The Slippery Slope Argument in the Context of Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

This article analyzes the slippery slope argument and its application to the problem of legalizing euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. The argument is often referred to in discussions of abortion, in vitro fertilization, etc., but it has been little developed in the Russian-language literature. This explains the relevance and novelty of this article. The focus is on the ways of representation of the argument in research. It distinguishes its main types: logical (disintegrating into no-principle distinction argument and the soritical argument), empirical (or psychological argument), and non-logical (metaphorical). Each of these types of argument is constructed according to a certain principle and has a number of features and critiques. A common place for criticism of an argument is its focus on the future so that it makes reasoning probabilistic. The logical type of argument is centered around denoting the transition between the original event and its adverse consequences and denotes the action of social factors to accelerate the transition. The no-principal distinction argument implies that there is no moral distinction between the events at the beginning and the end of the slope. The soritical argument involves intermediate steps between questionable and unacceptable practices. The conceptual slope is another variant of the logical kind of argument. The empirical argument illustrates a situation of changing societal values which results in an easier acceptance of morally disapproved practices. The metaphorical argument is used to illustrate the metaphor of slope and the situation of the accumulation of small problems that lead to serious undesirable results. The non-logical kind of argument centers around the routinization of practice, desensitization, and exploitation of unprotected groups in society. Exploitation can be called the victims' slope. It grounds its consideration on the abuse of the practice being administered. Application of the ethical methodology (theoretical-logical and empirical-historical) to the types of arguments and ways of their application allows us to highlight the value component of the argument, to determine its dilemma nature and to correlate it with bioethical principles. The application of bioethical principles to suppress the transition to undesirable consequences is critiqued on the basis of particularly difficult cases in which one is unable to articulate one's decision. The criticism of the argument is built on the probabilistic nature of the reasoning, the lack of reflection on the underlying premise and the lack of empirical evidence. It concludes that the slippery slope argument is incapable of being the only valid justification for rejecting the practices of physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia.

1. Barsness, J. G. et al. (2020) ‘US medical and surgical society position statements on physician-assisted suicide and euthanasia: a review’, BMC Medical Ethics, 21(1), p. 111. doi: 10.1186/s12910-020-00556-5.

2. Belyaletdinov, R. R. (2017) ‘In Search of Lost Normativity of Biotechnologies: the Way Human Improvement Trajectories Appear’, Znanie. Ponimanie. Umenie, (1), pp. 102–108. doi: 10.17805/zpu.2017.1.6.

3. Benatar, D. (2011) ‘A Legal Right to Die: Responding to Slippery Slope and Abuse Arguments’, Current Oncology, 18(5), pp. 206–207. doi: 10.3747/co.v18i5.923.

4. Cholbi, M. (2011) Suicide: the philosophical dimensions. Peterborough: Broadview.

5. Cummings, L. (2020) ‘Slippery Slope Arguments’, in Fallacies in Medicine and Health. Cham: Springer International Publishing, pp. 65–101. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-28513-5_3.

6. Dierickx, S. et al. (2015) ‘Comparison of the Expression and Granting of Requests for Euthanasia in Belgium in 2007 vs 2013’, JAMA Internal Medicine, 175(10), pp. 1703–1706. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.3982.

7. Douglas, T. (2010) ‘Intertemporal Disagreement and Empirical Slippery Slope Arguments’, Utilitas, 22(2), pp. 184–197. doi: 10.1017/S0953820810000087.

8. Emanuel, E. J. et al. (2016) ‘Attitudes and Practices of Euthanasia and Physician-Assisted Suicide in the United States, Canada, and Europe’, JAMA, 316(1), pp. 79–90. doi: 10.1001/jama.2016.8499.

9. Feltz, A. (2015) ‘Everyday Attitudes About Euthanasia and the Slippery Slope Argument’, in New Directions in the Ethics of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia. Cham: Springer, pp. 217–237. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-22050-5_13.

10. Fumagalli, R. (2020) ‘Slipping on slippery slope arguments’, Bioethics, 34(4), pp. 412–419. doi: 10.1111/bioe.12727.

11. den Hartogh, G. (2009) ‘The Slippery Slope Argument’, in A Companion to Bioethics. Oxford, UK: Wiley-Blackwell, pp. 321–332. doi: 10.1002/9781444307818.ch28.

12. Helgesson, G., Lynøe, N. and Juth, N. (2017) ‘Value-impregnated factual claims and slippery-slope arguments’, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 20(1), pp. 147–150. doi: 10.1007/s11019-016-9723-4.

13. Jefferson, A. (2014) ‘Slippery Slope Arguments’, Philosophy Compass, 9(10), pp. 672–680. doi: 10.1111/phc3.12161.

14. Lerner, B. H. and Caplan, A. L. (2015) ‘Euthanasia in Belgium and the Netherlands’, JAMA Internal Medicine, 175(10), pp. 1640–1641. doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2015.4086.

15. Potter, J. (2019) ‘The psychological slippery slope from physician-assisted death to active euthanasia: a paragon of fallacious reasoning’, Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy, 22(2), pp. 239–244. doi: 10.1007/s11019-018-9864-8.

16. Shariff, M. J. (2012) ‘Assisted Death and the Slippery Slope—Finding Clarity Amid Advocacy, Convergence, and Complexity’, Current Oncology, 19(3), pp. 143–154. doi: 10.3747/co.19.1095.

17. Spielthenner, G. (2010) ‘A Logical Analysis of Slippery Slope Arguments’, Health Care Analysis, 18(2), pp. 148–163. doi: 10.1007/s10728-009-0117-0.

18. Walton, D. (2017) ‘The Slippery Slope Argument in the Ethical Debate on Genetic Engineering of Humans’, Science and Engineering Ethics, 23(6), pp. 1507–1528. doi: 10.1007/s11948-016-9861-3.