What troubles me in this case is the lack of irrefutable documentation as to the wishes of the individual. The assumption all along, and all the decisions to date, seem to be based on hearsay, the word of one individual who obviously has serious conflicts of interest, as to what Terri's wishes are/were. I know when I was appointed my mother's legal guardian when she fell ill with Alzheimer's, I had to present to the court a legal document attesting to her wishes regarding "heroic measures" of life preservation. The document was drawn up (previously) by her attorney, signed by the individual and witnesses, and notarized. Lacking that, it was my understanding that the default assumption by the court and the caregivers was that the individual would have wished to live, and actions taken would be based on this assumption.
What is most troubling to me is the role of judicial activism in this. The law in Fla. is that the court can order that extraordinary lifesaving measures be ceased, if she's in a persistent vegetative state. The judge basically expanding the definition of persistent vegetative state so that he could order that she be euthanized. And then he was faced with another problem, namely that she was not receiving extraordinary lifesaving measures anyway. So he ordered that she be denied food and water. I don't see how food and water could be considered an "extraordinary" lifesaving measure. But then, that's what judicial activism is about.