You are wrong. It's called Viaticum and it's different from the Eucharist and one of the most sacred rites of the church. Nor is it the same as last rites, where a priest anoints a dying person with oil and prays for their salvation (I'm not Catholic, but part of my family is and learned of it's importance last year when my step Grandmother died).
While it can be given by a lay person trained in ministering to the sick, if possible it should be performed by one's priest (in Terri's case this was entirely possible since the priest was nearby and even attempted to do this but MS had 3 cops barring the door).
You can find a description of the ritual here: http://www.rcab.org/Healthcare/mmViaticum.html
But I'd like to call your attention to this quote: "should the dying Christian hold on to life, he or she should be given the opportunity to receive the eucharist as viaticum on successive days, frequently if not daily.” Terri was denied this. Now, you can come back and tell me the judge ruled the way he did because we was unaware of this and was honoring the wishes of her "guardian" who was also obviously unconcerned with her welfare. MS knew she was a devout Catholic, his snide comments to the contrary nonwithstanding, and at the very least she would want her priest to be with her AS IS HER RIGHT.
This is precisely why the state should stay out of religion and why Greer should not have ruled the way he did. He had no authority to put conditions on her religious practices (and should have told MS this) which he clearly did by mandating that she could only have 2 visits by her priest. He even ruled that her priest was not allowed to give Terri Holy Communion...the hospice chaplain had to hold his hand as a surrogate SO THEY WOULD NOT VIOLATE A COURT ORDER. So tell me which part of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" did Greer's judgeship give him the authority to ignore? Because the way I read it "free exercise" means whatever practices her religion deems necessary and important cannot be denied her. I don't read anywhere in the 1st Amendment (or the entire constitution for that matter), the phrase "unless you're incapacitated" (in fact the Americans with Disbilities Act protects against this kind of discrimination) or "under guardianship" or "unless ruled differently by probate judges in Pinellas County, FL" or anything remotely similar. It's actually pretty straightforward. Ironic that our very first right as citizens is the very last one denied her don't you think?
Cindie
According to one of her lawyers, Terri attended Mass the evening before(Saturday) she was found on the floor in distress. This attendance was an habitual event.