Can never understand the logic of "slippery slope" arguments when we have a system where the House of Commons decides nearly everything. It's only a slippery slope if in the future the Commons changes its mind on something- which guess what, it can do at any time.
The slippery slope is the hypotenuse on the wedge which has a thin end. Or something. Where would be be without political hyperbole by metaphor and simile? Wallowing in the truth?
Because the perception of 'what is possible' is tied pretty closely to the question 'what's been done before', and perception as much as reality shapes the actions which politicians are willing to take.
Our Parliament has a disproportionate high number of religious MPs who, if they told the truth, want their religion to be foisted on the rest of the population. They don’t want the rest of us to have real choice about how we live or die. I suspect they will win.
I always found slippery slope arguments problematic - H&S rules can be a bit ridiculous in places, does that mean that we shouldn't have started the process of demanding employers keep their workers safe 200 years ago? Those opposing women suffrage were worried about where that might lead 1/2
And I assume where we are now is "worse" than what they could envisage. But each generation should make its own decision, and not taking a (possibly) 1st step because who knows if and what the following step might be, never seemed sensible to me. This current step shld be judged on its own merit 2/2
Okay… about this slippery slope… How often to your knowledge are people given specifics by their doctors? For example how many are given an arbitrary figure of let’s say “6 months” to live?
'Slippery slope' is a cliché that people roll out when they haven't got a real argument.
Slippery slopes are just the thin end of the wedge. Why is the slippery slope never towards something presented as desirable?
Expecting people to remain alive in Global Britain is an act of unspeakable cruelty
I think we as a country should be sorting out palliative care and pain relief first. Everybody fears dying in pain. This seems to be the main reason for wanting assisted dying.
It's nothing to do with this. The slippery slope argument relates to how once the taboo is broken and social attitudes change it makes future relaxation or extension of the rules almost inevitable.
Or ‘once in a generation’….
"I don't want to be a burden.. you have kids to take care of. If only they scanned me earlier. I can't stand living at the home I have nothing to live for" Safeguards are only meaningful with funding. Slippery slope isn't legal is real world
Same as lots of things Lewis, just depends who's saying it. Remember the "don't give Labour a supermajority" line?
Tories don’t want to cut short another persons suffering. They want them to suffer right up until the end (ideally fully conscious as well)
And voting
Against their own interests.
Nobody loves the Lord more than the peasant The English are the most supine people on earth
We really are.
The only people that has revolutions *in favour* of the rich & powerful 🤪🤣
We only had one real revolution, reaching its zenith in 1649, and that certainly wasn't in favour of the rich and powerful. Also 1688, but meh.
I think the slippery slope argument is the other way around? My understanding is that it's more about societal slippery slope, and that in turn, influences decisions made in the Commons.
It may not apply in this case, but the argument is valid where the drafting of the Bill allows for a degree of interpretation.
Quite obvious that politicians try to move the debate in multiple steps: Immigration is bad -> let’s leave the EU -> let’s leave the EHCR -> let’s lock up anyone who disagrees with us We’re currently living through trying to stop that slippery slope
In this specifically allowing ANY assisted dying open the doors to amendments in the future. Politics is not static and it’s right that people should consider potential future changes once the rubicon has been crossed.
Yes it is the huge precedent it sets, that is the issue. With no Assisted Dying Bill the precedent does not exist for slippage to occur. If it has not been thought through and explored in WM very thoroughly initially then there is all sorts of potential for it to be misused.
I think those against assisted dying haven't experienced someone dying next to them in their last weeks of life, stranded on a regular understaffed NHS hospital ward, with palliative nurses daily doing their best with what drugs remained available and family screaming abuse at nurses and doctors.
Nor have they had the inability to do more than whisper words of comfort through a curtain, just after 2 a.m., as that person dies, after nurses didn't respond to their using their own call bell to try and get someone to the bedside of the dying woman.
I felt I knew the dying woman as, 6m earlier, we had again shared a bay in the hospital. At that time, she was in her 80s, but sharp as a tack with her hearing aids. An active woman, still teaching the piano, originally admitted with a broken hip after a fall. Her name was Ann.
The answer to that awful experience is not necessarily assisted dying though. It could also be better palliative care and a properly funded and staffed NHS, or a combination of both.
Rejecting the notion that culture is continually changing is worthy of Cnut. It’s only part of the fixed “British values” narrative we see across the political spectrum when change becomes difficult.
Anything can be slippery if you apply enough lube.
It is a fair argument for those who know that once an age-old taboo is broken further change later is quite possible as we are no longer constrained by the myth.
… by the dominant narrative. All taboos are broken because dominant narratives shift. Taboos that once ‘deserved ’ death, gain tolerance then acceptance as new terms enter the public lexicon and feared harms fail to materialise.
And that is exactly why breaking the taboo is so frightening to religious groups of all varieties. It reminds me of the play ‘Galileo’ where the church hierarchy argues it is heresy to believe the earth rotates round the sun as it will lead to the overturn of the Church.
Exactly that. It’s worth considering how those who oppose assisted dying might talk about a beloved dog or cat they have to put down. ‘Put her out of her misery’. But humans should persist in the same misery… 🤷🏻♂️
Amazing example of double-think isn’t it?
Wasn’t there talk of a “slippery slope” in the debates around same-sex marriage? What would be next…? Marrying your pet dog?! Ahem.
Look at how the interpretation of law by the courts gathers over time and shapes practice.
Slightly related! Any reposts appreciated petition.parliament.uk/petitions/70...
In Oregon there’s been a slippery slope as a matter of policy not law - eg some doctors have opted to define anorexia as terminal. That’s within the law there and would be here. Plus many lawyers think law could well be subject to expansion by courts if challenged as discriminatory under the ECHR.
"6 months to live" is not and never has been an exact science, especially when govts and politics are involved. Abdelbaset al-Megrahi lived for 3 years after being released by the Scot Govt with "months, not years" to live.
The anti-assisted-dying brigade are getting desperate because it looks as though they are going to lose the vote on Friday. The simple matter of fact is that governments shouldn’t be able to force terminally ill people to die in misery and torture.
I don't agree, whatever your view, the decision or issue is simple.
Are you saying that no one has the right to make their own choice in matter?
Quite the opposite. I don't think we should shut down the debate by being aggressive and asserting that it is a simple matter, which was what I took from your post.
The idea of assisted dying IS a simple matter because it’s a matter of liberties. The legal processes for implementing it might be complex, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be legalised.
I disagree that it is a question of liberties; it is state assisted, not state permitted. Or that questions of liberties are simple. "Free speech" is a question of liberties, but only simple if you're an absolutist.
It won’t be state assisted. It will be a determination by doctors and courts in accordance with the law. And, I have to disagree with you about liberties. If you deny someone the right to make a determination about themselves then it is a denial of liberty.
NHS doctors and the courts are part of the state. Both are essential for the good order and health of the nation.
Think about this. If the courts were part of the state, it would be impossible to prosecute politicians.
Your sentence is utter gibberish. You need to familiarise yourself with the UK Constitution, and in particular the pillars of democracy.
For me this is a classic fallacy - the idea of voting against the Bill feels like not changing anything, which feels like not doing anything. But it IS doing something: it's making the active choice to deny some people choice in their death.
Brutally true. The moral high ground transcending the agony of a foul death.
There are two reasonable concerns. One is that the law as passed could be used and interpreted much more widely than was originally envisaged. The other is that incremental moves are practically easier than one big one. Proponents of change should engage with both in good faith.
Safeguards are needed to prevent interpretation creep. But incremental changes are not always easier. It will remain a sensitive matter & changes would receive similar attention. Since 1967 the Abortion Act has been amended just once & to reduce the number of weeks before which one can be performed
Personally, I'm sceptical about the incremental change argument too. As you say, any change pushing at the boundaries of opinion will always be controversial and come under heavy scrutiny. But I still think the argument has some weight. But that's why it should be engaged with on its merits.
Income tax is a slippery slope to the government taking all your income, by the logic.
Is this about Assisted Dying? Canada has steadily expanded the scope while consistently refusing living care. That's not a slippery slope, that's mission creep.
That is usually true but in this case we know most of the advocates of the Bill would like it to go much further and are starting with the minimum. So I think slippery slope is more valid.
I think a painless death should be available to everyone at any time, especially given how horrific our very brief future will be. The only reason this hasn’t come to pass is that you’d lose half the population over night & the economy would collapse (no money for rich ppl)
Campaigners are advocating a version of the law with arguably excessive hurdles, allowing the system to be tested and society at large to get comfortable that it’s not being abused before any consideration is given to changing things. ‘Slippery slope’ seems an unduly negative way of describing that
Even if it were true that advocates want it to go ‘much further’, if as I understand it would be the most tightly defined/regulated bill of its kind, then I’m not sure that point is relevant?
Once the principle has been accepted it's going to be a lot easier to expand the scope.
Our society doesn’t kill criminals. What would need to happen to our society to make us believe that helping someone with a terminal disease die is the same as executing a disabled person for being disabled?
Also worth remembering that Canada also has parliamentary sovereignty as a cornerstone of its constitution. Its direction of travel is exactly what those concerned about the Bill are worried about
Agree, but if we concede that the slippery slope metaphor has merit here, this will never be the end of it. There will be slippery slopes everywhere.
Slippery Slopes are there to be navigated. Crampons, Ice Axes ... an opportunity to bring out the mountaineering analogies.
As Lewis says only to a point & it’s at the will of the gov’t / majority of the time. As it’s a free vote MPs are allowed to draw their red lines. There seems to be enough ‘dissent’ as the tabloids would call it (I’d say differing opinions, which is healthy) as it is, never mind future changes.
Lewis is correct. It isn’t a slippery slope when Parliament has the final say. Shabana Mahmood is a perfect example of why non-secular people shouldn’t be in government.
Only up to a point. You might expand the 6 months. But it’s an entirely different principle of assisted dying for the terminally ill to someone who isn’t- who is disabled for example. Which is one of the primary and understandable objections.
I’d normally agree (and tend to favour the AD bill) but I can understand the slippery slope concern. Who would have thought the government of a western democracy would oversee the recent regression in women’s rights? That said, we can’t let fear of future govts stop thoughtful legislation now.
But we're already hearing about all the people who will "miss out" on it. "What about people with dementia, who won't be able to consent"? Etc. Once 6 months expands to more, and the argument becomes "if you wouldn't expect someone to suffer for 1 year, then why for 10?" etc
then it seems very easy for it to become just an assessment of quality of life - is it worth it? And we see plenty of evidence that non-disabled people think death is better than disability.
I don’t know if this is *exactly* the slippery slope argument but: six months often involves a degree of medical guesswork. It’s very different to “the last two weeks”. The introduction of guesswork - in some cases - suggests to me the possibility of expanding guessing fairly easily.
ie, to make it less abstract, probably lots of us have a story like this: I know someone who’s been given six months to live four times over the past seven years. Six months (sometimes? often?) isn’t a precise measure, it’s a guess. It could actually mean “seven years”.
The medical profession effectively forced my mum to stay alive in her final months, she lost all her dignity & was in agony. Had she been a dog or a cat we would’ve done the compassionate thing. Unspeakable cruelty.
Yes it is awful. The whole thing is awful. There is horrible suffering, and I am so sorry and sad to hear of what happened to your poor mum.
So the slope, in so far as it exists, is between the patient and the doctor. How liberal the doctor is with guessing. How much the patient can be (eg) pressured to talk up their symptoms. I don’t even necessarily know what I think the right answer is. It is a true situation of competing rights.
I don't think that's a fair interpretation of the bill as drafted. The request will have to be signed by two doctors and reviewed by a judge. The judge is going to ask for evidence of how the 6 months or less assessment is made. And that will be statistical, with people being over or under average
I don’t know that it’s an interpretation of the bill so much as an understanding that doctors are mostly doing their best but there’s a huge amount we don’t know about the body. And doctors are people too, and may be influenced by all sorts of factors. But: I really do not know the right answer.
I think we hope that what we can get from doctors is truth and a full explanation. What’s actually available (in some cases) is: a few different things to try, one of which may work for reasons that are unclear. And some large-scale statistical data about what would happen if I were 1000 people.
What I think would be great is just to acknowledge, whatever decision is made, that some people may (will) suffer. To acknowledge that values sometimes compete and clash. That making no decision is also making a decision - there’s no way out of some suffering.
I very much enjoyed how you provided this perspective on what might be considered a slope. My country The Netherlands is often brought up as "evidence" of the slippery slope, because people think our legislation has been expanded over time, beyond the initial terminal illness requirements.
Because there isn’t a right answer, there is the answer that each individual finds that squares with their values and beliefs
But there are also laws which the country decides on together. I don’t know what the right answer is there either.
We are all dying, most of us don't know the timescale. The greatest freedom is surely to have the option to die on our own terms and not in pain or with a loss of dignity. For MPs to block or duck this, just because they can't work out the finer details, seems like a dereliction of duty.
Canada looms large in the minds of those concerned with this, I believe. It is a very troubling example of what could happen.
In Canada, the law retains broad public support. 97% of those who choose the option have a reasonably foreseeable natural death (around two-thirds have cancer). Those who don’t tend to have conditions like MS. The vast majority have access to palliative care. 1 in 5 requests are denied.
How does this relate to what I wrote please?
You claimed that the Canadian system is troubling. The statistics (rather than viral, misleading stories) suggest otherwise.
Ok budy statistics tell me how I feel brilliant
If you make a claim, you should be able to provide reasons for why you think the claim is true. I assume that you wanted people to make decisions on the basis of more than just “feelings” during the EU referendum?
Having watched Better Off Dead, the BBC documentary in which Liz Carr presents compelling arguments against removing the barrier to assisted suicide, I changed from strongly supporting the right to choose, to acknowledging where this can lead (Canada!) and being opposed to starting down this path.
Then consider other regions, such as Oz. They have assisted dying legislation that was created via debate and concensus, and not pushed through the courts as the Canadian system was.
Perhaps I should, but I found the issues raised in the programme profoundly shocking. Yes Canada may be an extreme example of how horribly far a civilised society can go down this path, but it did make me appreciate the general argument against the whole premise of state assisted suicide.
Yes except that we have a completely different system. The courts created the Canadian system, in effect. Impossible here.
That’s the bit so many people cannot seem to get their head around. There seems almost no attempt to understand it.
I think you understand the slippery slope arguments very well. You just don't agree with them 👀 which is quite different.
Precisely - it's like denying the existence of unintended / unforseen consequences
I think he’s arguing (at least I would) that’s it’s not a slippery slope as much as a ladder upwards where you decide to take a next step; the country won’t “slip” into anything as they’ll take a considered decision on any next steps.
Well sure - but when you are at the bottom & you look back up at the ladder you may (rightly) think "That was a slippery slope"
But I think I’m simply saying it’s the slippery slope fallacy. It might have seemed a slippery slope in hindsight, but in reality the people (via parliament) changed its mind or took a different path later down the line.
Agree with the below. I think sooner or later the ECHR will crowbar its way into the issue.
Lawyers disagree. Some think that Human Rights Act-based challenges to the law could succeed on discrimination grounds.
To detractors its a slippery slope, but the examples given aren't really valid for many reasons. Esp the abortion one where the issue has moved with better understanding over time, only creep if you don't agree. Reality is a reflection of attitudes and evidence.
The circumstances for wanting assisted dying may well be different and raise questions and concerns, especially mental health, but the principle of allowing people to choose when they die remains the same doesn’t it?
Won't an Act, if there is one, largely reflect the current politics of the debate and future amendments would reflect changes in that debate. Most advocates of most things want legislation to go further than it does. But the debate won't stop whether the Bill is moved or not.
There may be a natural settling point that it will tend towards. “I want to die when I want to die, but don’t want to be pressured by others.” Until that point is reached there will be pressure; once it is it should be stable. But we know that institutions will profit from death over treatment.
We have a Commons full of amoral grifters (see Austerity, Brexit, Pandemic, VIP Lanes etc etc) who are willing to turn a blind eye when it suits. This is indeed a Slippery Slope.
Absolutely, as long as the gov’t at the time allows a free vote, this legislation would be protected from ‘whip influence’. Enough valid questioning is being raised on the legislation as it is, further amendments would only face further scrutiny & challenge.
'You might expand the 6 months'.... to what? A year? Two? That would be *a big* change and would throw up all kinds of new concerns.
I mean, during COVID, many people received a Do Not Resuscitate order against they will just because they were disabled. There is a precedent where the scope is expanded behind doors.
Can you think of a policy where this wasn’t the case? Every policy I’ve been lobbied on/ been part of has started with x, knowing that the aim was to take an initial step towards y or z. Most don’t even make the first step, let alone the second or third
We can draw from the experience of other countries. Netherlands and Spain both have legalised it, but the scope is very different.
And New Zealand, where it was legalised fairly recently. It's not like we would be the first, so I don't see why we can't learn from other countries who are already doing it, both in terms of what works and what doesn't.
Certainly true in my case - but that's how a change that goes to the core of our national identity/culture should happen. Incrementally, carefully, reviewing the evidence constantly as we go, or don't go.
But if you object to the principle that is a slippery slope.
Sure. For people who thought women having the vote was a bad idea, first extending the vote to non land-owning men was the start of a slippery slope... But the process allowed the principle to be constantly examined. But total respect for principled opposition.
Can just hear many men once voicing this argument about women’s suffrage….
How could you go further with women's suffrage than giving women voting equality with men?
Thinking of what came next on ‘slope’ in terms of movements for equal pay & women’s liberation. For many, women’s suffrage was a hugely dangerous precedent. Perhaps we’ll look back in future with the same incredulity that it took us so long to legalise assisted dying.
Perhaps. But I think it still distracts us from engaging with the merits or demerits of this particular legislation as it exists. Rather than quite abstract arguments which are dominating at the moment.
But those who want to put us on a "slippery slope" (on any matter) would always argue that people should only consider the legislation in front of them. Those who (privately) hope it leads to the "slippery slope" never advocate for it. That's what makes the slope... slippery.
I'm not sure. It seems really quite likely to me that the scope will be expanded if it passes because the limits don't make much sense *if you agree with the principle*. Why exclude dementia which is probably the main thing that people worry about re: wanting to end their life?
Because how would you decide it's really the person with dementia's choice? At what point do they lose capacity? That's subjective and a subject of disagreement among those of us who work with people with dementia. I think that would be very open to abuse and/or desperation of unsupported carers
Yes, it feels like that is then a big pressure point for people to feel they should be able to confirm their intentions in advance. But obviously hits the problem of judging when the trigger point is reached and that people do change their minds.
Because they're not terminally ill. These slippery slope arguments were also used in the gay marriage debate and the abortion debate. Decade(s) on, we're still not marrying polygamous couples nor aborting 38 week babies, both slippery slope arguments cited at the time.
But those were stupid arguments. No one proposing gay marriage wanted to allow people to marry dogs or whatever nonsense. People who support assisted dying do often want to allow non-terminally ill people to end their life. That's why it's different.
What are you meaning by, "non terminally ill people"? I worry about the words used around this very emotive subject.
Those advocating them didn’t think they were stupid at the time, and they weren’t tiny minority views either, especially re abortion.
No but they were stupid because advocates weren't ultimately hoping for those things. The key thing that makes a slippery slope argument valid is whether or not most advocates, in reality, want to go down the slope. And they do here.
Slippery slope is often just another way of framing gradual acceptance. Gay rights, for example.
Moreover we’ve a control in the many other jurisdictions which have moved to exactly the sort of regime which has been proposed and we’ve seen no slippery slope. The system has remained in place. I really get the concern but I think it’s a pretty weak starting point if I’m honest.
The slippery slope argument remains a specious argument. It works on the basis that assisted dying will become a norm and this is bad If they believe in human autonomy they should look at how the current arrangements undermine this.
And others have expanded the scope. So that doesn't tell us much.
That's democracy
It tells us there’s nothing inevitable about the slope- which is precisely my starting point.
The issue isn't that it's inevitable, just a lot more likely. All these decisions are about risk trade-offs unless you have a religious objection.
Someone is going to do a graph in a sec demonstrating this slippery slope I fear
It’s a pretty big rubicon to cross though. And with anywhere near enough knowledge, I can see why there’s a fear that allowing the state to end lives opens a scary door.
It's not 'allowing people to end their life'; the point is to give people enduring unbelievable suffering freedom of a choice.
As always a slippery slope is the thing used when I can't object to what you are proposing so I need to invent a different problem. As passionately and objectively as I can be imagining myself in that situation, I don't want somebody else's religion or beliefs to make me suffer more.
But gay marriage did start with civil partnership before full marriage. I guess that could be what they mean.
Dementia is absolutely a terminal illness. It's a tricky one here because the prognosis/life expectancy can be very difficult to judge. But ultimately it will kill you. Ask Alzheimer's Society, Marie Curie etc.
"Terminal" places too much emphasis on cancer. Neurodegenerative conditions have resulted in a number of legal cases for assisted dying, some put people in a place where quality of life is worth than death. These people are every bit as terminal as patients with metastatic cancer.
Why is it OK to relieve the suffering of someone who will die in a few months, but wash your hands of someone who will likely suffer for a few years without hope of improvement? Hard to call the end date for people with severe neurodegenerative conditions.
I'm not saying that this legislation might not be revisited, but it only will be if there's majority support in parliament. Which i given the concern about this very narrowly defined bill seems unlikely in the medium term at least and if it did happen, well, that's the system...
I'd say court battles over what is or isn't a terminal illness are likely
You could also get an incompatibility ruling with HRA that encourages Parliament to revise.
This lawyer argues that the current system, where AD is technically illegal but rarely prosecuted, is much more likely to lead to a slippery slope than a clearly defined law. This article convinced me that our current grey area is more likely to be abused. www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/ideas/law/68...
Lewis, legislation for a similar bill currently being debated in Scotland is quite different to that in WM. Our bill will only apply to terminal diagnosis and not AFAIK cases of suffering alone. Might be worth looking it up if you've not already. open.spotify.com/episode/0YWI...
The same applies to the 1967 decriminalisation of abortion, and it still has not been legalised. Not all slopes are slippery.
‘Parliament might decide something different in the future!’ ‘Well done, you have correctly described a democracy.’
It's not the slippery slope argument for me, it's the matter of safeguards. We have seen time and time again a failure of safeguarding throughout the NHS. Also Carers by agencies are not regulated - see case of fake carers provided to look after vulnerable. Can't guarantee ironclad safeguards.
www.politicshome.com/thehouse/art... From a supporter of Assisted Dying This Bill is problematic. The slippery slope is a reality in Canada, Netherlands. There is a risk of extension via discrimination cases in the courts. If we decide to go down this route we need to do it more professionally
Yeah, it would take an unimaginable sequence of events to make it possible. Like...a massive swing to the right, privatisation of the NHS, private healthcare providers lobbying government to convert "Logan's Run" from a work of fiction to reality. Tongue-in-cheek. I agree with your position.
It’s a lazy argument from people who are opposed to a change. By all means argue the merits of the actual proposed new law, but I’ve got no time for that “logic”.
This whole process has been a bit of a disgrace given the importance of this issue. Very disappointed in Labour frontbenchers unsubtly trying to sabotage the whole thing. The big majority of people who want this have been badly let down by this half-arsed effort.
My concern is a scenario where an articulate campaigner is diagnosed with something like motor neurone disease which will progress horribly. They will challenge the present scope via the courts claiming it is discriminatory. They will win because it will be discriminatory.
Essentially as soon as this becomes law (and I think it will) legislators will be under immediate pressure to widen scope. The idea that a high court judge with zero knowledge of a particular family or medical situation is ideally placed to adjudicate in such matters also troubling to me.
More concerning is how legislation is interpreted, which is affected by how tightly/loosely it is drafted
To mix metaphors, you can always draw a line in the sand to prevent a slippery slope…
It’s a rhetorical trick to make you think that, in this case anyway, people with disabilities will be subjected to societal pressure to cease to exist. It’s a powerful lobby but a less powerful argument since our society has progressively but slowly improved the visibility and mobility that polity.
Yes, the 'slippery slope' argument is always a tacit admission by the opponent that they cannot muster sufficient objection to something that is currently being proposed, so instead they object to something that is not being proposed and hope that sticks.
Indeed .
You're describing a flight of steps, not a slippery slope. Which refers to how events on the edge of legality are or are not enforced, how that defacto situation becomes engrained, gets reflected in how the law's applied, & eventually how it's rewritten.
I am sure those who have mentioned the 'slippery slope' have given reasons for not wanting a 'slippery slope'. Exploitation is a very real issue for example. Intolerance to disability another. State of palliative care another.
Well put.
Thanks
But generally doesn’t need to on these major pieces of major social legislation like capital punishment, the Abortion Act,same sex marriage. Because am I right in thinking they have never reach the ‘slippery slope’?
I have a strong suspicion that many if not most of the most vocal opponents in Parliament are motivated more by their personal religious convictions rather than any concern for the rights of the terminally ill.
None the less they are undoubtedly voicing concerns held by some in the disabled community (and others outside of it). In that regard speculating on whether they're motivated to do so by personal religious conviction doesn't seem terribly relevant.
Absolutely. It seems absurd that the House of Commons probably has more religious people per capita than the country they represent.
Legislation is specific, sure. But once a political boundary has been crossed, going further is considered the relatively easy part.
Really... Brexit?
The law still says the motorway speed limit is 70. Everyone knows you can drive with impunity in the high-70s. The law doesn't need to change for its application to change over time. When it does change, it'll be changed to reflect reality - ie upwards.
Parliament will be driven by public opinion, of course. That's where the slippery slope is. And powerful forces keep making it steeper. Do you think the overton window had one big shift then stopped moving?
They said that when Labour downgraded the classification of cannabis to class-C. Look how that worked out.
The slope argument is used when there’s no strong argument to the detail of the proposal .. it’s fear mongering and intended to worry about an imagined scenario not the facts .. and implies nothing is wrong with the current situation.. which it clearly is for those this is intended to help
There are lot of examples of "slippery slope" that span governments. Student tuition fees being a good example. Sure, future Commons could scrap them, but they just raise them again and again.
In many ways I support the idea of choice & a year ago I might have supported the assisted dying bill. But the recent move in the media & politics to normalise the idea that the disabled are a drag on our economy gives a glimpse of what a slippery slope looks like to a wheelchair user.
Also, with the currently precarious state of palliative care, people do not really have a choice when it comes to end of life care
Stop this Bill, disabled people are people and we matter just as much as anyone else.
During the pandemic, disabled people were given do not resuscitate notices because the previous Conservative Government considered disabled people to be less worthy. Absolutely scandalous.
As a vulnerable disabled person, I am so frightened of the Assisted Dying Bill. Disabled people are being treated with contempt in this whole process. Look at what has happened in the Netherlands and Canada, where a huge number of disabled people have died under Assisted Dying laws.
Wouldn't it show contempt if disabled are not entitled to have that kind of autonomy, but abled people are? I'm not planning to have a massive debate here, just curious to hear more about your concerns.
The wedge does have a thin end and the slope can be slippery. Take same-sex marriage. I don’t think that would have happened without civil partnerships first. I am in favour of both, but there are those who opposed SSM who regarded CPs as a “slippery slope”. They were right, from their perspective.
I agree, using "slippery slope" arguments is definitely the thin end of the wedge...
It's boiling frog syndrome. The slippery slope is because it's easier to go further from an existing base. That's pretty simple logic, no?
But it implies a certainty where none exists. It’s always up to Parliament. There are endless pieces of legislation which go so far and stop forever. Others which go further over time. So what?
I know what you're saying and normally I'd agree but you can't discount the ability for MPs to feel happier going further than before because the change is less. You're absolutely right that facts are facts and people *should* act objectively.
One day assisted dying, the next day Logan's Run, just like what happened in the Netherlands - except it didn't
It has turned The Netherlands in such a godforsaken hellhole, support is at record highs even among religious folks :-)
tbf look at the country...I dont mean the complete destruction of the nhs, housing, education, economy etc...I just mean nothing works, people are tired and despondent You trust this country, knowing all you do about individuals and society, to run this within adequate guardrails? I don't
p.s. this isn't a slippery slope argument...simply my very recently acquired new view on the matter. Give the country a few years of running properly and happiness and employment levels to improve, get back to being an actual country, and maybe then I'd be back supporting it
you have to remember, that this is a country where our P.M. was reported to have said stack the bodies high. Austerity since 2012 is responsible for more than a million brit deaths, the suicides of welfare claimants and deaths from starvation etc This country cannot manage assisted suicide
Live for certain demographics in this country, is viewed far cheaper than others We all know it, and try to ignore and deny because in a perfect world, assisted suicide should be an option
*life not live...apologies
Should suicide pills be available to adults over the counter?
Assisted dying itself is part of the slippery slope. It isn't the top of it. We simply do not see life as sacred like we used to, and that will lead to more and more ideas and laws that devalue humanity in the name of kindness.
I love the pic! 😆
@mrpaulrobinson.bsky.social
And the following year, the future Queen was born. Which shows that even going a funfair has consequences, people.
"a system where the House of Commons decides nearly everything" is not the selling point to me that you perhaps think it is, given their recent record. In fact, it's one of my main concerns.
It seems the voices against the Assisted Dying bill are growing louder, mainly from religious groups, despite the majority of the public being in favour (with safeguards). I’ve watched far too many people die miserable deaths. I hope some progress is made to give people a choice.
I just don’t see this happening, Labour MPs furiously backpedaling
This is nonsense, it's not from religious groups, it's from disabled people unsatisfied with the lack of meaningful safeguards and the knowledge that every day the struggle due to total failure of care and funding.
What relevance does that have to the legislation in question? Specifically? I ask as someone with a partner with a disability and a terminally ill father.
What relevance does which part have?
Religious groups need to wind their necks in. They and their ilk would never choose such an option, so any legislation would not be detrimentally them.
I really hope the Bill passes on Friday.
I'm both religious and disabled and I wish they'd interview more Disabled people and fewer Religious voices - many of the latter I find detestable on any other issue.
I’m broadly in favour of assisted dying. I am however also broadly in favour of better funded palliative care. If we can stop a good number of deaths from being miserable is there as much need for assisted dying?
Exactly. The two are complementary, not mutually exclusive.
Your point downplays the very real weakness uk parliament has in conducting decent post-leg scrutiny.
No, not at all. If you actually read the bill there’s nothing there that would ever encourage any slippery slope. So if no one in parliament ever votes to change it, it stays. Guys what. No slippery slope
From the coverage, I would have guessed that only a third of the country supported assisted dying, but it is actually far higher than that.defense tactics.
Labour MPs are furiously backpedaling as well. Keir won’t even join Bluesky, no way he does this.
That’s clearly not him 🤣
True it’s clearly not sadly.
Starmer, when he was DPP, wrote some very good and clear guidelines on investigating/ prosecuting assisted suicide. However, unlike his Cabinet, he's correctly not expressing his view on a free vote. I'm shocked that the Minister for Health has intervened as he has, as the Minister for Justice.
Agreed
Of course the Secretary of States for the relevant departments should be expressing their opinions. It’s mad that they were ordered not to. It’s mad that this is happening via PMB and not government legislation.
It's important that this is a free vote, and that means that MPs should not be voting one way or another in order to curry favour with ministers. When Streeting speaks, he speaks with the authority of the Department of Health, even though his statements, eg on cost implications, are contradictory.
I don't believe he, or his department, have validated his claims. But his position gives them a weight they would not have. A PMB should be subject to scrutiny and amendment, or it should not exist for any Bill. I think they are useful. Especially for a free vote.
With a huge majority, the HoC decides nothing. The Executive does. Time to get rid of FPTP.
I definitely lean towards being for the legislation, but in these cases I think the slippery slope argument is more about cultural and societal norms and the overton window than it is about the practicalities of passing laws
According to the Guardian, "UK’s assisted dying law won’t be ‘slippery slope’" Well I did assume they would have a more sophisticated method in mind to be fair....
Maybe look at the Brexit argument and how ‘nobody was talking about leaving the Customs Union’ (Hannah). The slippery slope argument counts because public opinion is what the HoC votes based upon. It’s a case if you tolerate this then your children will be next. Surprised you struggle with it
Though to be fair, the Overton Window does exist.
Because it creates a new normal. From that new normal it is then possible to go further. Eventually you’ve gone way further than you initially intended. When people voted Brexit it didn’t necessarily mean hard Brexit - leaving CU, SM etc. But once through, that became the next battle. So it goes.
I really appreciated Dimbleby's comments on this and it would seem he has much more to say. Future guest on the podcast?
Oh. That's sounds slippery.
Exactly. Kim explains that we have a different system to Canada.
Similarly, I never understand people who argue something sets a precedent. Sure, but outside of court, precedent is a factor to be considered not an obligation to follow.
Sloppy and dishonest.
Surely you argue the merits of a piece of legislation and vote based on what it is. Then if it’s revisited you do the same and, if you feel the changes are unacceptable, you vote against it. You don’t vote against something for some hypothetical future changes.
It's mainly used by crooks like Nigel Farage for attention mainly
care to leave people with one option
The NHS knowingly discharged people in care homes without protecton. They always take a mile. The political Class of which you are one. never talk about care really. But your all happy to debate a death system. Lewis what will happen is that all money will slowly be taken out of end of life
“The House of Commons decides nearly everything”? That’s not even true for legislation, never mind everything else. The Govt (executive) is the dominant part of our system, not Parliament.
Goodall is allegedly one of the better political journalists.
The government are only dominant because they have a majority in parliament, its not wrong to say the house of commons decides nearly everything.
The comparison is to other systems (e.g. canada) where systems allows charge to legislation through non-parliamentary mechanisms. So "slippery slope" in UK could not happen in the same way.
Ministers in the UK can use devices like secondary legislation (statutory instruments) as well as delegated authority to change the detail of how legislation is implemented in practice. And they do. All of which receives very little parliamentary scrutiny. The devil is often in the detail.
That is broadly true, but Parliament can stop them if it really wants to. And there is no reason to suppose any future Ministers are malevolently inclined to broaden the scope of assisted dying legislation without parliamentary approval.
I’m not commenting specifically on the assisted dying legislation. Just making a general point. The balance of power between Ministers and the Commons is very much with the former on most things. Some procedures (like ones covering budgets and public money) are deliberately rigged to favour Govt
Yes, but doesn’t the original legislation have to provide for ministers to have that power? It’s not a universal power, it’s expedient for some aspects of some legislation where flexibility to move with events is useful. If I’m right, then this power should not be written into this Act.
I’m not commenting on this Act - I haven’t looked at the draft. I’m just making a general point that Parliament (the Commons) is dominated by Govt, except in extremis.
Fair enough, so we’d need to be alert for these Henry VIII provisions being written into the bill.
Watched a good friend & colleague die a couple of years ago. I don't think they were in pain but it wasn't peaceful, it was horrific. I believe it was how they feared it would be. We have to remember the horrible suffering of the real people we're talking about here.
Exactly. Maybe they mean "unintended consequencies"? The bill seems safe enough to me, though.
The bill doesn’t address the increasing population of elderly with incurable dementia. These people are living through a death sentence, their families are also living indescribably difficult times, mourning a death that is inevitable, but not defined within a time frame.
I dont understand slippery slope argument either As it implies inevitability When in fact if it ever did change in the future it would only be by the will of parliament Who represent us Advocates against any issue speak the same, gay marriage, abortion , minimum wage etc
There is something else called "facts on the ground" The Commons can pass/change laws - but cannot reverse trends within society Once the genie of Assisted Dying is out of the bottle it cannot be recorked Any more than homosexuality can be re-outlawed
It’s a lazy trope often used when people have no solid arguments… that’s why using in the case of AS feels odd, almost as if they’re reading from a prepared script
The slippery slope argument is valid, but less likely in the assisted suicide case. Good examples are Labour bringing in benefit sanctions in 1997 and Tories toughening them up and Labour limited housing benefits for young people and the Tories brought in the Bedroom Tax - Oh and Tuition fees.
In 1831 Sir Robert Peel used the slippery slope argument against what became The Great Reform Act of 1832. It’s always the last bastion of vested interests trying to hold back the tide of progress.
I think the slippery slope they fear is less one of legislature and more one of ethics as these concerns are often used by people with a theological cast of mind, who seek absolutes rather than nuance, particularly for other people who mustn't be encouraged to consider such matters.
Unfortunately, once the first decision is made and everyone gets used to it, Parliament may struggle to stick to 'terminal patients only'. After all, 'life is a terminal condition'.
I know referenda have gone so well in the past with no controversy, but isn’t this a situation where it would be genuinely the right way to decide? MPs have been out of lockstep with the public for a while and it’s a relatively isolated change to the law so relatively simple to implement.
Oregon. 30 years of assisted dying. No changes since first enacted.
"slippery slope" is used by people who don't agree with something but are unable to come up with a cogent argument against it. They may as well say "I have a bad feeling about this".
If you're not sure why Disabled People might 'have a bad feeling about this', are you really upholding minority voices in the debate?
My mother was disabled and would have liked to have a choice. The disabled aren't necessarily a monolith on this issue.
I agree. That's not what my comment was about, though. It's a complex issue which needs strong arguments so those who use that kind of phrase do themselves no favours.
I'm not expressing an opinion on the debate. I understand the arguments on both sides. I'm just talking about language.
Indeed. There are potential steps forward, but each step would require new legislation.
Isn’t it a type of reductio ad absurdam argument? Those against the bill will try to offer up ever more implausible examples of things that they will claim “might” happen further down the road, until euthanasia is presented as a future option for anyone struggling with ill health.
Like Belgium?
I think you probably know more about this than I do. Is assisted dying really available for any illness in Belgium?
Not quite every illness. But I understand includes depression, dementia, children, progressive disability. When started, it was much more limited.
For example, the Oregon assisted dying law has barely been altered in three decades. There’s nothing inevitable about the slope unless Parliament wills it.
The only argument I've seen that makes it a slippery slope as opposed to steps that could be walked down (or up) by parliament, is that legal challenge could expand the people who were eligible. Apparently this is what happened in Canada initially. People seem to think it's not likely here.
I think it's because our legislation is based on objective criteria, but Canada's is more subjective. @iandunt.bsky.social has posted a very informative explanation.
In Oregon it isn't a choice for many though it's their only option. patientsrightsaction.org/wp-content/u...
The Voluntary Assisted Dying laws here in Victoria haven't been expanded in 5 years of operation and there is no serious push to change that.
Out of interest, during covid (March20 to March21) was there any change in assisted dying numbers in Oregon? Did the number of applications remain static?
Interesting question.
And look at every other argument where people implied slippery slope would occur and it didn't At some point we have to admit the slippery slope does not exist
If you look at the trajectory of policy moves in the UK in relation to numerous sectors (welfare, housing etc) you can see a gradual evolution in policy from the post war consensus. The fact the law hasn’t altered is no guarantee against unintended consequences pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37788941/
The slippery slop is in the authorising mechanism. If there’s 1 “applicant” each week the system can properly assess the merits of each case and do its job properly. If there’s a 1000 then each case is rushed and pushed towards the slop. There’s an inevitability about it.
I’d say the fear is about practice rather than legislation change
If we take the 1967 Abortion Act as an example, that slope is so resolutely unslippery that in nearly 60 years abortion hasn’t even technically been decriminalised in Great Britain.
Yes but it now includes conditions such as anorexia nervosa and arthritis-it perfectly legitimate for people to be in favour of that, but to pretend it doesn’t indicate widening of scope to chronic as opposed to terminal illness is misleading
Always easier to go down a slope than haul yourself back up one. (No argument about the current subject intended)
Yeah but the changing interpretation of the abortion act in the last 60 years from never being allowed to bring near always allowed is the exact argument for the slippery slope (not that I agree)
This. It's not so much legal creep as social. Over a generation or two, the exceptional becomes normal. (For the avoidance of doubt: I'm not arguing for a change in the law on abortion. It's just an illustration of what can happen.)
The “social creep” you describe is literally social progress. It’s a good thing. But society can’t compel parliament to take specific action; only our elected officials can do that.
We now have abortion on demand without anyone ever having voted for it. In 30 or so years' time we might have assisted dying for anyone whose quality of life is deemed poor enough to justify it. I personally don't consider that "progress", but legislators have to consider the possibility now.
Parliament indeed should democratically reflect social change. It’s not slippery, it’s democratic.
Exactly. If parliament can’t get something which has 75% support passed then what is even for? MPs and ministers need to seriously prioritise the views of their constituents more than their own.
From what I hear in the media (I have no inside info about this), many MP's are genuinely undecided and are consulting with their constituents. Nonetheless, constitutionally MP's are representatives, not delegates: they are supposed to listen to the arguments and exercise their judgement
I'm really pleased my MP is likely to oppose this unsafe and cynical bill that will put vulnerable people in danger. Btw the idea that 75% of people support it is misleading. How many doctors working in palliative care do? 6% with 83% opposed.
That is literally the worst possible group you could survey. They don’t want to have to carry out the action; their jobs also depend on palliative care being the last recourse. What is your specific concern about the bill? What specific provision do you disagree with?
While palliative care is often cut while assisted dying is invested in (the state encouraging this by stealth). Your point is that palliative care will be reduced by assisted dying implementation. So the law shouldn't be implemented then. It can't be instead of other services.
Nothing unsafe about it and those palliative care doctors that oppose it don’t oppose it on safety grounds. They believe all international evidence to the contrary that assisted dying will deflect funds away from palliative care.
You've stayed an overarching reason that you think applies to 83% of palliative doctors. You can't possibly know why all of them said they oppose this. The idea that it'll be safe is ridiculous on so many levels. The government aren't doing it because they think it will be safe.
I'm not ideologically opposed to it. I would like to see something. I am opposed to it because I think people are naive about the dangers of it.
Have you read the notes from the commons discussion on it with experts from around the world? There's lots of safety risks to it. They don't know how many patients in (Belgium I think) are put out by doctors in hospitals without requesting it, as they don't have any safeguarding on it.
If that were the case we’d never have decriminalised homosexuality, abolished the death penalty or introduced same sex marriages.
My word Norbert, you’re way out of touch with majority opinion. There’ll always be bigots but the mood had changed when these were changed
No, I don’t think so. Got any evidence for this? Prosecutions increased after 1967, for example. We eventually got Section 28 etc etc. You could argue the change of law eventually led to social change but Parliament certainly wasn’t at the forefront of a social movement.
Gay marriage was actually only minority-supported when it was passed!
And does anyone really believe abolishing the death penalty had enthusiastic majority support?
Although this appears to completely contradict that: www.ipsos.com/en-uk/poll-g... “Around three quarters (73%) of British adults think gay people should be allowed to get married to each other”
Careful Lewis - we can’t go around dismantling all of the politicians’ go-to non-arguments. The poor little lambs might have to actually start applying some critical thinking 😉
Acceptable in Israel, and the government may pay for it.
Isn't the point here about what's politically acceptable? Is that the Overton Window? Once this becomes law, the window shifts/widens (whatever analogy you like) so it's not just about parliamentary sovereignty but about shifting what's acceptable?
Surely that tis just because the Abortion Act ended up basically legalising almost all abortion which was never really the intent
Oregon has been extended to include people suffering from anorexia I believe. Also there could be court cases initiated that could expand the provision, without parly involvement as I understand it.
It is not possible to understand the slippery slope argument because it is a false argument. It is sophistry. If your slope is slippery, you do things to affect that. Add a handrail. Put a non-slip surface down. Make the slope shallower. Provide an alternate route. Build steps adjacent. Employ...
...staff to support users. News media actively identifying false arguments would be progress. It requires work and would invalidate most political broadcasting, so it won't happen. Imagine how much shorter QT would be with moderators removing the bad faith arguments and lack of citation.
Gordon Brown in the Guardian also says a good death through proper care is what we need. But he completely fails to address how that can be achieved quickly (because it cant!). The Assisted Dying Bill is a big practical step towards an immediate solution.
What Gordon Brown put forward in the Guardian was unconvincing. He said we generally move too slow when we need to be quicker but with assisted dying we are potentially moving too fast. And doesn't explain why.
What about when you give a Home Secretary unilateral powers to decide what counts as disruptive protest?
The "slippery slope" arguement is used when the person has no real arguements. The funniest (saddest?) example was people saying gay marriage would lead to people marrying their pets. And these people get airtime on main stream media.
