1. The slippery slope argument for assisted suicide is a straightforward one to see and prove. In essence, it says that if assisted suicide is allowed without any principled lines or divisions, then we must allow for assisted suicide is clearly bad cases like that of “a sixteen-year-old suffering from a severe case of unrequited love.” First we must acknowledge the assumption that the Supreme Court has made, which is, there are no principled lines they can draw between the different cases of assisted suicide. One can assume that this assumption is made just because the Supreme Court can’t come up with any principled lines in a way that allows them to legalize assisted suicide. Once we know the underlying assumption the Court has made, we can prove the validity of this slippery slope argument using modus tollens. Modus tollens says that if X then Y, and if not Y then not X. And by modus tollens we will prove that it is impermissible to allow for assisted suicide.
In our case X is allowing assisted suicide to patients without having principled lines between good and bad case reasoning, and Y is allowing assisted suicide in clearly bad case. For the first case (if X then Y), it is easy to see how it holds, as not having principled lines between good and bad cases allows for assisted suicide in bad cases, as X allows it. For the second case (if not Y then not X), we can see that if we don’t allow assisted suicide for the clearly bad case, we must not allow it for whatever reason (good or bad) as there are no principled lines that allow it in one case and not in the other. Therefore, we must not allow assisted suicide without having principled lines between good and bad case reasoning.
2. The Philosopher’s response to the above objection is that there are principled lines that can distinguish a good case reasoning from a bad one: terminal illness. The philosophers suggest that this principled line will work as it sieves out the bad cases for assisted suicide (the bad cases being, those who have formed a desire to die). The response also includes empirical data to support their claim that this principled line will work. They say that those “who have formed a desire to die, are, as a group, very likely later to be grateful if they are prevented from taking their own lives.” This however shouldn’t cause the blanket denial assisted suicide to those you might need it i.e. the terminally ill. This response seems to work to allow for assisted suicide in certain cases, and help object to the slippery slope argument the Supreme Court had proposed.
The philosophers seem to suggest that death is something the state can deny assisted suicide as long as that the choice being made is not “most intimate and personal.” Drawing this terminally ill principled line does this distinguishing of whether a death is “most intimate and personal.” If one simply wants to end their life without being terminally ill, for reasons which might include financial/family...