Back when I was taking logic, lo those many years ago, I was taught that “slippery slope” arguments were a rhetorical trick used to sell a fallacy that taking one step down a dangerous path inevitably leads to the worst conceivable outcomes.
Each step, you see, is independent of the next. It sounded reasonable to me.
Except… experience in my (now) 62 years (yesterday was my birthday!) has shown that the steps really are slippery when it comes to changing laws and norms governing human behavior. Crossing certain bright, obvious lines that define a moral sidewalk and venturing onto slippery, darker paths usually leads to the worst possible outcome.
Earlier today I wrote about the rapid moral slide down the abortion legalization slope; we went from “safe, legal, and rare” to “kill the baby as the crown of the head is peeking out” in record time, to the applause of the ghouls.
And now I have the pleasure of writing about how the understandable desire to ease the final moments of a dying person in excruciating pain has gotten us to “let’s pull the beating heart out of a healthy teenager and use it.”
The New England Journal of Medicine just published an article saying we should start overtly allowing death via organ donation, since we’ve already been doing this covertly for years. https://t.co/uhZHJG6NMF
— Dr. Heidi Klessig (@heidiklessigmd) July 24, 2026
Canada formally legalized Medical Assistance in Dying almost exactly ten years ago, back in 2016, and in that short time Canadian doctors have not only gone on a killing spree, but the authorities have been expanding MAiD at a breakneck pace.
One out of 20 deaths in Canada is now “assisted” by a doctor, and that number keeps rising, as is the pool of people to whom the “procedure” is available. Rules are being put in place to allow teenagers with symptoms of depression or anxiety to kill themselves, and MAiD is available for people who consider themselves too poor to live.
It is now routine for older patients to be offered MAiD several times when they are in hospital for even routine procedures, such as broken bones, despite their being otherwise healthy and happy, and soldiers with PTSD or disabled people needing chair lifts have been offered MAiD as alternative “treatments.”
Canadian Doctors Try to Railroad Catholic Priest into ‘Assisted Suicide’ Over Broken Hip | Frank Bergman, Slay News
A Canadian Catholic priest is sounding the alarm after doctors tried to pressure him into “assisted suicide” twice while recovering from a broken hip in a… pic.twitter.com/8sQUF9g7n8
— Owen Gregorian (@OwenGregorian) May 2, 2026
A Canadian Catholic priest is sounding the alarm after doctors tried to pressure him into “assisted suicide” twice while recovering from a broken hip in a hospital, despite him telling them that euthanasia goes against his beliefs.
Father Larry Holland, a 79-year-old priest from the Archdiocese of Vancouver, was horrified that Canadian government-sanctioned doctors attempted to railroad him into being euthanized, despite not being terminally ill.
The priest’s alarming story underscores growing concerns that Canada’s state-sanctioned assisted suicide program is spiraling far beyond its original limits.
Holland said he was “very shocked” after medical pushed so-called “Medical Assistance in Dying” (MAiD) as an “option” during his recovery from a hip fracture.
It’s all done in the name of “compassion,” but just beneath that thin veneer lies a brutal calculation of the costs and benefits of keeping a person alive vs. writing them off, or now, harvesting their body for benefit.
When “ethicists” point out that it really doesn’t make much sense to kill a healthy person before you harvest their organs, they really do have a point. Organs, after all, are much more likely to be healthy and preserved if you can harvest them when the patient is alive and kicking, so why let all that good material go to waste?
Good question. Once you decide that killing healthy people is a good and normal thing to do, why not maximize the benefit? Once the calculation is sheer utility, and you can hide behind the language of “consent,” what’s the point of pretending that the difference between “alive” and “dead” matters that much?
They agreed, right?
The logic of getting here was sound at every step along the way. All you had to do was cross the line between “killing people is good” in this circumstance to “killing certain people is good” in a whole range of other circumstances that one would never have approved of just a few years ago.
You left the path. It turned out that the friction you thought was there on that slope was nearly nonexistent.
We saw the same thing with the gay marriage debate. Most people agreed that something like civil unions, in which couples would have contractual agreements similar to marriage with most of the rights married couples have, was fine, but drew the line at “marriage” because it had a special, moral status in our culture. That was my position, based on a line between a legal agreement and a moral contract that should be inviolable.
But the counterargument, “love is love,” won the day, and what many of us predicted happened: “love is love” became “behold my female penis” in record time. Now every classroom is filled with Alphabet propaganda, children are being sterilized and mutilated, and girls are told that a man masturbating in their locker rooms is perfectly normal.
Even a lot of gay people are appalled. And, ironically, only about 10 percent of gays even marry. Every single issue, save the “society must sanctify my preference,” was easily dealt with without wiping out the moral distinction. But we did, out of “compassion.”
If God is dead, everything is permitted.
I don’t want to pretend that maintaining bright moral lines and saying “No” to people with not unreasonable desires—to avoid horrific pain or to have society bless one’s living with a mate—doesn’t require a hard heart. So does refusing to enable self-destructive behavior, such as denying yet another “loan” to an alcoholic drinking themselves to death.
It can be heartrending.
But the alternative is worse: sliding down a slippery slope in which a seemingly reasonable first step inevitably leads to a point where we are morally numb to the worst horrors. Even good people wind up endorsing pure evil, such as ripping the beating heart out of a healthy person.
It should appall everybody that people who swore to “do no harm” are arguing that “really, killing them through vivisection is a good thing,” but, no, there it is in the New England Journal of Medicine.
Editor’s Note: Help us continue to report the truth about corrupt politicians.
Join HotAir VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.
