Under law, after a person gets married and ends up in a situation where they can no longer make medical decisions for themselves, it is the spouse that normally has that right. In this case, however, because the patient wrote a living will prior to her marriage her parents can strongly argue that that under law her life support must be terminated. Both the parents and husband, however, have a strong legal argument in this case and, for public policy reasons, the court is likely most to agree with the husband.
First of all, the living will was created almost 4 years ago. Although there is no expiration date to enforceability of a living will, the conditions which existed at the time the patient wrote the living will have completely changed. These changed conditions may override the state's interest in honoring the rights of the patients to instead uphold the rights of the unborn child who, at 23 weeks, is almost at a point of gestation at which it may survive. At the time the patient wrote the living will the effect of terminating life support only applied to her. Currently, by terminating life support the court would be ending two lives. The unborn child (through a guardian if necessary), the father/husband, the state, and even the hospital, have a right to argue for the life of the child.
Because the life of a child is involved, although a court should honor a living will, a state should not force enforcement of a living will that will cause the murder of an innocent child. For this public policy reason, given the facts in this case, the state is likely to support the spouse's right to enforce life support.
PLEASE NOTE: Responses here are for information/education only, NOT legal advice and do not form attorney-client relationship! Only licensed attorneys you hire in your state can provide legal advice.