Dr Van Mol misunderstands the reference to the consensus statement regarding deactivation of cardiovascular implantable electronic devices in my recent article in CHEST.1 The statement is cited not to suggest device deactivation is aid in dying, but as an example of how medical practice in an evolving arena benefits when such a statement or clinical practice guidelines are promulgated, offering guidance on an emerging practice. It is timely for guidelines to emerge regarding the practice of aid in dying, which has been openly available for 15 years in Oregon and more recently in Washington, Montana, and Hawaii. It is likely to become more widely available nationwide as the consensus grows that the option harms no one, galvanizes improved communication and care for all terminally ill patients, and offers a peaceful death to the relatively few patients who choose it. The consensus is based on evidence. Health professionals who embrace evidence-based medicine, including the American Public Health Association, have carefully examined evidence from Oregon and have concluded that the availability of aid in dying poses no danger and offers a desired choice for some patients; accordingly, the association adopted policy supportive of aid in dying.2 Other national medical organizations have also done so.3 Physicians willing to provide this compassionate option to patients experiencing a dying process they find unbearable, despite excellent pain and symptom management, will welcome guidelines that offer advice on handling requests for aid in dying and setting forth best practices. Physicians who opt not to provide it cannot be compelled to do so, although it would be appropriate to refer a patient to a willing colleague, as is the case with device deactivation.