Additionally, she should have had counsel prior to that time when Michael first directed no treatment for a urinary tract infection.
Why? What would counsel have accomplished that wasn't accomplished anyway? He made a bad decision, the medical professionals challenged that bad decision, as the law explicitly permits, and the decision was rescinded. So basically, it looks to me like the system as it currently exists achieved the desired end in that particular situation. So what, then, does counsel buy you, other than one more hungry lawyer with BMW payments at the table?
So what? And the reason an attorney should have been appointed at that time is that Michael's action was demonstrably injurious to the well-being of Terri.
744.391 Actions by and against guardian or ward.--If an action is brought by the guardian against the ward, or vice versa, or if the interest of the guardian is adverse to that of his or her ward, a guardian ad litem shall be appointed to represent the ward in that particular litigation. In any litigation between the guardian and the ward, a guardian ad litem shall be appointed to represent the ward. If there is a conflict of interest between the guardian and the ward, the guardian ad litem shall petition the court for removal of the guardian. Judgments in favor of the ward shall become the property of the ward without the necessity for any assignment by the guardian or receipt by the ward upon termination of guardianship. The guardian may receive payment and satisfy any judgment in behalf of the ward without joinder by the ward.