law and one that, say, outlawed assisted suicide, is that there is no real difference of opinion about whether or not talking to patients about their options is appropriate. And there are existing professional standards that would clearly require such a discussion. (There might be professional standards that prohibit assisted suicide, but there is at least some disagreement about whether these should prohibit or do prohibit in all cases doctors from doing so). Owen and Dennis point to professional concerns about interference. I accept that it would be better for doctors to fulfil their professional and ethical obligations without the intervention of the law. I also share some of your concerns about other ideologically driven laws. However, perhaps where the profession fails to live up to its own standards it forfeits its right to complain and to insist on professional autonomy. I would have to respectfully disagree, there is quite probably just as much difference of opinion about what should and should not be discussed by the attending physician with his patients, and this is all the more exacerbated in the cases of the terminally ill. To get picky, of course, we'd have to distinguish between a difference of opinion on whether there should be discussions and the difference of opinion on what should be discussed. I would agree that there is virtually unanimous support for discussion, but different views abound for what should be included in the discussion, and this is really the heart of the matter. The way