Do wooden shoes hurt a lot?
Posted on 01/08/2005 10:25:01 AM PST by sionnsar
When I was in college philosophy classes, one category of argument that was regularly disparaged was the "slippery slope." My professors, of course, worked under a handicap: they'd never encountered the phenomena of Dutch euthanasia:
Doctors can help patients who ask for help to die even though they may not be ill but "suffering through living," concludes a three year inquiry commissioned by the Royal Dutch Medical Association. The report argues that no reason can be given to exclude situations of such suffering from a doctor’s area of competence.
The conclusion has reopened a fierce debate over what constitutes grounds for requesting euthanasia, as it contradicts a landmark Supreme Court decision that a patient must have a "classifiable physical or mental condition." The 2002 ruling upheld a guilty verdict on a GP for helping his 86 year old patient die, even though he was not technically ill but obsessed with his physical decline and hopeless existence.
The Dutch euthanasia law does not specifically state that a patient must have a physical or mental condition, only that a patient must be "suffering hopelessly and unbearably."
The new report does not rule on how doctors should respond if a patient without a classifiable condition should approach them for help but says that doctors believe that some cases of "suffering through living" could be judged "unbearable and hopeless" and therefore fall within the boundaries of the existing euthanasia law.
The report argues that the Supreme Court criteria are unhelpful in defining the limits of medical practice in varied and complex cases. It is "an illusion," it argues, to suggest that a patient's suffering can be "unambiguously measured according to his illness."
Jos Dijkhuis, the emeritus professor of clinical psychology who led the inquiry, said that it was "evident to us that Dutch doctors would not consider euthanasia from a patient who is simply 'tired of, or through with, life,'" (terms used in the original court case). Instead his committee chose the term "suffering through living," where a patient may present a variety of physical and mental complaints.
He said there was "enormous protest" from doctors to the Supreme Court's ruling. "In more than half of cases we considered, doctors were not confronted with a classifiable disease. In practice the medical domain of doctors is far broader...We see a doctor's task is to reduce suffering, therefore we can't exclude these cases in advance. We must now look further to see if we can draw a line and if so where."
His report recommends caution, saying that doctors currently lack sufficient expertise and that their roles remain unclear. It recommends drawing up protocols by which to judge "suffering through living" cases and collecting and analysing further data. In the meantime it recommends an "extra phase" to treatment, where therapeutic and social solutions can first be sought.
Rather than seek more effective ways of treating people, doctors in the Netherlands looks for ever more reasons to rationalize killing them. The ever-growing God complex of Dutch medical practitioners is a fearful thing to behold.
now the philosophy professors embrace the slippery slope - at least they do in my deparment. Fetuses, newborns, mentally retarded people, comatose, senile - none are "normative agents" and thus have no right to life. This is the accepted train of thought among professional ethicists today :(
How about providing us with some arguments for the 'slippery slope' theory?
The argument that if I eat junkfood once a year, there will be a time that I eat junkfood five times a day?
The argument that if I swear once, I'll kill twenty people once?
Incredible. You have some mighty fine schools in the US. Congratulations!
| Welcome to FreeRepublic |
Howdy. Newbie in here I see.
Pot, and how it seems linked almost always to harder drugs has been a good slipery slope example.
Welfare, and how it depresses the human spirit and expectations is another example and often removes them from mainstream life is another example.
Success, and the result of hard work and doing it making you want to repeat it over and over is another example.
Winning occasionaly in gambling, and many getting addicted to it and then losing major amounts of money and ruining lives is another.
Welcome to FR!
The discrimination against "imperfect people" goes all the way back to the Levitical commandments in the Bible, that people with physical disabilities be barred from the Temple.
Welcome to FR.
I think you may have wandered in too far...you never know what lurks around the next corner...
*evil laughter, fading in the distance*
The argument that if I pray to Allah once, I'll kill twenty people once?
Bump!
Then it was ok to kill a child three months after conception.
Then it was ok to kill a child at six month after conception.
Then it was ok to kill a child at nine months after conception.
Then it was ok to leave it to die after the child was born.
Now there are some people pushing to have it be legal to kill a child 30 days after birth.
Any questions?
Put you head in the dyke and take a deep breath creep!
And now, it seems, ok to kill OAPs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.