It shows you two ordinary people who want to control their dying as a part of their living, and they want physician-assisted suicide. They both love life and are clear-headed, that is, they aren’t deranged life-haters and they are competent to make the decision. They don’t need or want other people to do their thinking for them.

            Physician-assisted suicide is illegal in LA, legal in OR.

            The man with ALS is concerned that he will have to take his life before he wants to since if he waits too long he won’t able to do it.

            The male (Catholic) oncologist in OR says he would be willing to give sedatives to east pain even if he knew this would lead to the patient’s death (this is acceptable in traditional Catholic teaching) but not give a drug that would kill the patient (traditional Catholic teaching calls this “euthanasia”). The female oncologist thinks in this sort of case there is not much moral difference: she’s willing to provide the deadly barbiturate mixture that will end the patient’s life.

            The moral question is: are these practices morally acceptable?

            The political/legal question is: should the government acknowledge the citizens’ right to make their own decisions here?