I don't know. You are the one that has the factual basis close to recall. I don't know what "this matter" is a reference to, nor do I know the procdural posture from which the court's comment was made.
Your comments on the point imply, to me, that you think Michael had the power to deny food and water to his wife, without leave from the court. I just found that amzaing, since if true, he could have starved her 8 years ago without the cost and trouble of a pesky court hearing.
I don't think I linked this for you before; if I did I apologize.
As stated in 2001, by the Florida 2nd District Court of appeals in their support of the foundation ruling - which everyone should thoroughly read:
http://abstractappeal.com/schiavo/2dcaorder01-01.txt
They found that there was clear and convincing evidence that she wouldn't want the tube to remain.
They also noted that Michael did not make the decision - he asked the court to listen to both sides and for the court to take his role in this matter of her tube. He did not have to do that. He could have forced he parents to challenge his legal decision from a less powerful position.
Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate such as Michael can petition a court, asking the court to act as the ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael did this, and based on statements Terri made to him and others, he took the position that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures. The Schindlers took the position that Terri would continue life-prolonging measures. Under this procedure, the trial court becomes the surrogate decision-maker, and that is what happened in this case.
The trial court in this case held a trial on the dispute. Both sides were given opportunities to present their views and the evidence supporting those views. Afterwards, the trial court determined that, even applying the "clear and convincing evidence" standard -- the highest burden of proof used in civil cases -- the evidence showed that Terri would not wish to continue life-prolonging measures.
Terri is given food and water through tubes. Is disconnecting a feeding tube the same as ending life support?
Yes, under Florida law, which governs the ability of each person to determine, or to appoint someone to determine, whether each of us should receive what the Legislature terms "life-prolonging medical procedures." The Legislature has explained:
The Legislature recognizes that for some the administration of life-prolonging medical procedures may result in only a precarious and burdensome existence. In order to ensure that the rights and intentions of a person may be respected even after he or she is no longer able to participate actively in decisions concerning himself or herself, and to encourage communication among such patient, his or her family, and his or her physician, the Legislature declares that the laws of this state recognize the right of a competent adult to make an advance directive instructing his or her physician to provide, withhold, or withdraw life-prolonging procedures, or to designate another to make the treatment decision for him or her in the event that such person should become incapacitated and unable to personally direct his or her medical care. § 765.102(3), Florida Statutes.
In keeping in mind who would honor Terri's wishes in this matter it is important to remember that the Schindler family has testified that they would continue the forced feeding even if Terri had told them she would not want it...So who to believe?