Pros And Cons Of The Slippery Slope Argument

647 Words3 Pages
According to our text, the slippery slope argument is defined as “accepting assisted death for any person will increase the demand and approval of death for many other people” (p. 298). The way Kastenbaum explains it in Chapter 9, most of society would lean towards sympathy in response to a person’s request to be assisted in easing the pain of death but would caution as to when and where to draw the line of assisted death (p. 275). This is what creates a “slippery” slope of decisions. Even more questions arise when we ask who gets to make these decisions; who/how many are allowed to receive the decision and whether or not someone can appeal the decision. The slippery slope argument has been argued for years. It is well known that Dr. Jack Kevorkian could be the poster child of the slippery slope argument. He assisted many people in their own euthanizing,…show more content…
I believe this is a justified way to die because it allows someone who is terminally ill to die on their own terms and not waste away –something they may not want to do in front of their family. In addition, it takes into account the other side of the slippery slope of when to draw the line in assisted deaths. Oregon, Washington and the Netherlands require proof of terminal illness, a competent human that is capable of making decisions and you must be followed by a physician that has to confirm the diagnosis along with required written requests and witnesses to sign the paperwork. These requirements are there to make certain that the person is not actually healthy, like most of Kevorkian’s clients, and completely understands what they are asking for and it also makes it so the doctors are not held accountable for assisting in the death of their patients but are allowing them the decision to make their own

More about Pros And Cons Of The Slippery Slope Argument

Open Document