I have reached a conclusion about the Terri Schiavo case.
I think she should die.
I think that this has been an interesting debate, but it filled with confusing issues. But now, it's from my point of view quite simple.
One issue was the assumption that dehydration was a painful and cruel death:
"A few weeks ago, after we had removed him from his home of 43 years and transferred him to a nursing home, my 98 year old father fell and broke his hip. The operation was deemed a success, but shortly afterwards, my father refused to eat. He never admitted what he was doing, he merely didn't eat what was set in front of him.

At that point, the doctors posed myself and my sister with a decision: should we take "heroic measures," (ie, forced feedings, or IV feedings, or whatever) to get nourishment into my father's body? We decided not to. In the end, we both knew that our father, who was always a man who knew his own mind, would make any necessary decisions on his own. I asked if the process would be painful for him, and the doctors assured me that it would not be. They said that it was not at all uncommon for very elderly people to "pick their own deaths" using exactly this method."
http://www.dailypundit.com/newarchives/2005/03/at_least_try_to.php#000702

So, to answer the question would starve murderers. Maybe, the answer actually is yes, it could be a humane way to die.
So, I'm not saying that starving to death is definitely a humane to die, but it's shifted it way from the assumption that of course it was a cruel way to die. This gets me out of crazy argument about whether or not Terri can feel pain (which I think might be the case).

Next point: who decides.
"A fundamental principle of health care law, and one dear to the hearts of libertarians, is that you must give informed consent to any treatment before it is administered to you (with an exception in cases of emergency when you are unable to communicate, in which case the caregivers are allowed to assume you want life-saving treatment). A doctor who treats you without your consent has committed assault and battery. It is your right to refuse any treatment at all, even if it will mean your death, and so long as you are a competent adult no court or legislature can intervene to force treatment on you.

When the patient is not a decisional adult, someone who will make decisions on their behalf must be located. You can appoint your own surrogate decision-maker, via a health care power of attorney (which I strongly recommend). Some states have lists of "deemed" surrogate decision-makers on the statute books, such as spouses, parents, siblings, etc., in rank order so everyone knows who has authority in a given case. As a last resort, a court will appoint a guardian.

The whole process is focused on the proper issue of identifying "who will decide." Once the decision-maker is identified/appointed, they stand in the shoes of the patient. The state retains (or should retain) only the most limited role, to ensure that the decision-maker does not abuse their power. Clearly, the decision to withdraw life support is a decision that Terri Schiavo could make for herself. Indeed, my wife has told me that if she were in Terri's position, that is exactly what she would want. Her husband's decision to make it in her stead is by no means an abuse of his power as her surrogate decision-maker - such decisions are made routinely, every single day, across the country by people charged with the heavy burden of making health care decisions for someone else."

Also Glen Reynolds also takes this view.
The point is that Terri got married, and her husband is the one that should make this decision. His motives, what he remembers her saying or not saying is irrevelvent. Even if him gets another wife, shouldn't really be a issue. Terri married this guy and was married at time she become unable to communicate her wishes and at that point her husband makes her decisions for her. So even if her husband wanted her to suffer horrible death- assuming it was permissible by law- he gets to choose this.
The reverse of this is that if her husband wanted to keep her alive, forever, hooked up to all manner machinary and a slab meat: "an insult to all that human", or crygetically stored until medical science advanced so as to restore to life. It's his choice because he is the guardian that she selected by marrying him.

[though it does matter if the question is will the wife or husband recover so as to be able to regain the ability to be able to make his or her own decisions. This for me, is a grey area, but in the case of Terri Schiavo, since there only might be some treatment and tiny amount hope for her to ever get to this point, it's no where near a likely outcome at this point in medical treatment. But 10 or 20 years from now it could be different consideration.]

And of course if you had a living will that would supercede this.