Michael Schiavo did not make the decision to discontinue life-prolonging measures for Terri.
As Terri's husband, Michael has been her guardian and her surrogate decision-maker. By 1998, though -- eight years after the trauma that produced Terri's situation -- Michael and Terri's parents disagreed over the proper course for her.
Rather than make the decision himself, Michael followed a procedure permitted by Florida courts by which a surrogate can petition a court to act as a ward's surrogate and determine what the ward would decide to do. Michael took the position that, based on statements Terri made to him and others, 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
If the law really does read that the "court becomes the surrogate" where the litigating parties disagree, that's scary as hell. Courts are about the least accountable entities in the government.
Kindly note that the same standard is being applied to whether Terri lives, as would be applied to the validity of Terri's last will and testament as to who inherits her kitchen table. You cannot see the abomination in affording a murderer on trial a better chance at living ("beyond a reasonable doubt"), than she who has been accused of no crime?