This article analyzes 3 theological/philosophical (Hobbesian, Millian, Christian) found in judicial opinions as to whether a given case of refusing treatment violates existing laws against assisted suicide. The author found: 1) that these perspectives generally concur in supporting a right to refuse medical treatment & in denying a right to physician-assisted suicide; 2) that maintaining this consensus provides the protection requisite for individual & communal life; & 3) that a ‘streamlined’ version of Mill would, if it became the law of the land, divisively destroy the existing, longstanding consensus in common law & previous court decisions.