The court approved the withdrawal of Edna M.F.'s tube feeding. It argued that a patient's right to refuse medical treatment (including artificially provided nutrition and hydration) is protected by the liberty interest expressed under the 14th Amendment ot the U.S. Constitution (see Cruzan v. Harmon) as well as within the "independent right to liberty" contained in Article 1, § 1 of the Wisconsin Constitution. In the case of never-competent patients, the right to refuse treatment may be expressed through a surrogate, who decides the question on the basis of the patient's best interests. While any analysis begins with the presumption that continued life is in the best interests of the patient, that presumption can be overcome by considering a number of factors, including; "the degree of humiliation, dependence and loss of dignity probably resulting from the condition and treatment; life expectancy with and without treatment; the various treatment options; and the risks, side effects and benefits of each of those options."

The court decided that tube feeding should continue. It argued that in the absence of advance directives or some other "clear and convincing evidence" of a patient's wishes, guardians may only approve the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment (including artificially provided nutrition and hydration) if (1) the incompetent patient is in a Persistent Vegetative State (PVS) and (2) withdrawal of treatment can be show to be in the best interests of the incompetent patient.