Editing Vegetative state (section)

===Ethics and policy===
An ongoing debate exists as to how much care, if any, patients in a persistent vegetative state should receive in health systems plagued by limited resources.  In a case before the New Jersey Superior Court, ''[[Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital]]'', a community hospital sought a ruling that dialysis and CPR for such a patient constitutes futile care.  An American bioethicist, [[Jacob M. Appel]], argued that any money spent treating PVS patients would be better spent on other patients with a higher likelihood of recovery.<ref>{{cite web | date = 23 June 2010 | vauthors = Pope TM | work = Medical Futility Blog | url = http://medicalfutility.blogspot.com/2010/06/appel-on-betancourt.html | title = Appel on Betancourt v. Trinitas Hospital }}</ref>
The patient died naturally prior to a decision in the case, resulting in the court finding the issue [[mootness|moot]].

In 2010, British and Belgian researchers reported in an article in the ''[[New England Journal of Medicine]]'' that some patients in persistent vegetative states actually had enough consciousness to "answer" yes or no questions on [[fMRI]] scans.<ref name="alleynebeckford" /> However, it is unclear whether the fact that portions of the patients' brains light up on [[fMRI]] will help these patient assume their own medical decision making.<ref name="alleynebeckford"/> Professor Geraint Rees, Director of the Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience at University College London, responded to the study by observing that, "As a clinician, it would be important to satisfy oneself that the individual that you are communicating with is competent to make those decisions. At the moment it is premature to conclude that the individual able to answer 5 out of 6 yes/no questions is fully conscious like you or I."<ref name="alleynebeckford"/> In contrast, [[Jacob M. Appel]] of the [[Mount Sinai Hospital, New York|Mount Sinai Hospital]] told the ''Telegraph'' that this development could be a welcome step toward clarifying the wishes of such patients. Appel stated: "I see no reason why, if we are truly convinced such patients are communicating, society should not honour their wishes. In fact, as a physician, I think a compelling case can be made that doctors have an ethical obligation to assist such patients by removing treatment. I suspect that, if such individuals are indeed trapped in their bodies, they may be living in great torment and will request to have their care terminated or even active euthanasia."<ref name="alleynebeckford"/>