E: Incorrect. The 'court' has declared that no one is allow to give her a spoon either. Her family is forbidden to even feed her jello. why? is that 'extraordinary means'?
Please read my sentence again: "What has been decided is that the husband can decide that no extraordinary means may be used to force feed her to keep her (in some very limited sense) 'alive.'" The question is who is the decision-maker.
Can you not see that, if the right of the husband is sustained and he decides that ending nutritional maintenance is appropriate, allowing others to countermand the effect of the instruction would undermine the first two decisions? The 'no spoon' and 'no jello' decisions flow from the first determinations, i.e. the husband's right to make the decision and the nature of the decision he makes.
Our society does not give husbands the right to kill their wives. The husband CANNOT decide that it is OK to starve her to death according to our values and laws. We do not accord one individual the right to kill another person.