Editing Vegetative state (section)

=== Lack of legal clarity ===
Unlike [[brain death]], permanent vegetative state (PVS) is recognized by ''[[statute law]]'' as [[death]] in only a very few legal systems. In the US, courts have required petitions before termination of life support that demonstrate that any recovery of cognitive functions above a vegetative state is assessed as impossible by authoritative medical opinion.<ref>{{cite journal |vauthors = Jennett B |title = Should cases of permanent vegetative state still go to court?. Britain should follow other countries and keep the courts for cases of dispute |journal = BMJ |volume = 319 |issue = 7213 |pages = 796–97 |date = September 1999 |pmid = 10496803 |pmc = 1116645 |doi = 10.1136/bmj.319.7213.796 }}</ref> In England, Wales and Scotland, the legal precedent for withdrawal of clinically assisted nutrition and hydration in cases of patients in a PVS was set in 1993 in the case of [[Tony Bland]], who sustained catastrophic anoxic brain injury in the [[Hillsborough disaster|1989 Hillsborough disaster]].<ref name="rcplondon.ac.uk"/> An application to the Court of Protection is no longer required before nutrition and hydration can be withdrawn or withheld from PVS (or "minimally conscious", MCS) patients.<ref>Royal College of Physicians 2013 [https://www.rcplondon.ac.uk/resources/prolonged-disorders-consciousness-national-clinical-guidelines Prolonged Disorders of Consciousness: National Clinical Guidelines]</ref>

This legal [[wikt:grey area|grey area]] has led to vocal advocates that those in PVS should be [[Euthanasia|allowed to die]]. Others are equally determined that, if recovery is at all possible, care should continue. The existence of a small number of diagnosed PVS cases that have eventually resulted in improvement makes defining recovery as "impossible" particularly difficult in a legal sense.<ref name="Cranford_2004">{{cite journal |vauthors = Cranford R |title = Diagnosing the permanent vegetative state |journal = The Virtual Mentor |volume = 6 |issue = 8 |pages = |date = August 2004 |pmid = 23260786 |doi = 10.1001/virtualmentor.2004.6.8.cprl1-0408 |doi-access = free }}</ref> This legal and ethical issue raises questions about autonomy, quality of life, appropriate use of resources, the wishes of family members, and professional responsibilities.