“Euthanasia” safeguards acknowledge that “slippery slope” is a thing

14
Daniel Andrews.

Murder took a step closer to being legal in Victoria today, with “euthanasia” legislation passing the lower house of Victoria’s parliament. What I have found fascinating in recent months whenever I have heard it mentioned, is this line:

“The bill, which Mr Andrews has described as the most conservative scheme in the world, will now go to the upper house where it is expected to be another tight vote.”

It is the very opposite of conservative, but it is the weasel Andrews’ way of acknowledging this:

“Earlier, the Prime Minister rejected Paul Keating’s claim the passage of euthanasia laws in Victoria would change Australia and was a threshold moment for the nation.

“That’s a dramatic statement, a sweeping statement. I haven’t seen the full context of it. Paul Keating is a great wordsmith, there’s no doubt about that. But it will obviously change the law in a very significant way, it’s full impact if it is changed, time will tell,” Mr Turnbull told Melbourne radio station 3AW.”

Regardless of how significant the change will be, it is a change, and there will be repercussions.

Here is the crux of my point:

“The bill contains 68 safeguards and includes severe penalties for those abusing the scheme, including life in prison for any doctor found to have coerced or encouraged a patient to consider voluntary assisted dying.”

By going to such great lengths – 68 safeguards – and by attempting to sell it as “conservative”, Andrews is acknowledging the validity of what would be, in the context of the gay marriage debate, arguments that the left have attempted to label “slippery slope” arguments.

There are in fact logical consequences of enacting legislation making it ok to murder the sick and the old, and the legislation, evil as it is, has tried to take those logical consequences into account and protect against them.

Regarding the gay marriage debate, opponents routinely have their concerns about the logical consequences of fundamentally changing the nature of marriage dismissed as slippery slope arguments. The left appear however to use this intellectual sleight of hand only when it suits them.

Photo by quapan