The Fight to Stop Assisted Suicide/Euthanasia
"Legalized Euthanasia would not lead to Involuntary Killing." is by James D. Torr. He is a published author and an editor of children's books and young adult books. Some of the published credits of James D. Torr include Genetic Engineering. He writes on issues of a controversial nature. In his article he talks about how society has a slippery slope argument against euthanasia. Slippery slope arguments against euthanasia hold that if voluntary, physician-assisted suicide is allowed in certain cases, it will inevitably be allowed in cases that are not as clear-cut, and eventually there will be an unstoppable army of euthanasia-happy doctors running the nation's hospitals. Once terminally ill patients are allowed access to assisted suicide, the argument goes; no amount of vigilance can prevent the ensuing bloodshed. Women, the disabled, the poor, the elderly, and any number of minority groups will become victims of forced euthanasia, or so Americans are told.
He says that Legalized Euthanasia will not evolve to full blown killing of patients.
Now if this scenario sounds alarmist, that's because it is. Slippery slope arguments are designed to play on people's fears. But where is the evidence that such nightmarish scenarios are unavoidable? There isn't any evidence. People who agree with the article above compare it to Nazi Germany. They have no proof but what the Nazis themselves sanctioned as murder under the name euthanasia. "As philosopher Daniel Callahan explains, "The Nazi experience is only partially relevant. Theirs was not a move from legal voluntary euthanasia to involuntary killing. They never had the first phase at all, but went straight to the killing."(Larue)
I also think another fallacy used in this paper is extreme emotional appeal. They take one of the most extreme...