MATERIALS **Scenario one** A patient has an incurable illness that affects muscles and tendons. The illness is not life-threatening and the patient does not feel any significant pain. However, he can move his limbs only with great difficulty and feels enormous fatigue all the time. He feels that his life has no meaning anymore and concludes that there is no point in continuing living like this. In this case, would it be morally right, upon request from the patient, for the doctor to administer intravenous drugs, such as potassium chloride, to intentionally end the patient’s life? 1 - completely morally wrong … 6 - completely morally right **Scenario two** A patient has an incurable metastatic cancer, which invades the bones and causes excruciating pain. Current levels of morphine, nerve blocks, and other treatments are failing to control the pain. Doctors expect the patient to live for no more than four months. In this case, would it be morally right, upon request from the patient, for the doctor to administer intravenous drugs, such as potassium chloride, to intentionally end the patient’s life? 1 - completely morally wrong … 6 - completely morally right **Legalisation of euthanasia** Do you believe that voluntary euthanasia should be legal? 1 - definitely should be illegal … 5 - definitely should be legal <br> DESIGN AND HYPOTHESIS Participants will be given one of the two scenarios first and the other one afterwards. Finally, they will answer the question about whether euthanasia should be legal. We expect that people will believe that ending the patient's life will be more morally right in the scenario no. 2. Our hypothesis is that participants might be more willing to answer that the ending of patient's life is morally right in the scenario no. 1 if they first judged the scenario no. 2, and that participants will be less likely to to answer that the ending of patient's life is morally right in the scenario no. 2 if they answered the scenario no. 1 before. This hypothesis tries to model the slippery slope argument used by opponents of the legalisation of euthanasia – that is, that people will be more willing to support euthanasia even in cases where it was not considered morally right before once euthanasia is allowed in cases where it is considered as more morally permissible. We will use the answer to the question about whether euthanasia should be legal as a secondary dependent variable. We hypothesize that participants might be more likely to agree with legalisation if they are given the second scenario first than if they are presented with the first scenario first. <br><br> PARTICIPANTS We will put a HIT on mTurk for 300 workers.