In their “Withdrawal of nutrition and hydration in patients in a vegetative state: societal dimension and challenges for the medical profession”, Gian L. Gigli and Mariarosaria Valente argue against withdrawal of assisted nutrition and hydration. They believe this decision will likely have an ethical impact on the medical field and society as a whole. In this article, the authors attempt to assess the historical context, the quality of human life, the problem of consent and the consequences of withdrawing assisted feeding from people in a permanent vegetative state. The authors believe that "nutrition and hydration should always be provided to patients (including VS patients) unless they cannot be assimilated by a person's body, they do not sustain life or that their method of administration alone imposes serious burdens on the patient or others. » (327). The purpose of this article is to persuade readers to maintain a patient, even one determined to be in a permanent vegetative state, on assisted hydration and nutrition. Interestingly, the authors' “observations” are not supported by research data. For example, Gigli and Valente state that they "observed a weakening of the concept of the sanctity of life and a reduction in the strength of social solidarity, the combination of which made unacceptable the financial burdens caused to society by the presence of a large number of chronic people, totally dependent patients” (315). Bold claims are made that are not supported by facts. This article further states: “Medical tradition actually opposes any intentional killing of patients. . . even omitting the basic means of survival” (316). There is a need for such a bold statement to be validated, rather than simply stated. Instead of using...... middle of paper ......lf, deciding whether or not to cut out assisted nutrition and hydration. Contradictory, the article later states: "However, this is not always the case, even among mentally competent and severely disabled people" (319). The authors alternate between supporting their claim and opposing it. I think the authors did a very poor job writing this article. His claims are rarely supported by evidence, and only secondary sources are used when supported. Additionally, Gigli and Valente are very biased and consistently use emotional and bold words. This makes the article invalid and unreliable. The majority of the authors' statements cover personal opinions and their interpretations of the facts. The article largely contradicts itself and the argument is extremely repetitive. Although the article stays mostly on topic, the majority of its arguments are atrocious..