The arguments that it is always wrong to kill ignore the fact that virtually no-one truly holds this belief. Even a pacifist might commit voluntary euthanasia by killing a mortally wounded soldier who begged them to do so. Religious interpretation of euthanasia as immoral does seem to underlie most of the vehement opposition to the N.T. legislation. Slippery slope arguments claim that an apparently innocuous small step can act as the thin edge of the wedge to bring about undesirable major changes further in that direction. Our society is more interested in secular than religious arguments, so slippery slope arguments are prominent in euthanasia debates.
Slippery slopes create slippery arguments suitable for use against almost any proposal for change.
Indeed, supporters of the N.T. bill also bolster their case with a slippery slope, by stating that overturning the legislation with the Andrews Bill will inevitably lead to increasing interference in state and territory rights. Opponents of the N.T. bill propose that even permitting limited active euthanasia must eventually lead to more killing outside this context than already occurs. Examination of the statistics does not appear to support this interpretation however. He notes that roughly 48,700 deaths were associated with end of life medical decisions. Of these, about 22,500 were decisions to withdraw or withhold treatment, and 22,500 involved the use of symptom relieving drugs which may have hastened death but were not used with this intention.