FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 339:167-172 July 16, 1998 Number 3 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF Letters Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited PubMed Citation

In the Washington v. Glucksberg and Vacco v. Quill decisions rejecting a constitutional right to physician-assisted suicide, the Supreme Court allowed each state to decide whether to legalize the intervention.¹ In state legislatures rather than courtrooms, factual claims about the probable extent and implications of permitting physician-assisted suicide assume a preeminent role in the debate about legalization.² Particularly sensitive in these discussions will be the issue of the potential cost savings from legalizing physician-assisted suicide, and how the savings might influence decision making by health care institutions, physicians, families, and terminally ill patients.^3,4,5,6

Although we do not agree with each . . . [Full Text of this Article]

Speculating about Cost Savings from Physician-Assisted Suicide

Factors Determining Savings from Physician-Assisted Suicide

The Number of Patients Who Might Choose Physician-Assisted Suicide

Proportion of Life Shortened by Physician-Assisted Suicide

The Costs of Medical Care for Dying Patients

Estimated Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide

Overestimation and Underestimation of Cost Savings

Managed-Care Plans and Cost Savings from Physician-Assisted Suicide

Families and Cost Savings from Physician-Assisted Suicide

Why Are the Cost Savings from Physician-Assisted Suicide So Low?

Conclusions

Source Information

From the Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Control, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, and the Division of Medical Ethics, Harvard Medical School, Boston (E.J.E.); and the Department of Philosophy, University of Utah, and the Division of Medical Ethics, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City (M.P.B.).

Address reprint requests to Dr. Emanuel at the Center for Outcomes and Policy Research, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Control, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, 44 Binney St., Boston, MA 02115.

References

Related Letters:

Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide
Sage W. M., Jõe L., Emanuel E. J., Battin M. P.
Extract | Full Text  
N Engl J Med 1998; 339:1789-1790, Dec 10, 1998. Correspondence

This article has been cited by other articles:

• Maessen, M., Veldink, J. H., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B. D., de Vries, J. M., Wokke, J.H.J., van der Wal, G., van den Berg, L. H. (2009). Trends and determinants of end-of-life practices in ALS in the Netherlands. Neurology 73: 954-961 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Kagarise, M. J., Sheldon, G. F. (2000). Translational Ethics: A Perspective for the New Millennium. Arch Surg 135: 39-45 [Abstract] [Full Text]  
• Sage, W. M., Joe, L., Emanuel, E. J., Battin, M. P. (1998). Potential Cost Savings from Legalizing Physician-Assisted Suicide. NEJM 339: 1789-1790 [Full Text]  
• Baumrucker, S. J. (1998). An obvious call for better communication. AM J HOSP PALLIAT CARE 15: 235-254