Assisted suicide and the corruption of lawyers

The NewBostonPost recently ran a fine editorial by John Peteet, a medical doctor who expressed concern about the proposal to legalize assisted suicide in the commonwealth. His concern is warranted. Substantial evidence has now accumulated to show that legalizing assisted suicide corrupts the medical profession (see, for example, this, this, and this). This is all quite predictable given what we know from moral philosophy about the nature of human choice and action. As I have explained elsewhere:
It is the choosing of death, acting with a purpose that death will result, that is morally problematic. Death is not something to be chosen, least of all by doctors. A physician who adopts the death of her patient as the purpose for her action has become a different kind of physician. Indeed, she has become a different kind of person. She has become a person who chooses death over life.
A person who purposely chooses to cause death, who makes death a reason for his actions, is not oriented toward the good. This is because choosing has a creative, self-making significance. To adopt by free choice a reason for one's action is to make that reason part of one's projects and commitments. By choosing life, one becomes a person oriented toward life. By choosing death, one becomes a person oriented toward death.