The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court's decision in Rogers v.
Commissioner is generally regarded as an important right to refuse
treatment decision requiring maximum judicial involvement in the treatment
of nonconsenting patients. Since courts and legislators in other
jurisdictions have looked to Rogers for guidance on right to refuse
treatment issues, and since some have adopted it as a model, it is
essential for lawmakers to understand the economic realities of the
Massachusetts experience and the commitment of resources required by this
model. The authors review these realities, suggesting that there are
distinct reasons for considering this particular model "cost ineffective"
in preserving patients' rights.