Okay..so when 911 arrived, she didn't have the tube in. By your reasoning, her status quo was not to receive any care.
Obviously, you can't use "status quo" as the criterion for deciding what should happen.
How about we go with "Mrs. Schiavo's rights"...?
The legal status quo would be the 7 years that she lived before Michael "remembered" that her wish was to die. Those years would probably precede the years that he has lived with his girlfriend and had children with her. Perhaps if he had divorced her before he remembered, then her parents would have some standing but then would he have gotten the malpractice award? I honestly don't like to impugn him, but how can we ignore the inherent conflicts he has?
I would love to go with Mrs. Schaivo's rights if there were not reasonable doubts as to what they are. If only:
-Michael had remembered her wishes when the condition began
-Somebody other than his own in-laws supported his statements
-The reports of her improvement with some rehabilitation were not available
-Michael did not have economic and relationship incentives to see her dead
It's all so uncertain, except death.
You don't know her wishes, I don't known her wishes, apparently the court thinks it knows her wishes, but the court's knowledge would not be enough for a criminal conviction. I would hate to put a criminal to death with this kind of uncertainty.