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 …show more content…
These terms include "competent", "unbearable suffering" and "terminal illness . Such a mechanism has been identified in the practice of abortion since its legalisation under the Abortion Act 1967. While the intention of the act was to permit abortion as an exceptional procedure in specific circumstances, at the last count as many as 180,000 abortions were carried out annually in the UK and are, according to Lord Walton, available "virtually . . . on demand"