jerry:

I think you’ve misread me slightly. I don’t know if it was, in fact, her wish. I only hope that the court was correct in making that determination, and that her wish is therefore being respected – even if we can’t know with certainty that is the case.

I don’t think that it is necessarily morally wrong to allow her to starve under these circumstances. The courts have attempted to divine her wishes, they may have done so correctly – in that case I would judge the act to be morally acceptable. You may, of course, reasonably disagree. I’m not sure I am wholeheartedly behind my own statement here.

I think your broader point is not that the act is necessarily immoral, but that a process that allows (interested?) hearsay evidence to override a presumption in favor of life is unacceptable and immoral. Fair enough?