A common argument against legalizing PAS is that it will start us on a slippery slope towards voluntary euthanasia and beyond. Many opponents argue that, once legalized, people without a terminal illness will attempt to receive PAS. These are false allegations; we have no known evidence that such consequences of a slope would occur. Without such evidence, it is impossible for one to anticipate such a fate. As long as we have rules put in place and guidelines to follow, we will be safe from such a catastrophe. The current eligibility guidelines for one to be able to request a prescription is so well thought of that it would be unlikely for such a slope to occur. In order to to be eligible for PAS, a patient must be at least 18 years of age or …show more content…
Voluntary euthanasia would require direct help from the physician to end a patient’s life with the patient’s consent. Non-voluntary euthanasia would be where the patient is unable to give an informed consent, for example child euthanasia. Involuntary euthanasia is where a person is euthanized by a third party, against their competent decision to live. Advocates typically point to the Netherland’s for their reasoning behind this because euthanasia is fully legal there. Some are concerned about PAS after seeing the statistics about euthanasia in the Netherlands (Dieterle, 2007). Euthanasia changed from only allowing terminally ill patients to request a prescription, to now allowing requests from the chronically ill, those suffering with psychological issues, and incompetent patients, including children (Dieterle, 2007). It is undoubtedly true of such permissiveness in the Netherlands. However, the argument fails to demonstrate sufficient evidence of such a slippery slope. While there have been cases of active euthanasia without the patient’s explicit request, it is easier to put safeguards in place and make sure they are followed if the practice is legal and out in the open (Dieterle,