A critique of bioethical slopes

Abstract

Ethical discussions are no longer limited to philosophers, and ethical writings to philosophical journals. Determinations on issues in applied ethics are being sought and made by government bodies, institutional committees and individuals. Nowhere is this better demonstrated than in bioethics, which examines the ethical problems that emerge in medical practice and research, and is now perhaps the most significant area of applied ethics. This increased interest in bioethics means that common arguments are now being used, or misused, more widely. An example of this is the prevalence of arguments claiming that certain events should not be allowed because they will lead to moral atrocities. This argument has a variety of names but is most commonly known in philosophical literature as the 'slippery slope argument'. This argument appears in discussions about euthanasia; the moral status of the embryo (which in tum influences debates on abortion), in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and whether embryos can be experimented on; genetic engineering; and the allocation of medical resources. Because of its versatility the argument has appeared in a variety of different reports on bioethical issues. The National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Ethics Committee's report on the ethics of limiting life sustaining treatment surveys a number of options that have been suggested for deciding whether to withdraw or stop such treatment. It is then claimed that Many would prefer not to think about the options. Others fear that any such discussions open the way to killing the aged, the no-longer useful, and who next?... Show more