Within five years, neuroligists decided that there was no chance for recovery, and her brain was permanently damaged. Her parents then decided that they wanted to remove the feeding tube from thier daughter's mouth to let her die in peace. But the hospital needed a courts approval to take such a drastic measure, so they were forced to go to court. It was a moraly difficult court case because it had to decide whether there is a difference between active means of keeping someone alive(a respriator) and passive means(use of feeding tubes), and whether it would be wrong to kill someone by taking out their feeding tube. The removal of a feeding tube would take 3-30 days for the patient to die and the debate of whether this practice violated the hypocratic oath of causing no harm.
Agata Bednarz wrote an article pertaining to this exact situation in which he described four rules that he thought must be followed and examined in each unique case in order to make a moral and legal choice. First, there must be no chance of recvoery. Second, the preferences of the patient must be unknown. Third, the quality of the patients life falls below the minimum standards. Finally, both family members and hospital staff must be in agreement. The biggest controversy in this case was that the doctors were not in agreement; there must be a doctor who would be willing to pull the feeding tube. Finally, the Supreme Court ruled that this was a legal action and Nancy's feeding tube was pulled and she died.