Voluntary Euthanasia Motion for Papers. (1950) The question of legalisation of voluntary euthanasia came again to be debated in the Lords in 1950 in a motion for papers.19 As with the debate on the Voluntary Euthanasia (Legalisation) Bill (1936), the objections to the Bill were principally material 12 ibid 492-3 (Lord Horder). 13 ibid 487 (Archbishop of Canterbury). 14 ibid 491 (Lord Horder). 15 ibid. 16 ibid 479-80 (Viscount Xxxxxxxx). 17 ibid 484-5 (Xxxx Xxxxxx). 18 ibid 488. 19 HL Deb, ‘Voluntary Euthanasia’ 1950, 28 Nov, vol 169 cols 552-598 http://xxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.xxx/lords/1950/nov/28/voluntary-euthanasia accessed 2015/12/12. rather than spiritual, with religious argument again largely absent but for one speaker.20 There appears to have been a detectable shift in emphasis, however, toward increasing reliance on the slippery slope argument,21 which was often joined with the view that all human life is precious (sanctity of life argument): [O]ne of the great characteristics of our civilisation, contrasted with the materialistic civilisation of Communism, is the value we attach to every human life. Imperceptibly and gradually this value in human life will be reduced if by law it is possible year by year to kill a large number of people.22 The abuse argument also remained a central concern,23 and it is interesting to note its development from an argument principally about pressure as a product of third party agency (passive abuse argument), into one concerned with voluntariness and the idea that individuals would experience a weight of expectation to request euthanasia (passive abuse argument): [R]eally conscientious old people, who even now get extremely worried because they feel that they are a burden on those upon whom they are dependent. I can imagine the way in which their consciences would in future be torn, wondering whether they ought to apply for this euthanasia so as to relieve those who are caring for them of the burden.24 Another noticeable difference between the 1936 and 1950 debates was the move by medical peers from the position where euthanasia might potentially fall within the province of the medical profession to one in which physicians had no role in the intentional killing of others per their request or otherwise; the professional autonomy argument was thus recast so as to exclude assisted death as a means to further the goals of medicine.25 This shift was perhaps attributable to disapproval of Nazi medical practice characterised as ‘euthanasia’.26 20 ibid 570 et seq...
