Actually, not. Government's number one job is to protect our rights. In both of these examples, government was doing just the opposite. In Elian's case they were depriving him of his right to liberty. And in Terri's case they deprived her of all rights, including the right to life. The government should not have seized Elian and they should not have killed Terri. Just my opinion.
Well, I wish either of the Bush's had stepped up and said that this law is wrong and must be rewritten. It is wrong to order the death of an innocent and helpless person and this must be stopped.I think an executive decision in this case holds just as much water as a judicial opinion. The branches have equal powers and both (or all three including the legislative branch) are entrusted with defending the constitution and our rights. The very worst thing that would've happened is Terri may have been permitted to live long enough to allow the legislators to try to get it right. And, of course, if the people thought the executive abused his power then he might be subject to impeachment. That's the way the founders set up the system.
To err on the side of life means that life is the default rather than death. It means the same thing as choosing life. The government should defend the right to life above all else. Can't have liberty without life. Can't have any rights at all without life.