I, too, suspect their lawyers haven't been terribly bright in the way the appeals have been handled. I believe Judge Whittemore made a footnote stating that several affidavits disputing Michael Schiavo's claims had been attached to the appeal documents by the Schindler's lawyers, but never discussed as to their relevance - a big boo-boo.
What I didn't realize as a physician was that what I had perceived as an interesting academic distinction (PVS vs SMC), one important to patient and family of course, could become the pillar of a legal argument for or against court ordered euthenasia. Once a fuzzy diagnostic term is placed into statute, and it's applicability to a case is enshrined by a single judge's 'finding of fact' it becomes transformed to the immutable. Neither burgeoning knowledge, common sense, humane arguments, nor crowbars can change it through the appeal process. It, the state and functionality of brain tissue inside the head of one poor patient, becomes a matter of lawyering.
I engaged in some argument here knowing a good bit about this field (neuroscience), struck by the inanity of medical statements in the lay press and by forum members, by the lack of solid information, the legal blocks to obtaining information, and the obvious bias in interpretations (Hemlockers vs Vitalists).
I learned a lot about my own naivete.