Another Slippery Slope Argument
A response to Richard Sams II
Sams II recently published an article in which he presents a slippery slope argument against assisted death paired with what he calls a “Moral Dissociation Curve.” As far as I understand it, the chart is a visual representation of a slippery slope that begins with rejecting the prohibition of killing innocent human beings.
The author states, “If left unchecked and wholly embraced, the practice negatively affects the whole society. Ultimately if continued, the society will descend into moral confusion then moral blindness, resulting in gross abuses to human beings” (p. 126).
He continues: “The moral dissociation curve (MDC) serves as a bridge between meta-ethical theory, applied ethics, and their relationship to moral clarity on a given issue. It reflects an a priori commitment to the presence of transcendent moral law (TML) to include universal moral laws and virtues” (p. 126).
According to him, once we reject TML, we will eventually adopt moral relativism and fundamentally change society’s moral fabric. Additionally, “Any ‘rights’ devised by persons or the state not contingent upon universal moral laws are nothing more than the whims of those declaring these rights” which ultimately results in “right and wrong determined by the loudest voice, the majority vote or the strongest arm” (p. 127).
Sams II then makes a comparison between Canada’s MAiD program and the evolution of euthanasia in Germany. The latter started with similar sentiments about reducing suffering but eventually broadened to include a utilitarian ethic “based on the functional value of the infirm and their cost to society” (p. 128). This ethos was then adopted by the Nazis.
Response
The main issue with slippery slope arguments against assisted death is that they falsely assume what’s at the top of the slope. Sams II thinks that the top of the slope is allowing killing. I think this is incorrect; the top of the slope is allowing hastening death. L.W. Sumner puts it this way.
What is ethically problematic about all of the end-of-life measures we have surveyed is their capacity to hasten death. Once we have accepted any of them—even treatment refusal—we have accepted that hastening death is ethically permissible and we are on the top of the slope. From that vantage point the administration of high-dose opioids, terminal sedation, assisted suicide, voluntary euthanasia, and nonvoluntary euthanasia are just further points on the slope. If you want to stay off the slope entirely, then you must reject most of the currently available end-of-life treatment measures. p. 133
This is an important point to consider. Given the strategy that slippery slope arguments employ, misjudging what is at the top of the slope can be detrimental, and in this case, it is. Critics of assisted death are not trying to deny all forms of hastening death like withholding and withdrawing life-saving care, so if the acceptance of hastening death is truly at the top of the slope, which I think it is, then they should not be employing such arguments. This one flaw alone jeopardizes the entire slippery slope approach.
To elaborate, I have argued elsewhere that there’s no morally relevant distinction between killing and letting die, all else equal, so if we allow the latter, then we’re already at the top of the slope. Accordingly, the only way to stay off the slope is to draw a line in the sand at the acceptance of hastening death.
My second response is this: The prohibition of killing innocent human beings assumes that killing harms the person who dies, which is not necessarily true, as I have argued. Therefore, without disproving the position that death can benefit the person who dies, a strict prohibition should not be adopted. However, I believe the prohibition is defensible as a general principle.
Lastly, the comparison to Nazi Germany isn’t useful because proponents of assisted death want to respect people’s autonomous choices. Autonomy is one of the main reasons that justify the option for people with decision-making capacity. The Holocaust didn’t respect Jewish people’s autonomy nor was that the goal.
And if the fear is that we’ll end up with something like the Holocaust, and that fear justifies disallowing assisted death, then we should disallow refusals of life-saving and life-sustaining care too.
Here’s a better example of a slippery slope than the Holocaust—infanticide. The moral reasons to allow assisted death for those with decision-making capacity can justify infanticide in some cases. I’ll elaborate on this in another article, but the main idea is that there are two reasons to support assisted death—autonomy and well-being—and when autonomy is impossible, well-being can be decisive. Of course, whether this amounts to a slippery slope is determined by the justifiability of the practice, meaning if the practice is justified, then it wouldn’t be a slippery slope; rather, it would be a justified expansion. Opponents of assisted death would most likely consider infanticide to be the result of a slippery slope.