Criminal justice systems and practices

¶ … slippery slope argument is an argument that explains why it is best to err on the side of caution when an issue can become volatile if allowed to expand. The slippery slope argument is used to describe what can happen if the ball is allowed to roll on any controversial issue.

To understand how it would work in the Euthanasia debate one must first understand how the term came about. When one stands at the top of a hill, and begins to go down a slippery slope there is a chance that the person will lose their footing. Once that happens the person begins to gain momentum and often times bypasses the originally desired stopping point and ends up at the bottom of the hill and not commonly on their feet.

This argument can be applied to the Euthanasia argument that is such a hot topic in today's debates.

The core of the Euthanasia debate, centers on allowing those who are terminally ill to choose to die at a time they choose. Through assisted suicide, or the injection of medically provided drugs those who are terminally ill make the decision to die. At first glance this sounds like a fair idea. Why should one who is terminally ill and suffering have to endure months of constant pain and agony waiting to have their bodies stop when they can choose their time and place of death? This is where the slippery slope argument presents a different angle. The slippery slope argument in this debate means that once the world starts allowing assisted suicides for those who are terminally ill, it will not be a stretch to start choosing who dies based on other factors. How about the man who is not terminally ill but is in chronic and lifelong pain? Should he be allowed to choose to die now? What about the woman who is mentally ill and is in danger of causing her children emotional harm? Why can't she choose to die and save her children's psyche much the same way a terminally ill person chooses to die and save their family savings account and their emotions?