This article explores the issue of asymmetry in the caring relationship towards vulnerable people. It assumes that if protection and welfare policies can reduce inequalities by assessing and addressing needs of individuals defined as "generic", it is not the same when the issue is not only equality but also the singularity of "what matters" to the embodied person. In this case, the arbitrary nature of acts or decisions in the relationship seems irreducible on at least two levels: firstly, the deficit in rationality when neither career nor the person being cared for can successfully identify exactly "what matters"; secondly, the instability of feelings involved in care which remains largely aleatory. From a case study, we examine how the power of contestability can make the arbitrary nature of care acceptable.
