The fact of the case involves a young man who suffered a severe traumatic brain injury after falling from a height, resulting in a persistent vegetative state (PVS) with irreversible brain damage. The injury occurred over 12 years ago, and since then, he has been entirely dependent on artificial life support, including a PEG tube for nutrition and hydration, a tracheostomy for breathing, and urinary catheterization. Despite receiving extensive medical care and multiple hospitalizations, his neurological condition has remained static, with no signs of awareness or response to stimuli, and he exhibits no meaningful interaction with his environment (!) (!) .

His medical condition is certified as irreversible and incurable, with both primary and secondary medical boards concluding that continued administration of life-sustaining treatment, specifically Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration (CANH), is no longer in his best interests and offers no therapeutic benefit (!) (!) . The family, who have been his primary caregivers, have expressed that they have done everything within their capacity over the years, and they believe that further medical intervention only prolongs his suffering and diminishes his dignity (!) (!) .

The family and medical experts agree that the patient’s condition is permanent, with no prospect of recovery or improvement, and that continued treatment is futile. They have collectively requested that the court permit the withdrawal of CANH, considering his irreversible state, the absence of any benefit, and the suffering caused by ongoing medical support. The family’s decision is based on long-standing care, medical opinions, and their assessment of the patient’s likely wishes if he were capable of expressing them (!) (!) .

The case has been brought before the court through a legal process initiated by the family, seeking judicial approval for the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment in accordance with established guidelines. Medical boards have examined his condition and concurred that withdrawal is appropriate and in his best interests. The court’s role is to evaluate whether the treatment qualifies as medical treatment and whether its withdrawal aligns with the patient’s best interests, taking into account medical, medical-ethical, and non-medical considerations, including dignity and the family’s wishes [p_114, p_115] (!) (!) (!) .

In summary, the core fact is that the patient has been in a permanently unresponsive, non-recoverable state for over a decade, dependent on artificial life support, with medical opinions confirming that continued treatment is futile and causes unnecessary suffering. The legal proceedings are focused on obtaining judicial approval to withdraw this treatment, respecting his dignity and autonomy, and ensuring that the decision is made in his best interests (!) (!) (!) (!) .