Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-14T22:39:55.362Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Voluntary Euthanasia and the Logical Slippery Slope Argument

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 January 2003

Hallvard Lillehammer
Hallvard Lillehammer*
Affiliation:
King’s College Cambridge, University of Cambridge
Get access

Abstract

In his recent book “Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy”, John Keown puts forward two slippery slope arguments against the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia. One of these arguments claims that a defender of voluntary euthanasia is logically committed to the permissibility of non-voluntary euthanasia. This paper seeks to show that Keown’s argument either rests on a logical confusion or on a misunderstanding of the value of autonomy.

Type
Shorter Articles
Information
The Cambridge Law Journal , Volume 61 , Issue 3 , 11 December 2002 , pp. 545 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge Law Journal and Contributors 2002

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Keown, J., Euthanasia, Ethics, and Public Policy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2002)Google Scholar.

2 Where I say “permissible”, Keown says “acceptable”. Nothing below hinges on this change of terminology.

3 By “non-voluntary euthanasia” I mean euthanasia without consent where the patient is incapable of consenting. By “involuntary euthanasia”, I mean euthanasia without consent where the patient is capable of consenting, but where the patient's consent has either not been elicited, or the patient has explicitly refused to consent.

4 Glover, J., Causing Death and Saving Lives (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books 1977)Google Scholar; Singer, P. and Kuhse, H., Should the Baby Live? The Problem of the Handicapped Newborn (Oxford: Oxford University Press 1985)Google Scholar; Harris, J., The Value of Life (London: Routledge 1992)Google Scholar.

5 Keown, p. 77.

6 Keown draws no parallel conclusion for involuntary euthanasia. Presumably this is because of the essentially coercive character of involuntary euthanasia. I shall ignore this issue in what follows.

7 Keown, p. 78.

8 Keown, p. 79.

9 Keown, p. 53.