Dr. Annie McKeown O'Donovan:

If one is characterising the "slippery slope" as something we are going to start by allowing a practice, and that in some future many other practices which we find objectionable are going to happen, then there is empirical evidence that that happens. We have not discussed why those practices which were initially found objectionable are not now found objectionable. What has happened in that intervening time? Have we expanded our understanding of choice at the end of life to recognise, as Dr. Finegan said, and include other qualities of people at the end of life into the first instance? I believe that the "slippery slope" is a very useful type of argument and it helps us to have these kinds of discussions which will help us to create strong and good safeguards. Using "slippery slopes" as a refutation against any kind of progress undermines our ability to, in fact, distinguish between cases which are impermissible and those which are permissible. It is useful to engage with that analogy.

With regard to the empirical evidence where it has not happened, the evidence which will come from New Zealand, perhaps, may offer this. It was said that it may follow the Oregonian path also, but that remains to be seen.