The husband claims there's no hope of her getting better. He clearly does not want her to get better. Some of the doctors he has hired to claim she has no hope of improvement are affiliated with euthenasia movements, and thus also likely do not want her to improve.
If bona fide efforts at improving her condition, made by people who actually wanted her condition to improve, were persistently unsuccessful, then one might reasonably believe there to be no hope. Given that her husband has clearly been sandbagging her condition, though, I see no reason to believe it would continue to be hopeless if she were freed from his clutches.
Note that the only proven reason she needs a feeding tube is that the husband refuses to allow anyone to make a bona fide effort to feed her by mouth. Any person, no matter how healthy, who is forbidden any and all means of receiving food or fluid will die in a fairly short while.
Perhaps we need to relabel grocery stores as "life-support stores", and drinking fountains as "life-support fountains". After all, anyone who can't plant and pick his own vegetables, find his own watering holes, and hunt and clean his own game, is being supported "artificially".
I did not already know some of the things you pointed out, like the fact that her husband would not let anyone feed her.
I do still hold my opinion about being kept alive by machines. One thing is for SURE about this case and that is the importance of everyone having a LIVING WILL.