Maybe so. There are a variety of opinions. But, no matter which opinion you hold, I do not see how the physical condition of a citizen of this land who has not been found guilty of a capital offense would somehow invalidate what had heretofore been taken to be an unalienable right. Let me ask the legal theorists here this question: is the right of a person to live under what are arguably difficult circumstances, absent criminality, subject to government dispensation? IOW, does a person's (perhaps profound) physical impairment invalidate their right to life, or does it become merely a case of Die Freigabe der Vernichtung lebensunwerten Lebens?
No, of course not. But that was most certainly not the issue here. The issue here was to determine who would speak for that person, since she had lost most of the attributes of human life, including the ability to form a clear intention as to her own future. Why do you feel a need to state the issue in a contorted manner? Why do you imply that she was being denied anything that she could have done for herself? Whether her husband or parents interpretation of her wishes would be sanctioned was certainly an issue. And someone had to make that determination. The Judicial intervention was to protect Terry! The Court weighed the evidence and made a decision.