The ‘slippery slope’ concern
The acceptance of the principle that human life is expendable, for whatever purpose, is the ‘slippery slope’ from which there may be no return if euthanasia is legalised.
For instance, once, abortion was only allowed under specific circumstances, now we virtually have abortion on demand, with over 100,000 abortions in Australia, annually.
Then came IVF to help infertile couples, now we have thousands of ‘spare’ embryos in storage.
Infanticide, the killing of infants who are still in the womb, but capable of survival, was legalised in 2008; the Abortion Law Reform Act 2008 (Victoria) came into being allowing late-term abortions (after 24 weeks) if agreed by two doctors.
Voluntary euthanasia was legalised in the Netherlands many years ago.
Successive Remelink reports there show involuntary euthanasia, despite clear guidelines to the contrary in Dutch law.
Then there is greed.
Remember the court case in Sydney in which a woman was accused of murdering her husband (an Alzheimer sufferer) with the drug Nembutal?
The jury was told that she arranged for him to draw up a new will a week before he died, leaving her all but $200,000 of his 2.4 million dollar estate.
The report was entitled “Euthanasia wife was Worried about Will”.
The ‘slippery slope’ concern is no myth.
The ramifications of legalising euthanasia are many; if legalised it would be too hard to control and who would be safe?
As someone once said “hard cases make bad laws”.
The killing of one person by another has to be dehumanising.
Compassion and dignity are key words in this debate – we must decide were compassion and dignity life.