Actually, your point is not proven by my post. The legal system does not work as well as it should. For one thing, only certain issues can be appealed. Various findings of fact can not. The legal system is very complex and, frankly, does not work well. If you thought legal contracts were hard to follow, try legal processes. Very much headache inducement. Moreover, courts are bound by the law (theoretically, at least; in practice, they are not always, but conservative judges (those more likely to side with the parents) tend to observe this more closely than liberal judges). Any defects in the law (for example, the lack of a stipulation that philandering husbands should not be able to make life-or-death decisions regarding their wives) are not properly corrected in court, but in the legislature. The "justice" system has little to do with justice and more to do with the law.
As for it being "clear that her body lacks all ability to recover," it is not. Just recently, a man emerged from an 18 year coma and is learning to talk again. I would not characterize it as likely that she will recover, but there are still some experimental methods that have not yet been tried. Even if she never fully recovers, by testing some of these experimental methods on her, there might be hope for future people in such predicaments. As far as it not being her wish to continue to live like this, that is not clear (see my previous post), and her feeding tube was removed due more to her husband's role as legal guardian than to any "wish" she may have expressed. Also, as to being "kept alive by a machine," she is not. Or at least not in the traditional sense (not sure how the feeding works, but now that I think about it, I guess there is some machinery involved). Her organs function on their own. If she was being "kept alive by a machine" then it would be a simple matter of pulling the plug, and death would come rather quickly. As it is, removing the feeding tube results in a death process which lasts about two weeks and involves excrutiating pain. It would not be legal to subject a dog or cat to such treatment. Moreover, she is not braindead, she is not comatose. She responds to her surroundings. In fact, the more people learn about the case, the more they tend to support the parents.
Again, I follow the legal system to a reasonable degree, and it is profoundly screwed up. About as likely as anything, the judges committed the same fallacy you seem to -- namely, "I wouldn't want to live like that, so I don't see why she would" to put it bluntly. It's nice that you believe the judges should be focused on doing what's just, I certainly think they should be, but it is simply not the case in modern law.
Also, I care about this because it is about more than just one woman. This has become become part of the debate over euthanasia and, more generally, the culture of life vs. the culture of death (I must admit, it can be nice to be on the side of those who chose the names of the positions in a debate). Take The Netherlands, for instance. Legalized euthanasia in 1986. Today, they euthanize infants, and don't even bother reporting about five out of six instances. Take another matter that has been especially bad in some European countries, but we've had problems with it over here, too. A nurse decides the "quality of life" has slipped too low and kills the patient on their own (drug overdose, oftentimes). Even euthanasia more broadly, you decide you want it, your family, friends and whatnot are "supportive" of your decision -- what happens when you have second thoughts? After all the people you love already expressed support for you dying? Are you really going to act on those second thoughts? Or, again, expressing interest in euthanasia can be a cry for attention as much as anything else. Same thing, and they're pressured into euthanasia as much as anything else. Now, I know this may very well be something you have no interest in, and you're thinking just about the Schiavo case. However, they are linked, and I happen to know a few people who would not be alive today if modern European sentiments on life issues prevailed over modern (or somewhat less modern) American sentiments. I know people dismiss it, but there really is such thing as a "slippery slope" effect. I would much rather have a legal system that erred on the side of life than one that erred on the side of death. Also, think about what I said previously about her husband, living with his girlfriend, with whom he has multiple children. Can you deny that there exists a conflict of interests there? Should any man in such a circumstance have the final say as to whether his wife lives or dies? (Incidentally, in case you or some other reader were to make the mistake, the courts do not have the final say; the courts have been deciding who has the final say, and largely (though I must emphasize, not universally (i.e., some judges have gone the other way)) have been giving the final say to him.) Reflect on that, not on what you would want, or anything else about the case, but simply that. Don't respond immediately, but kick it around for awhile.