Slippery slope arguments appear regularly whenever morally contested social change is proposed. Such arguments assume that all or some consequences which could possibly flow from permitting a particular practice are morally unacceptable.Typically, “slippery slope” arguments claim that endorsing some premise, doing some action or adopting some policy will lead to some definite outcome that is generally judged to be wrong or bad. The “slope” is “slippery” because there are claimed to be no plausible halting points between the initial commitment to (...) a premise, action, or policy and the resultant bad outcome. The desire to avoid such projected future consequences provides adequate reasons for not taking the first step.Thus the legalization of abortion in limited circumstances is asserted to lead down the slippery slope towards abortion on demand and even infanticide; and the legalization of assisted suicide to lead inexorably to the acceptance of voluntary euthanasia and subsequently to the sanctioning of the practice of nonvoluntary euthanasia – even involuntary euthanasia of “undesirable” individuals. (shrink)

Following the decision of the House of Lords in Purdy, the Director of Public Prosecutions was required to promulgate guidance as to how prosecutorial discretion is exercised over the decision of whether to prosecute or not under the Suicide Act 1961. The resulting policy essentially confirms that if a lay person, who is motivated wholly by compassion, provides minor and reluctant assistance to a mentally competent adult, he or she is extremely unlikely to be prosecuted. Consequently, prosecutorial policy over cases (...) of complicity in suicide might be viewed as presenting a procedural compromise between explicitly allowing and robustly prohibiting assisted suicide. This paper explores the legal and ethical implications of compromising over complicity in suicide. (shrink)