I'm a proponent of assisted suicide, and I have always supported the effort to keep Terri's feeding tube from being removed, for exactly the reasons outlined in this article. A free citizen's right to die when s/he wants to, and right not to be killed against his/her will, are equally important.
If there was any convincing evidence that Terri would want to have her feeding tube removed, then it should be done forthwith. However, the much-delayed assertion (conveniently delayed until after a huge cash award had been won and paid) by a husband who would obviously benefit from having her dead, doesn't constitute convincing evidence in the mind of any rational person.
Furthermore, in this particular case, the only doctors who are asserting that the feeding tube removal is medically appropriate, are also asserting that Terri has no awareness whatsoever, and is incapable of feeling pain. I.e. she is not suffering. It would be downright evil to force someone to suffer for years, if they had indicated they would prefer to be euthanized in such a situation. But in this case, in addition to the lack of any such indication from Terri, not a single doctor has been willing to assert both that Terri has no hope of significant recovery, and that she is suffering.
If anti-euthanasia people weren't so hostile to people who disagree with them on that basic issue, there would be a much larger movement to protect Terri. As it is, the anti-euthanasia crowd has succeeded in alienating many thousands of potential supporters, by promoting the wrong impression that fighting the removal of Terri's feeding tube is equivalent to fighting against the right to euthanasia and assisted suicide.
There is no such thing as assisted suicide. It is an oxymoron and a fig-leaf phrase designed to assuage the guilt of the killer, like "pro-choice".
If you want to call it consensual homicide, fine, but don't pretend that the real killer in the situation is in any way committing a "suicide". They are killing someone else, plain and simple.