A legal right to die: responding to slippery slope and abuse arguments.

abolish separate entrances, " that defender might say, " we shall soon find that people of different races are permitted to marry one another, and before we know it, there will be no more apartheid. " It should be readily apparent that, even if the defender of apartheid is correct that the stated trajectory is a likely consequence of abolishing the separate entrances, that consequence would not be a noxious slippery slope. With that scenario in mind, we can see the hidden assumption in the slippery slope argument against legalizing euthanasia: It is the assumption that the instances of euthanasia that the Netherlands now permits are morally wrong. But the problem is that very many defenders of a legal right to die would deny that those instances of euthanasia are wrong. Some of us think that the suffering that a person endures need not be the product of a terminal disease in order for it to be intolerable. We also recognize that some mental suffering is intractable and as unbearable as physical suffering. And we recognize that it is not only competent patients, but also incompetent ones who can suffer from conditions that make their lives not worth living. Accordingly , we would like to see euthanasia and assisted suicide permitted in such a wider range of cases. If, however, we cannot effect that legal change in one step, we recommend, in the first instance, a more limited liberalization of the law. Once that change has been made, people might realize that the next step and then the next are also acceptable, even if they cannot see it now. The second argument invoked by opponents of a legal right to die is the argument that such a right will be abused and that no legal safeguards can prevent that abuse. Thus, for example, it has been said that where written voluntary consent to euthanasia is a legal requirement, that consent has not always been obtained. Similarly, it has been said that euthanasia or assisted suicide are often not reported, even in jurisdictions in which reporting is obligatory. The problem with that argument is that citing many examples of abuse of a legal right is not sufficient to justify withholding that right. If the likelihood of abuse were thought to be grounds for withholding a right, then To be forced to continue living a life that one deems intolerable when there …