At the risk of getting slammed by another one of you, I would like to point out how dangerous it is to rely on stories told by only one side of a issue.
Gee, ya think maybe that might be why I aimed the guy at the other side? The side other than the one that's filled his head with mush?
Ya think?
Having said that, and having done my own reading...my own opinion is that this woman is being killed by the state in a manner that is unfit for an animal...and that it is being done for suspect reasoning and motives at the best.
Without compelling evidence (and I have seen none) that it was her own wish that the food be turned off under these specific types of conditions...and without a real medical effort being made to ascertain if that is still her desire (and I have seen no evidence that any impartial effort has been made to ascertain such information), then she should clearly not be killed...not starved and dehydrated to death
If there are those who will assume responsibility for her (and there are) and if there are those who do not want to continue to support her life (and there are apparently those as well), then those who will support her, particualrly her family, should receive the legal authority to do so and then everyone should move on.
That the husband is unwilling to do this only increases the suspect reasoning for his motives IMHO.