Abstract
Kious and Battin (K&B) argue that psychiatric PAD (PPAD) should be legal in the US, based on a ‘parity’ argument. This is the most popular approach to argue for PPAD. What K&B add is that since, in their view, the parity argument is valid, there is a dilemma because PPAD conflicts with the practice of involuntary commitment in psychiatry. In this editorial, we sketch out the structure of the argument from parity, pointing out its challenges and limits. This will show that the dilemma K&B pose is actually a general problem about PPAD, not a dilemma specific to PPAD and involuntary commitment.