Had a hard time figuring out which side Rowan was on (I guess opposed to right-to-die?), but yes, I am laughing off slippery-slope arguments. Is there any kind of link to that crazy-sounding research in the Netherlands? (That 1996 study seems to have been reversed in 2009, when it was found that in the Netherlands, "no slippery slope seems to have occurred." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2733179/)
A very firm line can be drawn between the "self" and "everybody else in the world" - so long as the "self" requests the right to die with dignity, how do we slide over into anyone else killing that self with impunity? I can make a bad investment and lose my shirt, but if someone robs me at an ATM the next day, that's robbery or extortion - a very clear, firm line between what I have every right to do and what no one else can make me do. It's not like, because I lost all my own money one day then I can be legally robbed of every dime by anyone else forever because we're on a slippery slope. If the line holds certainly, forever, between independently made and involuntarily imposed monetary decisions, why can't we be comfortable about the line between me and not-me on the death-with-dignity issue?
Had a hard time figuring out which side Rowan was on (I guess opposed to right-to-die?), but yes, I am laughing off slippery-slope arguments. Is there any kind of link to that crazy-sounding research in the Netherlands? (That 1996 study seems to have been reversed in 2009, when it was found that in the Netherlands, "no slippery slope seems to have occurred." https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2733179/)
A very firm line can be drawn between the "self" and "everybody else in the world" - so long as the "self" requests the right to die with dignity, how do we slide over into anyone else killing that self with impunity? I can make a bad investment and lose my shirt, but if someone robs me at an ATM the next day, that's robbery or extortion - a very clear, firm line between what I have every right to do and what no one else can make me do. It's not like, because I lost all my own money one day then I can be legally robbed of every dime by anyone else forever because we're on a slippery slope. If the line holds certainly, forever, between independently made and involuntarily imposed monetary decisions, why can't we be comfortable about the line between me and not-me on the death-with-dignity issue?