her death. You are. She was a severly handicapped woman, but she had no life threatening condition other than a husband who wanted her dead.

This was no different than a death penalty case based in hearsay evidence. You apparently accept the husband's word (spoken several years after she suffered the brain damage and coincidently after he won a very large malpractice lawsuit) that she didn't want to live like that. I'm not so trusting of his motives. In the end, there was no reason for her to die other than his word against that of her parents. They were willing to accept the full responsibility for her care. Somehow, that wasn't good enough.

If any court in America sentenced a convicted murderer to suffer death by dehydration and starvation, that sentence would immediately be rejected as "cruel and unusual punishment."

If any court in America sentenced a convicted murderer on hearsay evidence, it would without a doubt be thrown out on appeal.

There are several worthwhile efforts such as the Innocence Project who use the best technology possible to prevent convicted murderers from being wrongly executed. Using things like DNA evidence, they've actually saved the lives of quite a few people on Death Row.

Nothing like that happened in this case. The best technology for determining brain function wasn't used in her case. It was an unnecessary death and that's always a tragedy, at least to me. If you feel differently, then more the pity for you.