During every election cycle, cutesy pictograms explaining logical fallacies get posted and reposted all over social media. These memes often use arguments from the hot political debates of the day to illustrate their particular fallacy. Some are constructed to be neutral by attacking fallacious arguments used by both sides of the political aisle, but others are brazenly partisan, attacking only the arguments made by one side.

One type of logical fallacy often included is the slippery slope fallacy. As generally defined, the slippery slope fallacy declares that if one small step is made, e.g., a law passed or repealed, it will begin a chain reaction of other steps that will end with an unintended or undesirable consequence.

This is a murky fallacy to define precisely, and there is disagreement amongst lawyers and logicians as to what exactly constitutes a fallacious slippery slope argument. It is true that sometimes people make bold declarations about the future that turn out to be wrong, and it is also true that sometimes people make hare-brained predictions that are irrelevant to the policy changes under debate. However, these are fallacies of their own – fortune-telling and non-sequiturs, respectively.

Most problematically for a precise definition, though, is the fact that slippery slopes do exist; sometimes the predicted harmful consequences of a policy actually come to pass.

The euthanasia debate offers an instructive example of how charges of “slippery slope fallacy” are shallow and unpersuasive. Opponents of legalized physician-assisted suicide warn that once it is legalized for terminally ill adults, the policy will likely be expanded to allow other types of people to commit assisted suicide: those who are not terminally ill, the disabled, the mentally ill, minors, and then perhaps to anyone on demand.

Slippery slopes do exist because it is man’s nature to push boundaries, ignore sound wisdom, and transgress rules until transgression is the norm.

Opponents of euthanasia also express concern that euthanasia will proceed from simply being an available option to being proactively offered as an option, and then to being an encouraged option, which could lead vulnerable people into taking their own lives.

Proponents of legalized euthanasia dismiss these concerns as slippery slope fallacies. They are quick to reassure us that there would be robust safeguards against the abuse and proliferation of assisted suicide. Their evergreen hypothetical is the incurable, elderly cancer patient who would be relieved of suffering if helped to die. They promise that physician-assisted suicide would simply be a passively available option, never something offered or encouraged.

The rapid evolution of euthanasia policy in Canada is demonstrating that these reassurances are cold comfort. Euthanasia was illegal in Canada until 2015, when Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that adults who have been diagnosed with a “grievous and irremediable” medical condition are entitled to obtain medical assistance to end their lives. In 2016, the Parliament of Canada codified this by passing a law to explicitly legalize Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) – Canada’s official euphemism for euthanasia.

The 2016 law initially placed several restrictions on assisted suicide. It specified that, in addition to a patient’s condition being “grievous and irremediable,” the patient’s death must be “reasonably foreseeable.” It also required a signed, written request to be verified by two witnesses, two independent medical opinions to confirm the grievousness and incurability of a patient’s condition, and a 10-day waiting period, amongst other restrictions.

However, in 2021, Canada’s Parliament eliminated or relaxed many of these restrictions. The law no longer required a person to be dying to access MAID. It removed the waiting period requirement, required only one independent witness to sign off, and included a sunset clause that will permit people suffering from mental illness to access MAID beginning on  March 17, 2023. From 2016 to 2021, 31,664 Canadians were helped to their deaths under this policy.

So, in the span of only 8 years, euthanasia in Canada will have made the journey from illegal, to legal for the terminally ill, to legal for anyone with a serious disease, disability, or mental illness. 

Recently, a few Canadian military veterans reported being offered or pressured to accept a Medical Assistance in Dying kit by a Veterans Affairs case worker. The VA was able to confirm four of these cases and tie them to the same case worker, who has since been suspended. Additional anecdotal reports of the same phenomenon are still under investigation.

So, in the span of only 8 years, euthanasia in Canada will have made the journey from illegal, to legal for the terminally ill, to legal for anyone with a serious disease, disability, or mental illness. It has also been proactively offered by a government employee.

The concerns of the pro-life are being vindicated in real time. The slippery slope has formed right before our eyes and Canada is sliding right down it.

In the U.S., euthanasia is regulated at the state level, and only nine states have made physician-assisted suicide legal under certain circumstances. According to some polls, a majority of Americans support the legalization of euthanasia, though some point out that wording of the polls in question is misleading. A number of organizations like Not Dead Yet, The National Council on Disability, Autistic Self Advocacy Network, The Arc, The United Spinal Association and many other disability rights groups are active in opposing the legalization of assisted suicide by providing testimony in Congress, filing amicus briefs, lobbying, and raising awareness.

Ideas, laws, and policies have consequences, and the consequences can be numerous, complex, and difficult to foresee. Careful analysis of cause and effect is one of the most basic precepts of logical thinking. Wise policy formation involves considering possible unintended consequences and seeking to prevent them. Slippery slopes do exist because it is man’s nature to push boundaries, ignore sound wisdom, and transgress rules until transgression is the norm.

Given these truths, the imprudent accusation of “slippery slope fallacy” is laughable when uttered by euthanasia proponents.