I doubt either one will be "aggressively medicated."  What will happen is
what we just watched happen to Terri Schiavo.  The unknown patient will die
quietly with no one but family noticing while the pro-life wingnuts and
clueless politicians protest and posture and delay the celebrity's death.

I, for one, would much rather be the unknown patient.

I began reading your post very interested.  However, the "punchline" is not
what I was looking for, or - in my opinion - exactly relevant to the
question I thought you were posing.  For me, what I was looking for is this:
"A hypothetical case:
Suppose there were two identical patients with profound brain damage,
and very little hope of recovery; nutrition is maintained via feeding
tube. Suppose the guardians of both opt to remove the FT, and let nature
take its course.
Suppose one patient is an international cause celebre, with the media
second guessing every minute detail of the case."  
The questions I would have liked to see are:  Will the famous patient have
conspiracy theories surrounding their demise?  Will the famous patient be
accorded more mental faculties than are actually present or at least more
than the obscure patient?  

The end-all-be-all is that the obscure patient is, was and will be first
and foremost - obscure.  The "Joe Schmo" of the situations.  Whether you
are famous or not and your death is "hastened" is not really at issue.  The
issue has been starvation and dehydration in a person that either can or
CANNOT perceive the fundamental feelings involved in
starvation/dehydration.  The other issue is whether or not these people can
or cannot feel these things, but whether it is an acceptable death.