[ Back ] [ Next ]

 Full Form Table of Contents

Site Map

8: An example of social and political consequences:

the “slippery slope”

The term “slippery slope” refers to a series of events that will inevitably follow one-another. The idea is that the events at the top of the slope may be acceptable but those which will follow are not. Indulging in the acceptable activities gets people more used to the idea of going ahead with those they initially considered to be wrong. 

In the case of leaving life, the progression would be from providing the means to leave for a few carefully selected "terminally ill" patients to pressuring those whose treatment is expensive or inconvenient, who are unhappy or of little value to society, or whose money or other resources are coveted.

Psychological and instinctual processes pushing us to the bottom of the exit-from-life slope would be survival, aggression, sadism, self-interest and the rationalizations that disguise these needs. Is there really any hope that these can be significantly tamed in the near future?

The slipperiness of the slope is increased by anything that gets us used to the idea or image of leaving life voluntarily. This would include any media or other presentation that starts us thinking about the act of leaving life in a positive way without arousing our anxiety to the point where we turn away and never think about it again. Learning that people we respect have accomplished the act painlessly and with the support of others close to them would be an especially effective means of desensitization.

If you voluntarily take your own life, won't you will be another case that, in a small way, will make it more likely that others, especially those close to you, will follow in your path? 

Many of those who oppose increasing access to leaving life admit that making a painless exit available to people who are in great physical pain and who have only a few months to live might be a good thing. Would the benefits from the reduction of suffering of the patient and the relief from empathetic pain felt by those who care about him would outweigh the costs? Consider what these might be:

· the possibility of missing the months of life which could come from a   wrong diagnosis, from an inaccurate prognosis or from the discovery of a cure;

· missing the opportunities for spiritual growth or family closeness that some believe can occur only in the very last stage of life; or,

· upsetting those who believe that voluntarily leaving under any circumstances is wrong.

Many are concerned about the abuses that could accompany any benefits that come from abandoning the principle that life must be preserved at all costs. The specter of Nazi Germany lurks in the background as a reminder of dark potential in all of us. Some point to the alleged stretching of the law in the Netherlands which was originally supposed to allow physicians to help only certain patients to leave life but apparently used in cases where consent is assumed.

Another indication of how strong the impulse to abuse can be is the fact that there have always been people who do away with parents or spouses for the reasons listed above at the considerable risk of being charged with murder.  

So, the “slippery slope” idea leads us to ask these questions about making the voluntary exit from life more accessible:

The preceding are questions for those who make the law or who make policy for doctors, nurses, social workers and others who might be involved in the process of leaving.

The same kinds of questions can be posed at the personal level:

       I would have no trouble considering his needs first and doing everything I could to make him comfortable and to extend his life until he said that he wanted to leave.

       I would be aware of my wish to be free of the burden of caring for him and to have some money left for me, but my values (doing the right thing, being kind to others, never taking a life) would win out.

       As time would pass, and the money is depleted, greed and selfishness might lead to some subtle attempts to influence him to leave life.

       I would not trust myself to put the needs of my parent first, or to treat him the way I would like to be treated. The temptations of the money and freedom from inconvenience of caring for him would be too great and it would be easy to rationalize influencing or pressuring him to leave.

       I’d let my parent know that this is out of the question or that this is something I will not talk about. I would do this by changing the subject or by reminding him how his leaving voluntarily would upset or shame the family.

       I’d say that I’d like to help but it’s against the law and I am afraid of being arrested,  tried and possibly convicted of murder or manslaughter and having my life ruined or  going to prison.

       I’d say that I’d like to help but it’s against my religious beliefs. I’d tell him I cannot bend a belief even if I want to because then the rest of my belief system would be weakened.

       I’d assure him that I’ll talk to the doctor and find out what he might be willing to do. I’ll see  if he will increase his medication, even if it means hastening his exit.

       I’d admit that I’m not sure what to do, so I’ll get advice from organizations or professionals who believe that people ought to be able to choose when and how they leave.

As mentioned above, advocates of the slippery-slope model predict that the more people there are who leave life voluntarily, the more all of us will get used to the idea and the more likely we will be to accept people’s leaving in circumstances we initially rejected. So, they are dead-set against any relaxation of the rule against leaving life voluntarily under any circumstances.

The problem is that when a few people do something, the benefits may outweigh the costs, and the action seems like a good thing; however, costs outweigh benefits when a certain frequency level is reached. It can be like what happens when a few people violate a “Do Not Walk on the Grass” sign. There is no harm in a few careful persons’ doing it, and they benefit from getting someplace faster. Inevitably, though, other people follow their example, and, at certain rate of use, the grass will be harmed and everyone will suffer. Also, the new group of violators may include people who are irresponsible and will harm the grass, drawing attention to themselves. The resulting in a crackdown is likely to affect responsible and irresponsible alike.