? (Herbin)Closely related to the argument from the common good isthe slippery-slope argument. Drawing on examples of what ishappening in the Netherlands, where the practice of PAS andeuthanasia (voluntary and involuntary) has increased eventhough not formally legal, Manning, Larson and Amundsensuggest that the policy and practice of euthanasia/PAS wouldweaken the general prohibition against killing.(Simons)An important dividing line in the debate is whether onesees a significant moral difference between killing byeuthanasia/PAS and allowing to die by withdrawing useless,cure-oriented, life-sustaining treatment. Advocates ofeuthanasia/PAS such as McKhann see no moral differencebetween these two acts. If we are to respect autonomous,informed patients' request to end treatment, so the argumentgoes, then we ought to respect their request for aid indying. Opponents of euthanasia/PAS insist that there is amoral difference between withholding treatment when nothingmore can be done to reverse significantly the physicaldeterioration, and intervening to put the patient todeath.(McCuen pg. 76) The distinction pivots on the way we understandcausality and culpability. In killing, the cause of death isthe lethal intervention. In allowing to die, the cause ofdeath is the natural biological process. When the cause ofdeath is the impersonal force of nature, no one can be heldresponsible. But if death results from the human action ofinjecting or ingesting lethal medication, then someone canbe held culpable. Daniel Callahan, one of America's foremost bioethicists, hasargued that failing to hold to this distinction perpetuatesthe illusion that we can control everything, that we can bemasters of nature and death.(Robinson)The argument from beneficence arises from the desire torelieve pain and suffering and to show compassion and mercy.Three dimensions of beneficence have played a prominent rolein the debate: the "character" of medicine as a profession;the "...
