McMillan reported a neuropsychological assessment procedure which was used to determine whether or not there was evidence for sentience in a young woman who had been rendered tetraplegic and anarthric as a result of a road traffic accident. An application to court had been made to withdraw feeding and this was supported by medical evidence which gave the view that the individual was functioning little beyond vegetative state, had a poor quality of life and had little prospect of further recovery. Evidence for an ability to communicate reliably was found including for a wish to continue living, and as a consequence the application to court was withdrawn. This paper describes further recovery 2-4 years after the original assessment (i.e. 4-6 years post-injury). At follow-up, she remained dependent for all care, but was now feeding orally and was talking. She could learn new information, some of which she retained for at least 12 months and had greater insight into her condition. She now reported low mood and some pain. As before, she consistently reported a wish to live. The implications of the follow-up are discussed in the context of assumptions made about quality of life and decision making about euthanasia in brain injured people who are severely disabled, but are not in a vegetative state.