So, the answer is: Were I in Terri's state, there is no question I would want nutrition and hydration withheld -- and anything else -- to end that terrible state.
SW: I wasn't aware the law or morality was based on your view of what value others put on their own lives.
No, and I don't suggest that. As you can see in reading the quotation from my post which you yourself reproduced, I am only contending what I would want for my own life.
And that, after all, is the whole issue here. I think we would agree that we each should be able to specify (and have an expectation that our specification will be enforced) what we want done to us when we can no longer control such events for ourselves.
We can and should debate (i) what kinds of evidence of our desires should be required, (ii) who should make the decisions as to the existence (or non-existence) of the factual predicates of our instructions, and (iii) who (in terms of degree of familial relation) should be allowed to trigger such a third party determination through disagreement.
But I just don't see that any of us on a conservative website can disagree that our desires for our own lives should control. Agreed?