Abstract
“When a country legalizes active euthanasia, it puts itself on a slippery slope
from where it may well go further downward.” If true, this is a forceful
argument in the battle of those who try to prevent euthanasia from becoming
legal. The force of any slippery-slope argument, however, is by definition
limited by its
... read more
reference to future developments which cannot empirically be
sustained. Experience in the Netherlands—where a law regulating active
euthanasia was accepted in April 2001—may shed light on the strengths as
well as the weaknesses of the slippery slope argument in the context of the
euthanasia debate. This paper consists of three parts. First, it clarifies the Dutch
legislation on euthanasia and explains the cultural context in which it
originated. Second, it looks at the argument of the slippery slope. A logical and
an empirical version are distinguished, and the latter, though philosophically
less interesting, proves to be most relevant in the discussion on euthanasia.
Thirdly, it addresses the question whether Dutch experiences in the process of
legalizing euthanasia justify the fear for a slippery slope. The conclusion is:
Dutch experiences justify some caution.
Despite the fact that we live in a global village, and despite the fact that values
and norms are widely exchanged within the Western culture, some differences
have in the past decades become larger instead of smaller. The discussions on
euthanasia and assisted suicide are an example. In this paper, I intend to contribute
to the discussion from an inside perspective, i.e., as a participant in a political culture in which active euthanasia is considered more or less accepted, having
worked in medical ethics in a clinical setting for most of my career, and being part
of a family of practicing physicians and nurses. The paper will concentrate upon
one of the arguments used in the current euthanasia debate worldwide: the
contention that any form of legalization of voluntary euthanasia will inevitably go
from bad to worse, from euthanasia in the case of terminal diseases to assisted
suicide under much broader conditions,1 to more requests, to misuse, to
nonvoluntary or even involuntary euthanasia and, eventually, to an erosion of the
roots of our public morale. I will concentrate on developments in Holland.2 It
should be noted from the onset, however, that other countries, which have not or
not yet legalized euthanasia, may be worse off than the Netherlands.3 In this
paper, I will first clarify the Dutch legislation on euthanasia and comment on the
cultural context from which it stems. Second, I will look at the argument of the
slippery slope: What does it mean to use the argument? What function does it
have in ethics? Thirdly, I will combine the two and look whether Dutch
experiences since the legalization process of euthanasia give ground to the fear for
a slippery slope.
show less