The Withdrawal of Nutrition and Hydration in the Vegetative State Patient

1006 Words3 Pages

In their “The withdrawal of nutrition and hydration in the vegetative state patient: Societal dimension and issues at stake for the medical profession,” Gian L. Gigli and Mariarosaria Valente argue points against the withdrawal of assisted nutrition and hydration. They believe this decision will possibly cause an ethical impact on the medical field and on society as a whole. Within the article, the authors attempt to evaluate the historical background, the quality of human life, the problem of consent, and consequences of withdrawing assisted nutrition of those in permanent vegetative state. The authors believe “nutrition and hydration should always be provided to patients (including patients in VS) unless they cannot be assimilated by a person’s body, they do not sustain life, or their only mode of delivery imposes grave burdens on the patient or others” (327). The purpose of this article is to persuade the readers to keep a patient, even determined to be in permanent vegetative state, on assisted hydration and nutrition. Interestingly, the authors “observations” are not backed up by data from research. For example, Gigli and Valente state they “observed a weakening of the concept of sanctity of life and a decrease in the strength of social solidarity, the combination of which made unacceptable the financial burdens caused to society by the presence of large numbers of chronic, totally dependent patients” (315). Audacious claims are made and lack support by facts. This article, additionally, declares, “Medical tradition in fact opposes all intentional killing of patients, . . . even when omitting basic means of survival” (316). It is necessary for such a bold statement to be validated, instead of solely stated. Instead of usi... ... middle of paper ... ...lf, to decide to or not to cut off assisted nutrition and hydration. Contradictory, the article later states “However, this is not always the case even in mentally competent, severely disabled persons” (319). The authors switch back and forth from supporting their claim, to opposing it. I believe the authors did a very poor job in writing this article. Its claims are rarely supported by evidence, and only secondary sources are used when they are backed up. Also, Gigli and Valente are very biased and use emotional and bold words consistently. This makes the article invalid and unreliable. The majority of the authors’ statements cover personal opinions and their interpretations of facts. The article mostly contradicts itself and the argument is extremely repetitive. Though the article mostly stays on topic, the majority of its arguments are atrocious.

Open Document