Which statement is listed as an argument in favor of continuing tube feedings for a patient in a persistent vegetative state?

• A. High cost
• B. No quality of life
• C. No right to play God; Cure might be found to allow for recovery
• D. There is no ethical concern

Answer: (C)

The main idea here is that some beliefs about medical care in unknown futures support continuing life-sustaining treatment. The statement about not having a right to play God and acknowledging that a cure or recovery might be found captures that hopeful, open-to-possibility stance. It argues that since prognosis can be uncertain and future medical advances might help, there is justification for continuing feeding to preserve life and avoid making a premature judgment about whether the patient should be sustained or withdraw support.

In contrast, the other options rely on practical or value judgments that often lead to stopping treatment: high costs highlight resource concerns, the claim of no quality of life asserts that continuing care would be futile, and saying there’s no ethical concern ignores the real ethical debates about consent, autonomy, and the care of someone in a vulnerable state.