Conversely, Will does not have the legal right to demand treatment or intervention which would hasten his death. Therefore, were Will placed on life support, and it was known that
his desire was not to have such support given to him, then this could be
withdrawn. There is a catch-22 situation in the Supreme Court has found
that while laws which prohibit physician assisted suicide are not
considered unconstitutional, laws permitting physician assisted suicide are
not unconstitutional. The withdrawal of intervention on Will's part is
based on the assumption that Will's request for the removal of intervention
is a rational one, in light of his illness, his pain and his desire to
avoid becoming a burden to his family and experience a death like his
mother had. For a physician to administer pain medication and hold
intervention, this simply represents...

By supporting Will's wishes to remove intrusive medical treatment, there is
support for social factors which Will made clear early on in his illness.
The decision does not lie with his wife alone, although she has the power
of attorney; she can go by Will's wishes as they were made known before he
was rendered incapable of speech. Will has been able to maintain an open
dialogue with his family and his physicians, and it is likely that he was
relatively rational in his ability to communicate his final wishes with his
physician. The physician will need to be sure that he has assessed Will
for vulnerability to thoughts of suicide or other issues which would be
amenable to palliative care. It appears that this is not the case for
Will.