As applied to the euthanasia debate, the slippery slope argument claims that the acceptance of certain practices, such as physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, will invariably lead to the acceptance or practice of concepts which are currently deemed unacceptable, such as non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia.
The great slippery-slope argument. J A Burgess. Whenever some form of beneficent killing--for example, voluntary euthanasia--is advocated, the proposal is greeted with a flood of slippery-slope arguments warning of the dangers of a Nazi-style slide into genocide. This paper is an attempt systematically to evaluate arguments of this kind.
Life or Death Euthanasia Arguments For and Against. 1307 words (5 pages) Essay in Medical Law. A strong ethical argument against the use of euthanasia is that it could soon become a slippery slope, with the legalisation of involuntary euthanasia following it.. such as the danger of it becoming a slippery slope. I believe that voluntary.
Slippery slope argument on the legalization of voluntary active euthanasia is also made by most of the opponents. They argue that once we have allowed voluntary euthanasia, in no time, non voluntary euthanasia will also be allowed and legalized. Hence doctors and sufferer’s family will start killing them without their consent.
In theory, a slippery slope argument rests on the assumption of an inability to distinguish between the initial acceptable step and the final objectionable practice (118). In the context of end-of-life decisions, the logical slippery slope seems to rely on our inability to distinguish between VAE and NVAE.
Living on a Slippery Slope. I have not argued that all slippery slope arguments are faulty, although many are. I have not claimed that slippery arguments never isolate morally relevant features of action, for many do. What I have argued is that given the way they function in moral debate, we should avoid them.