Create a rebuttal to these three con arguments:
1. PAS has the potential to trigger a dangerous chain of events “Slippery Slope”. In 2019, the state legislature debated a bill that would allow patients to identify an individual who they would like to administer their prescribed lethal medication, essentially legalizing euthanasia. The bill failed to pass but if it had, it would have set a dangerous precedent. Another Oregon bill, proposed in 2019, would change the definition of terminal disease to a degenerative condition that at some point in the future might cause death (Dugdale et al, 2019). If this bill had passed, individuals who may not have died from their illness would have been allowed to engage in PAS.
2. PAS and euthanasia (allowing another individual to administer a lethal drug to a terminally ill patient) is currently legal in Belgium. Data shows that, in this country, vulnerable populations such as women, those over 80-years-old, and those with lower levels of education are more likely to be euthanized (Dugdale et al, 2019). Basically this point is saying how assisted suicide may affect vulnerable populations more. Like it puts them at risk. And the data shows that this has happened in other countries.
3. Pain is often cited as a primary reason for seeking out PAS. However, fewer than 33% of PAS patients in Oregon reported experiencing or fearing inadequate pain control (Emanuel, 2017). This indicates that motivation for PAS may be psychological as opposed to physical pain. In general healthcare practice, depression is often missed by clinicians. In Oregon, fewer than 5% of patients who engage in PAS are referred to a mental health professional to rule out clinical depression (Dugdale et al, 2019).
