The word “dignity” is an essential element of contemporary medical ethics, where it often follows the words “death with”. People unfamiliar with this usage might expect it to reflect the manner in which one dies, for example, a stately exit involving a ceremonial farewell. Instead, conventional usage generally holds that “death with dignity” ends or prevents life without dignity, that is, life marked by illness and disability. Popular examples of violations of dignity include dementia, incontinence, and “machine addiction.” In Sir Thomas Malory's Le Morte DíArthur, published in 1485, Blamor, defeated in battle, asks his adversary, Tristram, to kill him, saying: "I felt like [would] die here with adoration [honor] rather than live here with shame. » Guenever says to Meliagaunt, who kidnaps him, "I would have cut my throat in two rather than you dishonor me!" My students often find it barbaric to prefer death to the shame of defeat in combat. They find it hopelessly sexist to assume that death is preferable to the “dishonor” of being raped, or even to assume that rape dishonors the victim (as opposed to the attacker). Will future generations view the principle “I would rather die than live with the degradation and indignity of incontinence and dependence” as barbaric? Will they consider that it is hopelessly “capable” (to use a current unsightly neologism that would make Malory turn in his grave) to assume that the use of a respirator violates human dignity? Should future generations feel this way? Whether this is the case is obviously a speculative empirical question for which the evidence is inaccessible. But some of my current research addresses the philosophical question of whether they should. This question is important for both theory...... middle of paper ...... high-tech means of survival. However, since the "philosophy of palliative care" explicitly excludes it, its claim to provide the most effective route to a dignified death shows bias against the sick and disabled by denigrating the dignity of those who live gracefully. to such support. To return to the question With regard to physician-assisted suicide, dignity is obviously not the only consideration put forward by supporters of the legalization of physician-assisted suicide only for the terminally ill, or only for the terminally ill. terminal and the seriously and permanently disabled. I'm running out of space to discuss the other considerations here. I have argued that physician-assisted suicide should either remain illegal for everyone or, as a true realization of the rhetoric of privacy and autonomy, be legalized for all competent adults, including the young and healthy – the very people our society values ​​most..