Euthanasia, ethics and public policy : an argument against legalisation / John Keown, Georgetown University.

Title from publisher's bibliographic system (viewed on 28 Sep 2018).

Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide -- Intended v. foreseen life-shortening -- The value of human life -- The value of autonomy -- Legal hypocrisy? -- The slippery slope arguments -- The guidelines -- The first survey: the incidence of "euthanasia" -- Breach of the guidelines -- The slide towards nvae -- The second survey -- The dutch in denial? -- The euthanasia act and the code of practice -- Effective control since 2002? -- Continuing concerns -- A right to physician-assisted suicide by stopping eating and drinking? -- Assisted suicide for the elderly with "completed lives" -- The belgian legislation -- Belgium's lack of effective control -- The northern territory: rotti -- The united states: oregon and six other jurisdictions -- The us supreme court: glucksberg and vacco -- The supreme court of canada : the carter case -- Canada's euthanasia legislation -- Conclusion.

This book argues against the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia and/or physician-assisted suicide on the ground that, even if they were ethically defensible in certain 'hard cases', neither could be effectively controlled by law. It maintains that the experience of legalisation in the Netherlands, Belgium and Oregon lends support to the two 'slippery slope' arguments against legalisation, the 'empirical' and the 'logical'. The empirical argument challenges the feasibility of drafting and enforcing adequate safeguards against abuse and mistake; the logical argument shows that acceptance of the case for euthanasia in the case of suffering patients who request it logically involves acceptance of euthanasia for suffering patients who are unable to request it, such as infants and those with advanced dementia.