Nonsense.
"The state" didn't do anything. Her husband followed an established, legal medical procedure for ending the life of a patient in a persistent vegitative state. It was his right to choose such a course of treatment. The issue was thoroughly adjudicated in the courts, and her husband's course was backed up by courts all the way up the line. The only thing separating this from all the other examples of removing a feeding tube is the media attention. If her parents hadn't fallen out with her husband, we never would have heard about this.
Emotional hyperbole doesn't help anything.
How long has forced starvation been "an established, legal medical procedure"?