We appreciate the correspondents’ comments regarding our article on assisted dying. We certainly agree that dying is a complex process and is impacted by numerous relational factors and additional research is much needed to better understand the impact of assisted dying legislation on the individuals and groups involved.
With our selective literature search (1), which was based primarily on research available in limited countries/regions with long-standing laws, we address the idea that the ‘slippery slope’ refers to inevitable expansion that will occur after passage of assisted dying legislation and will result in error, misuse and harm – a meaning commonly used in ethical literature on euthanasia and assisted dying. Since we understand that ‘slippery slope’ can vary greatly depending on the context and scope, we explicitly stated that our focus was limited to four areas of assumption for which there is empirical data: the supposed increase in suicide, expansion to minors, life ending without explicit request, and reporting. However, we understand that assisted dying legislation may be accompanied by broader and more nuanced psychosocial impacts that do not lend themselves easily to empirical research. This reaction by the correspondents shows the dangers of using fuzzy catch-all terms such as ‘slippery slope’ in such an ethically laden topic.
We support the ongoing research in Germany to assess public opinion and craft appropriate legislation and hope that concurrent efforts to strengthen and embed palliative care services and develop training, support and monitoring will also be undertaken.
Footnotes
Conflict of interest The author declares that no conflict of interest exists.
References
- 1.Mroz S, Deliens L, Cohen J, Chambaere K. Developments under assisted dying legislation—the experience in Belgium and other countries. Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2022;119:829–835. [Google Scholar]