The legalisation of active, voluntary euthanasia : a critical analysis of the slippery slope argument

Abstract

Euthanasia is a highly divisive and controversial topic which has been the subject of debates for many years. The implications of the procedure have come under scrutiny from professors and scholars in various fields, while others argue that euthanasia should be legalised in one form or another. This dissertation focuses on Voluntary, Active Euthanasia (VAE). Although VAE has been legalised in certain countries, including Belgium and the Netherlands, it is yet to be implemented in most jurisdictions and is subject to strong opinions by scholars who have experience in the medical field. One argument which opposes the legalisation of VAE is the empirical slippery slope argument, which entails that the legalisation of VAE would inevitably lead to the acceptance and normalisation of other forms of euthanasia, such as Non-Voluntary, Active Euthanasia (NVAE). The main question to be addressed through this research is whether the empirical slippery slope argument should contribute to the legalisation of VAE debate. This question is addressed through a thorough analysis of the debate between John Keown and Emily Jackson on this issue. Their work is substantiated by other scholars, court judgements and statistical data, some of which could further prove that although the empirical slippery slope argument is not entirely without merit, it should not stand in the way of the legalisation of VAE in certain cases.