euthanasia arguments against

the unexpected cures argument

1. Active euthanasia would only be right in those cases where we know that there is no hope of recovery. 2. There are no cases where we know that there is no hope of recovery 3. [So] There are no cases in which active euthanasia is right.

the “playing God” argument 1. Active euthanasia amounts to “playing God”, since it prevents one from dying at the appointed time. 2. It’s wrong to play God. 3. [So] Active euthanasia is wrong.

the slippery slope argument T o permit in a single instance the direct killing of an innocent person would be to admit a most dangerous wedge that might eventually put all life in a precarious condition. Once a man is permitted on his own authority to kill an innocent person directly, there is no way of stopping the advancement of that wedge. There exists no longer any rational grounds for saying that the wedge can advance so far and no further. Once the exception has been made it is too late… That is why euthanasia under any circumstances must be condemned. -Bishop Sullivan, “The Immorality of Euthansia”

the slippery slope argument I f voluntary euthanasia were legalized, there is good reason to believe that at a later date another bill for compulsory euthanasia would be legalized. Once the respect for human life is so low that an innocent person may be killed directly even at his own request, compulsory euthanasia will necessarily be very near. This could lead easily to killing incurable charity patients, the aged who are a public care, wounded soldiers, all deformed children, the mentally afflicted, and so on. Before long the danger would be at the door of every citizen. -Bishop Sullivan, “The Immorality of Euthanasia”

the slippery slope argument logical version 1. If we legalize voluntary euthanasia, we would be rationally required to legalize non- voluntary euthanasia for the aged, the physically disabled, and the mentally afflicted. 2. It would be wrong to legalize non-voluntary euthanasia for the aged, the physically disable, and the mentally afflicted. 3. [So] It would be wrong to legalize voluntary euthanasia.

the slippery slope argument psychological version 1. If we legalize voluntary euthanasia, we would be psychologically led to legalize non- voluntary euthanasia for the aged, the physically disabled, and the mentally afflicted. 2. It would be wrong to legalize non-voluntary euthanasia for the aged, the physically disable, and the mentally afflicted. 3. [So] It would be wrong to legalize voluntary euthanasia.

the slippery slope argument Robert and Traci Latimer

the slippery slope argument psychological version 1. If we legalize voluntary euthanasia, we would be psychologically led to legalize non- voluntary euthanasia for the aged, the physically disabled, and the mentally afflicted. 2. It would be wrong to legalize non-voluntary euthanasia for the aged, the physically disable, and the mentally afflicted. 3. [So] It would be wrong to legalize voluntary euthanasia.

the slippery slope argument the psychological version A ctive euthanasia has been permitted in Holland since 1973, and there does not appear to have been any great breakdown in respect for life there. Such evidence suggests that people are able to distinguish between various types of cases, and keep them separated fairly well. -James Rachels, Euthanasia p.62

the slippery slope argument the psychological version 406 physicians. 129,000 deaths. 2,700 cases of voluntary active euthanasia. 1,000 cases of non-voluntary active euthanasia. 100 cases of non-voluntary active euthanasia involving conscious, able-minded people. Less that 50% of euthanasia cases were reported as such. J.H. Groenewould, et.al., New England Journal of Medicine