [Michael's] legal right and responsibility, and moral obligation to make those difficult decisions in what he and he alone determines to be in the patient's best interest.
Obviously, since it is solely Michael's legal right and responsibility, nobody else has any legitimate say in the matter. Correct?
The "someone" has no say in the matter.
Morality and all of its associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.
Perhaps you can tell who does not want treatment by reading their mind? You are a psychic maybe?
There is no legal distinction for a judge to determine all by himself, without a jury, that someone's life should be ended by the action of the state. That is tyranny, fascism, or whatever the hell you want to call it...
As for the "moral" distinction, your problem is you just like to play "god" and I'm an atheist...