The 'slippery slope' argument against assisted dying

The "slippery slope" argument against assisted dying posits that legalizing assisted dying could lead to unintended and potentially harmful consequences. Here are some key points to consider: Broadening Eligibility: Initially, assisted dying might be limited to those with terminal illnesses. Over time, however, criteria could expand to include individuals with chronic illnesses, disabilities, or mental health conditions. This broadening could lead to vulnerable populations feeling pressured to choose assisted dying. Erosion of Trust: The trust between patients and healthcare providers could be eroded. Patients might fear that doctors will recommend assisted dying as a viable option when other treatments are available. This could undermine the fundamental role of healthcare providers to heal and care. Societal Pressure: Legalizing assisted dying might create societal pressure on the elderly, disabled, or chronically ill individuals to end their lives to avoid being a burden on their families or the healthcare system. This pressure could distort the voluntary nature of the decision. Moral and Ethical Concerns: The ethical landscape of medicine is built on the principle of "do no harm." Introducing assisted dying challenges this principle and could lead to ethical dilemmas where the value of life becomes subjective, based on quality of life judgments. Safeguard Erosion: While initial laws might have strict safeguards, there is a risk that these could be eroded over time, making it easier for misuse or abuse to occur. This erosion could lead to cases where individuals are assisted in dying without thorough consideration of all other options and supports. These points illustrate how the slippery slope argument reflects concerns about the long-term societal, ethical, and medical implications of legalizing assisted dying.