However, once that finding has been made, under Florida law the rest follows perfectly naturally.
Her husband is designated as her next of kin. As such, he has the legal right to make medical decisions for her.
Your analysis has a serious omission. The law also has to find, to the standard of clear and convincing evidence, that Terri would choose to stop taking food and water to the point of death. I personally believe that the evidence does not support this legal conclusion.
Your have also mistated Florida law. Maybe it's an honest misunderstanding, or may it's deliberate misinformation. I don't know. But if you are honestly mistaken on your understanding, you will take the time to research Florida law, and back up your assertions with some citations.
The actual Florida law is at: Florida Statutes <-- Link
Before exercising the incapacitated patient's rights to select or decline health care, the proxy must comply with the provisions of ss. 765.205 and 765.305, except that a proxy's decision to withhold or withdraw life-prolonging procedures must be supported by clear and convincing evidence that the decision would have been the one the patient would have chosen had the patient been competent or, if there is no indication of what the patient would have chosen, that the decision is in the patient's best interest.
The judge has ruled that the law you quote has been complied with.
So far, every state and federal appeals court has agreed with him. No offense intended, but I'll accept their rulings that the law is being applied correctly rather than your opinion that it is not.
The criticism aimed at the judges for not overturning a law passed by the legislature of Florida and signed by its governor seems to me highly inappropriate.