Where Should Society Draw the Line on Moral Choices?

In this opinion article in the Wall Street Journal, Senator Rob Ortt raised concerns regarding New York’s consideration of assisted suicide legislation, describing it as “the government granting medical professionals the power to sanction death.”

While there are compelling arguments on both sides of this deeply personal issue, my purpose is to take a broader step back and ask: Where are we, as a society, heading on moral choices?

Consider organ transplants. We currently prohibit individuals from selling their organs, despite overwhelming demand and life-saving potential. A commercial market for organs could increase supply and offer financial help to willing donors. Yet, society has drawn a firm moral line: human organs are not for sale.

A similar debate surrounds prostitution. Supporters argue for bodily autonomy and economic freedom. Still, most of society continues to view the commodification of sex as morally corrosive and socially harmful.

In contrast, we’ve shifted our position on other moral boundaries. Gambling, once widely considered a vice, is now normalized—especially in sports. And compensation for student-athletes, once taboo, is now accepted at the college level and even in high schools in at least 10 states.

We see a pattern: the line is moving—steadily and unmistakably—toward expanding individual freedom and away from collective moral judgment. Assisted suicide, now legal in 10 states and the District of Columbia, is one more step along this trajectory. Proponents argue for personal autonomy in the face of suffering, but we must also ask: Are these shifts truly serving the common good?

Personally, I do not believe society is better off for having legalized gambling, prostitution, or commercial organ sales. Nor do I believe we benefit from the commercialization of amateur sports. And I am not convinced that assisted suicide—especially in a system that still underfunds palliative care and hospice—is the right path forward.

As Senator Ortt suggests, improving access to high-quality end-of-life care could address much of the suffering that leads individuals to seek assisted death. Rather than continuing to move the line, perhaps we should pause and reflect more deeply on the long-term moral and social consequences of where it is being drawn.