The slippery slope argument has been the mainstay of many of those opposed to the legalisation of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia. In this paper I re-examine the slippery slope in the light of two recent studies that examined the prevalence of medical decisions concerning the end of life in the Netherlands and in Australia. I argue that these two studies have robbed the slippery slope of the source of its power--its intuitive obviousness. Finally I propose that, contrary to the warnings of the slippery slope, the available evidence suggests that the legalisation of physician-assisted suicide might actually decrease the prevalence of non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia.
Statistics from Altmetric.com
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Other content recommended for you
- French hospital nurses’ opinion about euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: a national phone survey
- Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy. An Argument Against Legislation
- The case for physician assisted suicide: how can it possibly be proven?
- When slippery slope arguments miss the mark: a lesson from one against physician-assisted death
- Legal physician-assisted dying in Oregon and the Netherlands: evidence concerning the impact on patients in “vulnerable” groups
- A case for justified non-voluntary active euthanasia: exploring the ethics of the Groningen Protocol
- Australian pharmacists’ perspectives on physician-assisted suicide (PAS): thematic analysis of semistructured interviews
- Physician assisted suicide, euthanasia, or withdrawal of treatment
- How is COVID-19 changing the ways doctors make end-of-life decisions?
- The debate about physician assistance in dying: 40 years of unrivalled progress in medical ethics?