Abstract
AbstractThe logical “slippery slope” argument is of key relevance to the ongoing debate about “assisted dying”. The argument runs that if the principle of respect for autonomy and the principle of beneficence justify voluntary euthanasia, then the principle of beneficence justifies non-voluntary euthanasia. Several prominent scholars of medical law and medical ethics have either rejected or at least not accepted the argument, including Gerald Dworkin and Raymond Frey; Margaret Battin; Hallvard Lillehammer; Stephen Smith; Robert Young; Emily Jackson; and Steven Daskal. This paper analyses their reasoning and finds it wanting. It concludes that the logical argument stands unrebutted and merits much greater attention.
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Reference14 articles.
1. A Reply to Raymond Tallis on the Legalization of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia;Gorsuch;J. Leg. Med.,2007
2. Physician-assisted Dying and the Slippery Slope: The Challenge of the Empirical Evidence;Battin;Willamette L. Rev.,2008
3. Dutch Court Decisions on Nonvoluntary Euthanasia Critically Reviewed;Jochemsen;Issues Law Med.,1998
4. Voluntary Euthanasia and the Logical Slippery Slope Argument;Lillehammer;C.L.J.,2002
5. Euthanasia, Ethics and Public Policy
Cited by
3 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献