In their “The suspension of nutrition and hydration in the patient in a vegetative state: social 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 likely have an ethical impact on the medical field and society as a whole. Within the article the authors attempt to evaluate the historical context, the quality of human life, the problem of consent and the consequences of suspending assisted nutrition in subjects 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, are not life-sustaining, or their unique mode of administration dictates serious burdens to the patient or others” (327). The purpose of this article is to convince readers to maintain a patient, even one determined to be in a permanent vegetative state, with assisted hydration and nutrition. Interestingly, the authors' "observations" are not supported by research data. Gigli and Valente, for example, state that they "observe a weakening of the concept of the sacredness of life and a decrease in the strength of social solidarity, the combination of which has made the financial burdens caused to society by the presence of a large number of chronically ill people unacceptable, totally dependent patients” (315). Bold claims are made that are not supported by facts. This article also states: “Medical tradition is in fact opposed to any intentional killing of patients, . . . even when the basic means of survival are neglected" (316). Such a bold claim needs to be validated, rather than simply stated. Instead of using…… middle of paper……lf, to decide whether or not to stop assisted nutrition and hydration. Contradictory, the article later states: “However, this is not always the case, even in mentally competent and severely disabled people” (319). The authors go from supporting their claim to opposing it. I think the authors did a terrible job in writing this article. His claims are rarely supported by evidence and only secondary sources are used when they are supported. Furthermore, Gigli and Valente are very biased and constantly use emotional and bold words. This makes the item invalid and unreliable. Most of the authors' statements concern personal opinions and their interpretations of facts. The article is mostly contradictory and the argument is extremely repetitive. While the article mostly stays on topic, most of its arguments are atrocious.