Four years following the Terri Schiavo affair, and almost twenty since the issue of tube feeding first came to the national scene in the case of Nancy Cruzan, the debate over withdrawing this manner of care from patients with severe cognitive impairment continues. One question that frequently arises in the discussion over the ethics of tube feeding involves the matter of categorization—is tube feeding basic or medical care? At its most fundamental level, this question requires an empirical judgment that is distinct from, though not irrelevant to, the ethical question of when, if at all, is it permissible to forego or withdraw tube feeding? In this paper, the nature of tube feeding is considered in light of the evidence that has accumulated in the published literature since the procedure was first reported in 1951.That evidence reveals tube feeding to bear several hallmarks of medical therapy, including its being directed at the sick and not the healthy, the application of medical knowledge and skills, the surgical implantation of a foreign body intended to counter the effects of debilitating disease, and the exposure of the recipient to significant risk of complications directly related to the intervention. Empirical arguments for viewing tube feeding as basic care, which generally focus on the nature of the infusate or the personnel required to administer it, are also addressed.