For me, you can't use 'give' if there was no action on the giver's behalf, but coerced action counts as action. Same with take -- you 'take' something only if you're capable of a 'take' action. So if you're in a coma, you can't 'take' anything offered to you (except in idiomatic phrases where action on the taker isn't expected, e.g. "to take abuse").

This is why I seriously believe that OP's image is controversial more do to a difference in our linguistic understanding of the word "give" than do to a differing understanding of the facts.

Edit: I think what may be happening here is the so-called "non-central" fallacy.