One of the most common arguments against assisted suicide and euthanasia are the abuses that can occur. I will be discussing policy abuses, specifically the slippery slope argument, whereby voluntary suicide progresses into involuntary suicide over time.”Slippery slope arguments appear regularly whenever morally contested social change is proposed “, and is one of the many downfalls of legalising assisted suicide. Enoch noted that once we allow euthanasia, we may fail to make the crucial distinction between voluntary and involuntary and then we will reach the morally unacceptable outcome of allowing involuntary euthanasia “. Moreover, Laurie noted that the British Government was able to justify its position on not allowing its legalisation, referring to its obligation to protect other vulnerable persons who might suffer if the legal regime were to change . Legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia can introduce the idea of euthanasia becoming a genuine medical treatment, and that the benevolence of doctors may lead to them treating death as a ‘cure’, with regulations imposed as merely hurdles, rather than death being an absolute final solution . Smith also noted this stating life-ending actions by doctors are always presented to the public as being advocated as a rare occurrence, to be applied only when nothing else can be done to alleviate suffering , however, the limitations needed to ensure it is a rare occurrence are never embodied into legislation , staring the infamous slippery slope cycle.Moreover, Wesley Smith also argues that once assisted suicide is legalised, whether this be in a limited form, there will ultimately be a gradual expansion of the categories of people eligible, until the far end of the scope is reached and assisted suicide becomes something that is not rare at all . Dr K. F Gunning also states that “once you accept killing as a solution for a single problem, you will find tomorrow hundreds of problems for which killing can be seen as a solution “. These implement the idea that if assisted suicide were to be legalised, again, the slippery slope would soon appear, creating something very different to what was intended when it was first legalised. This would be the result of many, including doctors and the courts, interpreting rules and regulations less severely over time, eventually “loosening the meaning of the guidelines “.It is imperative to look at countries whereby assisted suicide is legal, particularly, the Netherlands. The Dutch have permitted assisted suicide and euthanasia since 1973 when a court decision validated physician-administered death as an aspect of Dutch medical practice . Penney Lewis stated that “the Netherlands has become the primary battleground of empirical slippery slope arguments ” and Smith agrees affirming “we only need to look to the experience of the Netherlands to see the destructive force that the implacable logic of euthanasia ideology unleashes “. When it was first accepted into the Netherlands, it was supposed to be a rare event, resorted to only the most unusual cases of “intolerable suffering “. In this Netherlands, the court established boundaries for euthanasia practice, among were the following requirements ;1. Patients to be considered incurable2. The patients suffering is unbearable3. A request of termination of life is in writing 4. An adequate consultation must be had with another physician beforehandWesley describes these guidelines as “porous and providing scant protection for the weak, vulnerable and despairing “, Hendin agreeing with this stating virtually every guideline established by the Dutch has failed to protect patients . The Netherlands is a prime example of the ‘slippery slope’, with over 1000 doctors admitting to actively causing or hastening death without any request from patients , this does not only highlight how the guidelines have been interpreted differently but shows how voluntary euthanasia can very quickly turn into involuntary. Moreover, a key case is Chabot , whereby a healthy 50-year-old woman wanted to die, despite treatment offered she persisted and within 4 months she was granted assisted suicide. The woman in this case knew that if she persisted, death would be granted to her, and experience shows us that even if she had no treatment, time would’ve likely affected the woman’s wish to die . Assisted suicide was intended to be an unfortunate necessity to end unbearable suffering, now it has almost turned into being a routine treatment due to social sanction . Hendin argues that knowledge and experience affect decisions, yet doctors in the Netherlands differ in the help they give to their patients, not giving an attitude in which alternatives are suggesting to the patient in an encouraging way and an inability to deal with what the patient is going through leads to a premature ending of life . 2 contrasting cases can show how attitude can change everything;1. A 41-year-old was HIV positive but was showing no physical symptoms wanted to end his life due to fear of what was coming. While the doctor suggested things, they ultimately did not know how to deal with the patient’s terror and agreed to suicide. 2. A man with AIDS, confined to a wheelchair with a cystic lung infection and severe pain wanted to end his life. The physician appropriately treated his condition, stopped the pain, prescribe anti-depressants and used psychological sensitivity in dealing with the man’s fears. The patient was enabled to be free from his wheelchair, from pain and lived an additional 10 months. The attitudes of the doctor form the attitudes of the patient, Hendin notes that “such attitudes depend on whether an individual believes that there are alternatives to assisted suicide” . Moreover, the Remmelink report showed that often a doctor determines the choice for death, not the patient , again showing the gradual progression from voluntary to involuntary just through the care the doctors provide. Pereira highlights this progression stating in 30 years, the Netherlands has moved from euthanasia of people who are terminally ill, to those who are chronically ill, to those with physical illness, to those with mental illness and now to euthanasia of those who are 70-years-old and “tired of living” .As mentioned earlier, assisted suicide and euthanasia was designed to be used in only the most unusual cases, specifically to keep euthanasia few and far between , however, as time has progressed, the Dutch have stepped boldly onto a steep slippery slope whereby the guidelines cannot regulate euthanasia or protect patients . Hendin highlighted that “once euthanasia has been performed, only the patient and the doctor will know the actual facts, therefore, any legal body reviewing the case will only know what the doctors choose to tell them “. The illusion is that legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia will give people more autonomy over themselves, the Dutch experience, teaches the reverse is true, due to the slippery slope .Apart from the slippery slope argument, another way the policy can be abused is for monetary reasons.