The focus of this article is elective death, or the right to choose to die. The author asks the question: “What are the rational guidelines for human initiatives in the death & dying of patients,” specifically in relation to the courts. He argues that the courts accept both suicide & assisted suicide by indirect means, but not direct, & that the difference is morally vacuous. Because applelate decisions upholding euthanasia use semantic evasions of the philosophical issues, the author argues, dialogue on “active” euthanasia in a conceptually critical forum is long past due.