euthanasia
AGAINST
the unexpected cures argument
the unexpected cures argument
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.
1.
the “playing God” argument
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.
1.
the slippery slope argument
To 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
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.
1.
the slippery slope argument
If 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
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.
1.
the slippery slope argument
Robert and Traci Latimer
the slippery slope argument
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.
1.
the slippery slope argument
Active 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
 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