Perhaps it's dated, or perhaps the argument is more nuanced. The author is working hard to persuade and that earnestness distorts his premise. I think Dr. Wanzer does not take seriously the threat of abuse, for example. "There's never been a case of it!" I did appreciate the clarification that just because a treatment has been started does not mean it can't be stopped. The discussion of the care of those suffering from dementia could have been expanded and the entire argument would have benefited. ( )

About the authors: quoting from p. 209 of the book, "Sidney Wanzer, MD, a nationally recognized author on issues of death and dying, is the former director of the Harvard Law School Health Services and an internist in private practice. He was the lead author of the groundbreaking article in the 'New England Journal of Medicine which for the first time held that, in certain situations, it could be ethical for a physician to assist in hastening the death of patients suffering intolerably. . .Joseph Glenmullen, MD, Clinical Instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, is on the staff of Harvard University Health Services and in private practice in Cambridge, Massachusetts. His works include the widely praised 'Prozac Backlash' and' The Antidepressant Solution.'" About the book: quoting from the book's back cover, the reviewer for 'Choice' said of this work, "Anyone planning for end-of-life care will benefit from this book. Pearls of wisdom include discussion of the right to stop unwanted treatment. . .the need for hospice care to be started much earlier. . .and the proper dose of an analgesic being the amount necessary to relieve the suffering patients' pain." Appendices include current national and international end-of-life organizations, sample living wills, and Health Care Proxy. This book contains chapter notes and is well indexed.