How about the State, in a civil proceeding, (not criminal) forcing someone to die in a way that they would not want to die?
It is my view that the State has no obligation or authority in the first place to carry out someone's death wish via a civil proceeding. That usurpation of power inexorably leads to involuntary killing, as history teaches. But maybe Henry Ford was right; history teaches us that history teaches us nothing.
Maybe God had bigger things for Terry in mind and the machine was keeping her from him. But I guess God would have killed her anyway, right.
A feeding tube is not really a machine; it has no moving parts. A tube that conveys food by gravity is an implement, a relatively simple device for performing work, not unlike, say, a spoon.
After pondering it for a while, I still have no idea what you mean by "God would have killed her anyway."
...when is the natural process of life and death allowed to take over.
I don't know - is starving a "natural process"? No one has any objection to allowing someone to die who is dying. What is objectionable is the act of starving someone to death who is not dying on the rationale that she has an incurable condition. I tell you, when the State gets involved in imposing its will to kill people in civil proceedings, and empowers doctors to kill people without any proceedings at all, you are in civilizational quicksand.
Cordially,