it seems everyone is on this particular bandwagon, so what the hey.
the tricky thing about this case, imho, isn't the issue of right to life, but your take on the morality of sustaining life when the person is unable to help themselves.
let's establish immediately that i think there is a right to life. everyone deserves a chance to make a go of it, and i'm opposed to things like the death penalty.
ok, so the question here move to whether you want to sustain the life of a person who is unable to care for themselves?
maria can't take care of herself, that is obvious. so, because we think that a person has the right to life, she has to be sustained. now, the parents want to maintain her life, and the husband wants her to be able to 'pass away'. obviously, maria has no choice in the matter, except for what appears to be her wishes conveyed to her husband (i'm scant on detail in that regard).
what seems to complicate this debate is the ability to sustain life at all. 'back in the day' we wouldn't have been having this argument. it would have been; person, damaged, can't eat (i.e. can't swallow), dies.
so regardless of whether you fall on either the parents or the husbands side, the fact that we can sustain the life of a person who will never make another contribution to society is a very, very difficult moral issue.
now, before you go freaking out on me for being cold, one of my cousins is in this exact state, having been struck by a car many years ago. i think it's because we can maintain these types of people that compassion is required. and personally, while i realise that it must be incredibly difficult for the husband, i would think that maybe he should surrender his wife to her parents, no one sane would blame him for walking away after fifteen years of fighting.