|
Critics of euthanasia sometimes claim that legalizing any form of the practice will lead to a slippery slope effect, resulting eventually in non-voluntary or even involuntary euthanasia. The slippery slope argument has been present in the euthanasia debate since at least the 1930s. Lawyer Eugene Volokh argued in his article ''The Mechanism of the Slippery Slope'' that judicial logic could eventually lead to a gradual break in the legal restrictions for euthanasia, while medical oncologist and palliative care specialist Jan Bernheim believes the law can provide safeguards against slippery-slope effects, saying that the grievances of euthanasia opponents are unfounded.〔 ==The slippery slope== As applied to the euthanasia debate, the slippery slope argument claims that the acceptance of certain practices, such as physician-assisted suicide or voluntary euthanasia, will invariably lead to the acceptance or practice of concepts which are currently deemed unacceptable, such as non-voluntary or involuntary euthanasia. Thus, it is argued, in order to prevent these undesirable practices from occurring, we need to resist taking the first step. There are two basic forms which the argument may take, each of which involves different arguments for and against.〔 The first of these, referred to as the logical version, argues that the acceptance of the initial act, A, logically entails the acceptance of B, where A is acceptable but B is an undesirable action.〔 This version is further refined into two forms based on how A entails B. In the first, it is argued that there "is no relevant conceptual difference between A and B" – the premises that underlie the acceptance of A logically entail the acceptance of B. Within the euthanasia debate, van der Burg identifies one of Richard Sherlock's objections to Duff and Campbell as fitting this model.〔 Duff and Campbell had presented an argument for the selective non-treatment of newborns suffering from serious defects. In responding to Duff and Campbell's stance, Sherlock argued that the premises which they employed in order to justify their position would be just as effective, if not more-so, in justifying the non-treatment of older children: "In short, if there is any justification at all for what Duff and Campbell propose for newborns then there is better justification for a similar policy with respect to children at any age." The second logical form of the slippery slope argument, referred to as the "arbitrary line" version,〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/ )〕 argues that the acceptance of A will lead to the acceptance of A1, as A1 is not significantly different from A. A1 will then lead to A2, A2 to A3, and eventually the process will lead to the unacceptable B.〔 As Glover argues, this version of the argument does not say that there is no significant difference between A and B, but instead argues that it is impossible to justify accepting A while also denying B – drawing a line at any point between the two would be creating an arbitrary cut-off point that would be unjustifiable. Glover provides the example of infanticide (or non-voluntary euthanasia) and severely deformed children: The second primary form of the slippery slope argument is that of the "Empirical" or "Psychological" argument.〔〔〔 The empirical version does not rely on a logical connection between A and B, but instead argues that an acceptance of A will, in time, lead to an acceptance of B.〔 The process is not a logical necessity, but one which will be followed through a process of moral change. Enoch describes the application of this form of the argument thus: Glover, however, notes that this line of argument requires good evidence that this direction will be followed, as not all boundaries are thus pushed. More generally, it has been argued that in employing the slippery slope there can be an "implicit concession", as it starts from the assumption that the initial practice is acceptable – even though it will lead to unacceptable outcomes in the future. Nevertheless, van der Burg argues that this not a useful concession, as the outcomes are intended to make it clear that the initial practice was not justifiable after all. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Euthanasia and the slippery slope」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|