Dying process is too often needlessly protracted by these medical technology is consequently marked by incapacitations, intolerable pain, and indignity.The article prominently features various quotes from Shields: “I think this is a mark of our humanity,” “What could be more meaningful than planning for the end of your life?” These are Shields’s own legitimate opinions, but I read them as being given a prescriptive force. Commitment to pluralism means recognizing a variety of good or legitimate ways to face death and dying.“Death with dignity” for the past 40 years has meant, for many people, avoiding unwanted medical technology and dying in a hospital.A “natural” death at home or in a hospice facility has been the goal.Physician-assisted death remains ethically controversial. Presenting the planned death of John Shields as a model for dying in our era uncritically places a premium on the choice and control of the sovereign individual.Letting death happen, with the aid of palliative care, is no less good than making it happen.Terminally ill patient commonly experience unremitted and intolerable pain despite optimal pain management .In these situations, physician assisted suicide is sometime applied, which is controversial legally and ethically issue .” The New Age rituals orchestrated at the “wake” and euthanasia by Penny Allport, a friend and “life cycle celebrant,” reflected Shields’s attitudes and values. But this was not just Shields’s own life and death celebration. It seems significant that the —an arbiter of culture—devoted an extraordinary amount of attention to a planned, physician-assisted death and the rituals associated with it.There is a human interest story here, but the article had scant discussion of the ethical and policy issues raised by Canada’s form of legalized medical assistance in dying.