A common criticism of high technology is that therapeutic objectives are sometimes secured at too high a price in loss of quality of life. Certainly some interventions serve only to prolong life that is already of unacceptable quality to the patient (some rescues in intensive care and salvage surgery for cancer). Others leave the patient with less good quality of life than he enjoyed before treatment, either because the crisis that called for rescue had lasting effects (incomplete recovery from severe head injury) or because the intervention itself had inevitable adverse effects (mastectomy, laryngectomy, colostomy). Yet some life-extending technologies can improve dramatically the quality of a patient's life (renal and heart transplantation), while others are directed primarily at improving quality of life (hip replacement and coronary bypass surgery). When the ultimate result of technological intervention is improved quality of life or a reasonable extension of life of quality, then some temporary impairment of life's quality may be justifiable. The problem is to discover in which clinical circumstances the benefits expected from high technology are both great enough, and are also likely enough to be realized, to justify the resources that have to be expended by society and the inevitable burdens that have to be borne by the patient (11).