Good to see you realise your slippery slope argument to begin with. My arguments were as ridiculous as yours sounded as well as invalid. The contribution here was the growing separation of diagnoses in MCS and VPS which to some of us has been a life long battle as pro-euthanasia often use the argument people who are VPS aren't aware so their is no moral obligation to consider the impact on their life. I went through a high court case where they used MCS to avoid legal settlements to my family when the indicators used by the consultant in this case clearly work towards a new way of diagnosis so we can seek independent advice
After all, risk of head injury in the type of cars young people drive isn't always related to using their safety features. The seatbelt was assumed to cause the most damage in the collision as it caught him and threw his head back into the B pillar.
Your post looks like this part is a wayward mispaste of something unrelated: "The contribution [...] independent advice"
For what remains: First off, i have not realized any sort of slippery slope i am on. I may not have done the best job in explaining my arguments, but i believe them to be sound. I remarked only on your construction of one.
As for your brother, sorry to hear that. It sounds like the car he was driving should not have been on the streets. In germany we have an institution vested with the power to inspect and verify the safety of a vehicle, and any individual vehicle which does not have an unexpired verification mark from them is illegal to drive in public traffic.
I don't know if you have such a thing in the USA or not, or whether whatever is doing that job is just much too lenient.
After all, risk of head injury in the type of cars young people drive isn't always related to using their safety features. The seatbelt was assumed to cause the most damage in the collision as it caught him and threw his head back into the B pillar.