{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02170767004341534, 'fraction_numerical': 0.002894356005788712, 'mean_word_length': 5.2342342342342345, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The vegetative and minimally conscious states: ethical implications.

Modern medical technology has created new syndromes of severe and permanent brain damage. In the first 25 years of the right-to-die debate, the permanent vegetative state has been the paradigmatic neurologic syndrome for decisions to discontinue treatment. In the near future, however, a far more problematic syndrome may be even more important in the right-to-die debate, the minimally conscious state. This paper presents a few of the medical and ethical similarities and differences between the permanent vegetative and minimally conscious states and discusses how value-laden these decisions may become in the future.