We construct a stochastic model of illness, death and treatment choice to a
nalyze two proposals - legally-binding advance directives and insurer-paid
compensation schemes - to reduce the incidence of aggressive and possibly f
utile end-of-life treatment. We assess whether, in a competitive insurance
market, the proposals are consistent with (i) individual rationality in sel
ection of competitive insurance contracts; (ii) medically ethical treatment
provision, and (iii) reductions in end-of-life expenditures. We conclude t
hat binding advance directives are always medically unethical, while compen
sation schemes are medically ethical. We derive the compensation schedule a
rising in a competitive equilibrium, and show that it reduces aggressive tr
eatment and satisfies individual rationality. (C) 2000 Elsevier Science S.A
. All rights reserved.