IT was contested but several specialists reviewed her case and examined her over the several years this case was in the court system. They reached the same conclusion. That conclusion was that she was in a vegetative state with no hope of recovery.
This case, medical and court case, was reviewed repeatedly over several years. The medical facts in every case that definitive tests could be conducted supported the husband's contentions. The docs found this and so did the judges. The court case only stopped when her family ran out of appeals.
When her parents made totally unsupported claims of him attacking her and or poisoning her they lost all credibility. There was never anything to support this in the examinations before her death or the autopsy conducted after her death.
It was the husbands place to make this decision and his alone. This is what the courts at many ascending levels found as fact.
I believe that her parents and some care givers who had become attached to her saw what they wanted to see.
There is no decision in this that was right for everyone. Teri had made her position clear on this situation to her husband. He made the decision according to her wishes. If I am ever in her position I want my wife to have the courage to follow my wishes.
I argue this on facts and findings. Others approach this as purely a moral issue. We will never agree.
None of the doctors on whose judgment the court relied ever saw Terri Schiavo. None. They examined brain scans and other diagnostic materials which did not add up to a full clinical diagnosis, because they did not involve personal contact with or observation of the patient.
Repeated appeals and reviews resulted in the same conclusions because they were merely reiterating the same opinions on the same brain scans. At no time did they admit other, more relevant diagnostic criteria.
Moreover--- and this is actually the most important point--- Terri's brain scans and her measurable responsiveness, or awareness, or lack thereof, don't actually matter from a moral or legal standpoint: because it is morally wrong, a medical ethical violation, and, in the State of Florida, a specific crime under law, to intentionally deprive a dependent person of food or water, no matter what the person's level of disability.
Michael Schiavo's role as his wife's medical proxy/guardian ought to have been terminated when:
I don't know whether claims made about Terri's husband by Terri's parents were out of line, and if they lied, that's libel. Michael Schiavo himself never, to my knowledge, charged them with libel, so that's not directly relevant to the present discussion.
Putting that to the side, Terri's mother's and father's intentions to secure basic, decent ordinary care (food and water) and prevent their daughter's premature death are not bias; they demonstrate the only legitimate attitude of medical guardianship.
Good 2013 retrospective here: Still Troubled (Link)