If they are murderers, then anyone with a living will that states that they don't want to be kept on a respirator, feeding tube, or other life sustaining device will be depending on assisted suicide. If it is a respect for life issue, then it has to be consistently applied, and the red herring arguements need to be abandoned.
Personally, I think it comes down to a few factors that you either value about our system or don't:
In making decisions for an incapacitated individual, who's king, someone's parents, or their spouse?
Do you have a right to make a decision to end your life when it is being sustained by aritificial means, or is the value for life absolute that no one should be able to make that decision for him or herself, and doing such would constitute a crime?
Are all branches of government equal, and do you want to maintain the separation of powers, or do you want to throw all that aside because of an instant case?
To say that the hospice is "murderers" is simplistic, and detracts from the arguement. Terminal people die, and hospices accross the country provide a place for them to pass with some semblance of peace and dignity. Once she was judged to have wanted to end her suffering, the hospice is where she was going to end up. The people at the hospice are not murderers.
If starvation is the "crime" then no one should be allowed to opt to have a feeding tube removed, whether it be through a living will, or the decision of a judge after reviewing evidence and testimony.
These arguements that compare her to starving children and convicts condemned to death are simplistic, misleading, disengenuous, and hypocritical.
