Many critical health care decisions appeal to either the sanctity of life or the quality of life and assume that these two concepts are incompatible. However, if we look closely at the various ways in which 'sanctity of life' and 'quality of life' have been understood we should see that there is nothing intrinsically wrong with a sanctity-of-life position that takes cognizance of the quality of the life in question. To some extent the 'incompatibility thesis' thrives on the fear that judgments of a patient's quality of life easily could become weapons for discriminating against the weak and the helpless. But such a fear can be neutralized if qualitative assessment always is undertaken from the patient's own perspective, taking into account his peculiar desires, interests, perceptions and values rather than those of an idealized 'normal' individual. It would be wrong, for instance, to assess a handicapped patient's quality of life, as well as his prospects for the future, in terms of a perfectly normal individual's capabilities, expectations and aspirations.