Discussing the proposed QALY approach for the assessment of pain and suffering damages and highlighting the advantages emanating from its potential utilization are important to realize the desirability of its implementation. However, the theoretical discussion is of little value if the suggested framework cannot be practically implemented. Concrete examples are therefore necessary to support the theoretical discussion and to prove that the proposed QALY framework can indeed be practically applied, bringing about an improvement in the assessment of pain and suffering damages for various personal injuries. In chapter 5, the example of deafness illustrated how QALY research can be used for the assessment of pain and suffering damages. Chapter 7 contributed four more examples to the analysis. More specifically, pain and suffering damages were assessed for four additional health conditions that inflict high immaterial losses, namely paralysis (paraplegia), lower leg amputation (above and below the knee), loss of sight in one eye (and loss of one eye) and contraction of HIV. Assessing pain and suffering damages for these five cases by implementing the proposed QALY approach clearly demonstrated that existing information from health economics could be practically utilized in the context of tort law after only minor processing and at relatively low cost.

Having demonstrated both in theory and in practice the competence of the proposed QALY framework to assess pain and suffering damages better than existing approaches in a number of ways, the analysis is concluded in the present chapter by revisiting the research questions posed in the introduction and summarizing the main results. Promising venues for future research relating to the results of this study are also suggested. Literature dealing with the impact of detrimental health states and personal injuries on health, physical integrity and the quality of life is highly relevant for the evaluation of the immaterial losses resulting from these injuries, even if it has been produced in the context of scientific fields other than law and the economic analysis of law. It is hence surprising that not many comprehensive proposals, and none suggesting the framework proposed in this book, have thus far been made that this literature should be taken into consideration in the assessment of pain and suffering damages.