Well, sort of. You see, a guardian can't impose wishes that are contrary to the patient's wishes. That is against the law. In this case, part of the beef is that the law erred on a factual matter, specifically, whether or not Terri would starve herself to death in these circumstances, were she able to make that choice.
The count found that to be the case. In other words, the court found TERRI's wishes. Not Michaels.
The entity with the power is the PATIENT.
Very good technical point. I accede.