OPPapers.com

Slippery Slopes

What is a slippery slope argument?   Critically discuss the use of such arguments in one area of biomedical ethical controversy.

The slippery slope argument is amongst the strongest voiced and possibly the most emotive of arguments in opposition to legalising voluntary active euthanasia (VAE, the act of accelerating the death of another, usually by lethal injection, for their own good and with their consent).   In fact, in discussion on practically any change in social policy it is common place to hear objections to the effect, "if this, then that, and finally that" .   But how valid is this form of argument?   To answer this question, I will examine the nature of the slippery slope argument in its two major forms (empirical and logical), see how it has been applied to the debate on permitting voluntary active euthanasia and determine the validity of these applications.

It is not easy to apply a strict definition to the term slippery slope argument as it is used so loosely .   The image it conjures is that of speeding hastily out of control in a direction few would want to venture without a means of stopping.   A paradigmatic form of the argument is suggested by Hartough :
I propose and you oppose that action A (let us say, voluntary active euthanasia) which
• is currently prohibited (this is not necessarily so, but is usually the case), yet
• is not deemed to be objectionable in itself by either you or myself and
• may be referred to as the top of the slippery slope
should, in fact, be permitted.   Your objection arises because you believe that in allowing actions of type A, a causal mechanism exists (very much like a chain reaction) which will lead us to accept action N (e.g. the killing of incompetent patients who explicitly refuse euthanasia) which
• is clearly unacceptable to us both and
• lies at the bottom of the slope
The nature of the links (for example, killing people who are "not terminally ill or suffering [and then] those who cannot decide for...