And I doubt that many of those who would not want a feeding tube *would* want a judge to threaten to arrest anyone who offered them ice chips or a sip of water by mouth or any nutrition or hydration by "natural means."
The refusal of an implanted feeding tube might (in certain, very clear cases), be ethical, but the prohibition of natural feeding is murder, plain and simple.
And that is a fact that I'm sure everyone on FR will agree. The distinction is, however, is it legal or moral murder? Now personally, I believe euthanasia is a massive display of the lack of faith in modern medical technology and playing God on an unconscionable scale. But others might disagree. Some see euthanasia as humane, especially if it involves prolonged suffering.
Imagine that Michael isn't a scum bag, that Terri did want to die. What now? Should this be legal? Is it moral? What would our Founding Fathers think? Then this is where "facts" come in to play. Certain things are absolutes. But there is also a lot in life that falls into that annoying and confusing gray area.