She was lucid this morning and discussed the subject with her son, my husband, and her doctor. Her choice is no amputation and sooner death from sepsis rather than later death from heart/kidney failure. Her choice was clear (she already had executed a living will, in any case). There is NO DOUBT at ALL about her clear wishes, and her wishes will be followed. For those who might be concerned about this, she is receiving very effective pain meds.
Terri's case was completely different. She was in no way dying, and her wishes were very unclear with a husband with a huge conflict of interest claiming her wish to die and friends and family claiming otherwise. Terri did not fit any humane model for withholding basic care such as hydration and nutrition. As a matter of fact, my husband is insisting that his mom be kept hydrated till she dies.
I post this to show the clear difference between an appropriate approach to these life-and-death decisions and a horrific one.
I agree with you. Your mother made her wishes known -- and they were not to die (directly) but to directly refuse a specfic treatment. That same logic would, imo, apply even to those who wished tyo starve themselves to teh point of death. With each hour such a person refuses -- directly, clearly and him or herself, not through proxy or prior contract -- refuses to eat. Food is offered, and they refuse it.