Here is the conclusion to what the author wrote:
Recognizing our fallibility, society should err on the side of preserving innocent life. Conflicting hearsay and self-interested decision making should not suffice to end the life of another, as it did in the Terri Schiavo case. The consequences of being wrong are simply too great.
Now, conclusions to editorials are relevant by definition, so I will ask again:
Was dehydrating and starving Terri the right and/or legal thing to do?
YES or NO
It all depends on whether or not you believe in Living Wills.
If you don't believe that an individual has the right to specify what actions should be taken for their health if they are no longer able to make decisions for themselves, then dehydrating and starving Terri was the wrong and illegal thing to do.
Do you believe in Living Wills?