Is there a logical slippery slope from voluntary to nonvoluntary euthanasia?

Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 21 (4):379-404 (2011)

Abstract

Slippery slope arguments have been important in the euthanasia debate for at least half a century. In 1957 the Cambridge legal scholar Glanville Williams wrote a controversial book, The Sanctity of Life and the Criminal Law, in which he presented the decriminalizing of euthanasia as a modern liberal proposal taking its rightful place alongside proposals to decriminalize contraception, sterilization, abortion, and attempted suicide (all of which the book also advocated).1 Opposition to these reforms was in turn presented as exclusively religious and particularly Roman Catholic. Thus Williams asserted that "euthanasia can be condemned only according to religious opinion" (1957, p. 312).The following year, in ..

Download options

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 72,660

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Analytics

Added to PP
2011-11-30

Downloads
152 (#79,266)

6 months
1 (#388,311)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Similar books and articles

Consequentialism and the Slippery Slope: A Response to Clark.Jonathan Hughes - 2000 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 17 (2):213–220.
The Empirical Slippery Slope From Voluntary to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia.Penney Lewis - 2007 - Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics 35 (1):197-210.
Slippery Slope Arguments.Douglas N. Walton - 1992 - Oxford University Press.
Euthanasia and the Slippery Slope.Michael Clark - 1998 - Journal of Applied Philosophy 15 (3):251–257.
Euthanasia in The Netherlands--Down the Slippery Slope?R. Gillon - 1999 - Journal of Medical Ethics 25 (1):3-4.
Institutionalising Murder.Jacqueline A. Laing - 2012 - Halsbury's Law Exchange.
Arguing Along the Slippery Slope of Human Embryo Research.Jeanne Salmon Freeman - 1996 - Journal of Medicine and Philosophy 21 (1):61-81.