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.
"All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others." , -George Orwell, "Animal Farm"
It isn't a "contorted manner". I am simply asking that even if a person, by happenstance, loses "the ability to form a clear intention" as to their future, do they still retain their unalienable right to life, or does that become subject to the statements (perhaps conflicted, or questionable) of another, as seems to be the case here. From what I have read of the case, there clearly was doubt as to the true wishes of the individual. Why then is the default assumption that the individual would want to die rather than live?
Why do you imply that she was being denied anything that she could have done for herself?
Something tells me that dying from forced starvation and dehydration would not be something she would choose for herself. Such might be the case for a suicidal individual, but there was no indication of that in this case.
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!
So now the Courts no longer protect the lives of individuals, but the right to kill them?
The Court weighed the evidence and made a decision.
Certainly one where there is reason to question, on any number of grounds.