Question

What does J.Gay Williams mean when he says "euthanasia as a policy is a slippery slope." Does Williams make a strong argument? Why or why not? Read the article "A Right to Euthanasia?" in the additional readings folder. In this article, the canadian Justice Lynn Smith concluded that the risks of decriminalization of assisted suicide "can be very largely avoided through carefully- designed, well-monitored safeguards." Why does the author John Keown disagree? How does he argue that both logicial and practical slippery slopes are unavoidable? 0 replies Replies needed! Jump in and join the conversation. Add Reply

Answer 1

J.Gay Williams rejected the euthanasia, the physician-assisted suicide. He thinks that everybody desires to survive. It is a natural desire. But the euthanasia violates the right of life. He strongly opposes the acts of euthanasia and says that by this one is forcibly pushed to death. It violates human right as well as the dignity of an individual. By the term ‘slippery slope’ he means that the doctors, instead of helping a person to survive, arrange for death. He says that the acts in support of euthanasia are morally wrong. He says that when one life is taken it is obvious that his treatment is not possible. So euthanasia means taking life of a hopeless person and the life is taken intentionally. It is the right of every person to die naturally not for the failure of treatment.    

Justice Lynn Smith strongly opposed the system of the physician-assisted death. She thinks that it is a criminal offence both to the doctors and to the relatives of the concerned patient. The justice suggests that there are many Canadians who travel to Switzerland for physician-assisted suicide as in Canada it is banned.

There are many plaintiffs who advocate the utility and urgency of the doctor-assisted suicide. They think that the individual should have the right to live and choice. It is his decision what he would do with his life. The state should not interfere the personal freedom of an individual. To these points The Advocate General of Canada says that the right to life does not include the right to death. Justice Smith felt the need of complete ban on the system of physician-assisted suicide. She believes that the decriminalization of the physician-assisted suicide may induce others to suicide. There are many helpless persons and they can take the path of suicide. She also argues that the risk of decriminalization may be partly avoided if there is definite and well organised plan of the Government.

John Keown does not fully agree with Justice Smith and says that ‘slippery slope’ is unavoidable in the acts of euthanasia. He mainly stresses the misuse of the law and says that it can never be controlled. The patient who does not have least consciousness can not give consent of physician-assisted suicide.

Keown says in favour of voluntary assisted euthanasia that concerns patient’s consent. It is ethically right if there is deep consideration of patient’s request. But he also says that the practice of voluntary assisted euthanasia may lead to the practice of non-voluntary assisted euthanasia. Supporting the ‘slippery slope’ argument he says that voluntary assisted euthanasia and non-voluntary assisted euthanasia are logically related to each other. He says that the decriminalization of suicide and the right to suicide are not the same idea. When the treatment is burdensome the patient may request the doctor for euthanasia. But it is morally unjustified. In case of voluntary assisted euthanasia the doctors judge whether the patient’s request are justified.