Fallacies commonly employed by the pro suicide/euthanasia movement

1. Accident: That features of an exceptional case are enough to justify rejection of a general rule.


2. Aprioism. Making a presumption in favour of a theory unsupported by evidence, and therefore rejecting relevant evidence.

(e.g. "mission creep" wouldn't happen here, so there is no point looking at what happened everywhere else that tried it)


3. Bifurcation (false dichotomy). Presentation of only two alternatives where others exist.

(e.g. either change the law on assisted suicide or unbearable suffering will result, Ignoring that there is also the choice of non-assisted suicide, and that current UK law allows the judiciary discretion in dealing with difficult cases [it's just not an automatic, uninvestigated, green light], and potential improvements to the already excellent standards of palliative and mental care that make unbearable suffering unlikely)


4.Argumentum ad Metum. Appeal to fear.

(e.g. I am not afraid of death, but I am afraid of suffering [subtext, so should you be])



5. Argumentum ad Modum. Appeal to just proportions.

(e.g. disabled people should have the at least the same opportunity to commit suicide as the able bodied, if not greater, regardless of any negative consequences - it's only fair)



6. Sentimens Superior. Using sentiment solely as a guide rather than reason.

(e.g. celebrity/well known/liked person presents sob story in news, no attempt at rational argument, just straight appeal to emotion)



7. Argumentum ad Hominem Circumstantial. Appeal to the special circumstance of your opponent.

(e.g. He's a "faith-head". - even if it can be shown why an opponent thinks as he does, it still does not show him to be wrong. An xtian might condemn murder because his special book tells him to, but that doesn't mean he is wrong to condemn murder.)



8. Argumentum ad Hominem Abusive. Insult calculated to undermine an opponent's argument and cause others to give it less weight than merited.

(e.g. "He is callous and unpleasant." That may or may not be true, but either way it has no relevance to the quality of his argument.)



9. Argumentum ad Numeram. Wrongly equating numbers in support of a contention with the correctness of it.

(e.g. "70% support assisted suicide." Maybe they do, maybe they don't [surveys presenting arguments from both sides have produced rather different results] but more people believing something doesn't make them more likely to be right)



10. Petitio Principii (begging the question). Where use is made in the argument of something which the conclusion seeks to establish.

(e.g. They should be able to choose assisted suicide because they should have a right to choose the manner and time of their death. - it should be a choice because it should be a choice....)



11. Reification. Treating something that doesn't exist as if it does exist.

(e.g. "he [dead person] is not in pain anymore" - but of course now that he is dead he doesn't exist to be in pain or not in pain or anything else.)