How did Gill (A moral defense of the Oregon Law) manage to appeal to a patient right to autonomy to justify PAS as practiced in Oregon, but not a more extreme policy like PAS for anyone who wants it? He concedes that it may not make sense to use Autonomy to justify destroying autonomy but argues that PAS does not typically do that when the person has only six months to live. The key to his argument was his point that autonomy isn't really primarily about the ability to make decisions, but important decisions about how one's life will go. He argues personal autonomy is a right, and not a value to be promoted. He argues that people should not be told whether their autonomy matters or not, if the person wishes to dispose of it by killing themselves, they are entitled to do so. He argues that only when one has lived a full life is one fully competent to make their own judgements about how their lives should go. Because most terminally ill patients have lived a full life, it makes sense that the law only gives the terminally ill access to PAS.