The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the trial court ruling which found that Michelle Finn was the appropriate decision maker, that she was acting in good faith, and that she was making a legitimate decision based on what her husband would want if able to express his preferences. It agreed with the trial court that artificial nutrition and hydration was a medical procedure that could be withheld or withdrawn, like any other, and it explicitly noted that termination of artificial nutrition and hydration did not constitute mercy killing or euthanasia, but that such action merely permitted the the natural process of dying to proceed.