|
|
|
|
|
|
by asdfasgasdgasdg
1871 days ago
|
|
|
The miniscule risk of a slippery slope in some remote and unlikely future cannot serve as a reasonable justification for violating the bodily autonomy of adults in their sound mind today. Nor am I much impressed by the existence of an organization that advocated involuntary euthanasia eighty years ago in the US. There was all kinds of insanely messed up stuff going on in our country at that time. Involuntary euthanasia, even if they had succeeded in implementing it, wouldn't have remotely been the worst. |
|
|
The slippery slope is occurring right now in Canada:
> Had you predicted [in 2015] that the right to an assisted suicide would soon come to apply, not only in cases of physical pain but psychological, and not only to patients in the last agonizing stages of death but those who were nowhere near it – had you predicted, indeed, that a patient’s request to be killed would not even have to be repeated and persistent for a doctor to act on it, that the whole process could be telescoped into a single day – you would have been accused of “slippery slope” thinking.
> Had you predicted that, by 2019, just the third full year after it was legalized, nearly one in 50 deaths in the country would be by assisted suicide, even on the (almost certainly underreported) official numbers; and that, this having been accomplished, talk would turn to extending the procedure – not just to competent adults, but the mentally ill and even children – you would have been carted off.
> Yet that, incredibly, is where we are. The cautious, limited exceptions that people understood the issue to involve at the start – what most people understand it to involve even now – have been overtaken by an accelerating drive toward death-on-demand. Had the public known this was where we were headed, they might have objected. Instead it has been done in stages, a series of bait-and-switch routines in which the courts and legislatures have taken equal part.
> The irony is that the very foundation of the Supreme Court’s decision in Carter was that there was no such slippery slope.
* https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-our-cautious...
* https://archive.is/s5bPu
Would you consider killing newborns "involuntary euthanasia"? If so, then that would be an example advocation. Per Jerry Coyne:
> If you are allowed to abort a fetus that has a severe genetic defect, microcephaly, spina bifida, or so on, then why aren’t you able to euthanize that same fetus just after it’s born? I see no substantive difference that would make the former act moral and the latter immoral. After all, newborn babies aren’t aware of death, aren’t nearly as sentient as an older child or adult, and have no rational faculties to make judgments (and if there’s severe mental disability, would never develop such faculties). It makes little sense to keep alive a suffering child who is doomed to die or suffer life in a vegetative or horribly painful state.
* https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2017/07/13/should-one-be-allo...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_Coyne
If not "involuntary euthanasia", do you have an opinion of it 'should' be classified (if at all)?