The following two articles by Barbara Coombs Lee and David Grube (page 39) and Burke Balch (page 42), which present supporting and opposing views of aid in dying, call for a brief introduction. The discussion around aid in dying is difficult: it evokes an extremely complex set of medical, emotional, and spiritual issues. While the articles cannot address all of these concerns, we hope readers will gain a better understanding of and perspective about differing sides of the issue. The first article presents aid in dying as the ultimate expression of personal choice, values, and freedom, while the second argues that it may become a source of coercion by society or a care delivery system designed to conserve resources and capital. In recent years, partially through the spread of stories such as that of 29-year-old Brittany Maynard, Americans are more aware of the growing array of options that may be available to them as they approach death. Consumer polling demonstrates that almost 75 percent of Ameri- can adults believe individuals with serious ill- ness should be allowed to terminate their lives (The Harris Poll, 2014). Moreover, as of December 2016, six states, including Colorado, California, Vermont, Montana, Washington, and Oregon have le- galized aid in dying for those who are seri- ously ill (Furr, 2016); Washington, D.C., may soon be added to that list (Orentlicher, 2016). According to research on current policies, there are three key stipulations designed to serve as safeguards to the individual: he or she must be certified to have only six months left to live, must be a mentally competent adult, and must administer the lethal prescription themselves (Orentlicher, 2016). As the discussion around aid in dying grows, other questions arise. What is the role of provid- ers in taking a stance or administering lethal med- ication