In mid-2013, a small city in southwestern Argentina lost its provincial quietness after two sisters required withdrawing hydration and nutrition from their 49-year-old brother who had been living in vegetative state for decades. The sisters alleged their brother would not have wanted living so; however, they possessed no written proofs, but only a testimony of a conversation the siblings would have had when they were teenagers. In contrast, the employees of the nursing home, who actually were caring for the brother, rejected the sisters' request arguing that the brother was still alive, and withdrawal of water and food will directly provoke his death. Because of disagreement between the relatives and caregivers, the case was brought to the Court what caught the attention of the media that soon turned this intimate story into a national sensation, and split the locals into adversaries. Ethics committees, specialists, and religious authorities were asked for opinions. On request of some local people interested in understanding the case, the Institute of Bioethics at Catholic University of Argentina released a document that has served as a reference for the current case report. By analyzing the facts from medical, anthropological and ethical perspectives, the following case report focuses on aspects such as difficulties in making consciousnesscentered diagnosis and conceiving new states of life with different neurological status; association of functional impairment and worthiness of a personal life; robustness of advance directives made without knowing circumstances; ethical standard and human nature, among others. until the father also died. Thus, the sisters became legal guardians, as they were the only remained relatives. The sisters asserted that the will of their brother would be not to live in that way, but they had no written evidence except a testimony of one sister where a 14-year-old D.A.M., talking about Karen Ann Quinlan story, would have told her: "if something like that happens to me, let me die". The sisters went to the district Justice after the caregivers refused to obey the request for withdrawing hydration and nutrition. The Court ruled in favor of the relatives; yet, the Defender of Disabled People appealed the decision. Actually, the last diagnostic update had been done five years earlier, in 2009, and it was necessary rechecking it. By words of the caregivers D.A.M. was able to scratch, obey an order by squeezing his hand, smile to music he liked listen to, express fatigue on his face, and being sensitive to affections. The health workers perceived that it was non-reflexive behavior, what strengthened the idea it was intentional responsiveness to some tasks.
KeywordsAs the case went forward within the justice, the newspapers were revealing private information, and the public opinion was taking a position. The legal battle, the media, and the relatives and caregivers claiming to accomplish what they considered right, converted very sensitive information-once kept under an intimate pers...
