One of the big problems in this case has been that there has never been objective evidence of Terri's desires. All we have is Michael's hearsay.
As far as I'm concerned, an honest judge would have asked to see the living will document. Without that, there really was no reason for the case to go forward. (Which is why I believe that Greer made up his mind on the side of death before he ever heard a single argument.)
I read lots of posts that misstate and misunderstand the nature of hearsay. But, nevermind the legal buzzword, I'll try to express the legal process with different words.
The function of the law is to discern the patient's wishes. That would be Terri. The law does not intend that somebody else substitute their wishes for Terri, the legal standard it to act on her wishes, period, end of disucssion. The husband has no right to decide, the parents have no right to decide, the judge has no right to decide what Terri's wishes are. The patient's wishes RULE.
So, what to do when the patient's wishes are unkonwn? Preferably, there is a clear written directive. Absent that, the law may look for other evidence. That's what it did in Cruzan, and what it did in this case. If the evidence is clear and convincing (there is no reasonbale doubt that the patient's wishes are being carried out), then the court orders what it finds to be the patient's wishes.
As I said in another post, this case stands for two very ugly propositions. First, that a patient has no recourse but to die, faced with an error in determination of the his wishes. Second, that forced starvation is legally and medically ethical.