Talk:Right to die

message: I get the cleanup tag, this article is a mess, but why NPOV? Pianoman123 tagged it without (apparently) starting any discussion on the matter.
:I would imagine the NPOV issue with this article would be the lack of information regarding views of those critical of a "right to die" such a many religious conservatives. I think this article needs to explaining the views of those who both oppose having a "right to die" as well as better explaining the views of those who argue for a "right to die". Also their needs to be some clarity that some people support the right to have one's own or a family members life support discontinued in certain circumstances but do not supports euthanasia (i.e. assisted suicide).  --Cab88 15:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV?  

message: I proposed the merger because Right to die should be covered in euthanasia as it essentially the same thing but without the POV title.--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Merger

message: Should be merged !!!!!!
"Right-to-die" is a legal, philosophical and moral concept which may or may not be admissible for debate in the current legal climate.
"Euthanasia" is a practice (rather, set thereof) which purports to rely on the "right-to-die" concept. Major clean-up required, yes. Zvozin 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zvozin's above assessment and I believe it could not have been stated any better, and therefore it should not be merged. --Chad 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Euthanasia" is not "Right to die" 

message: What a nonsense: To expect a "world wide view" on the right to die in a Wikipedia article. If a person wants to die, then this does not require a "world wide view". And whenever in a Wikipedia article you write about the "Right to die", you must not forget those people, WHO are suffering. Those humans are not able to write in the Wikipedia, so I do for them. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (13032007)
:You take it upon yourself to write for others?  And in fact what you write with this assumed authority equates to "we do not need to cover more perspectives on the subject than we currently do; in fact we should be limiting the perspectives on the subject we cover to only the perspectives of those in a certain position"?  How arrogant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  worldview

message: We need a section which brings the arguments for and against "right to die" debate.--Inayity (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro and Against Arguments section needed 

message: I've stumbled upon this article - Dignified death. I very much do not think this article deserves to stand on its own as is. I suggest somebody either fleshes it out or redirects/merges it to this article. Just bringing it to the attention of other people - currently only one article links to it. Freikorp (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dignified death 

message: "Right to die" shall bedefined as a claim adn a term used by those who are pro-euthanasia, but not as an actual right as they pretend. It is not neutral, nor accurate. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shall be "right to die" presented as an actual right here? 

message: We don't generally go about intentionally prejudicing readers against a topic. As I stated, the fact that not everyone agrees that assisted suicide should be a right doesn't mean that Wikipedia dismisses it - see, for instance, right to bear arms or fetal rights - and since in a number of jurisdictions one does have the legal right to assisted suicide, the idea that it's just a "controversial claim" floating out in the ether and "alleging" that a right "should" exist is not only an obvious POV push but also inaccurate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: We don't also have to prejudicing readers in favor of a topic. you also miss that legalization of euthanasia does not necessarily means nor is understood by the reliable sources as the enforcment of a "right" to get euthanasia -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Calling something a right doesnt automatically favour it, or force people to favour it, many people here would be opposed to a "right to bear arms" (we have rather strict gun controls in Australia). In some areas Gay Marriage rights still arent majority endorsed either. Need I go on? -- Nbound (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Then neither it forces anybody against a "right", showing this "right" is actually a claim, as it is. The "right to die" is certainly, as the sources state: part of the efforts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, and shall be presented as such, not as an actual right, exactly as the age of consent reform is not presented as a right to have sex with children. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede sentence 

message: The US section under Legal Documents by country requires expansion. It would be good to provide some historical information, because Euthanasia is just one category that falls under what many understand as the right to die.
The term 'right to die' has been interpreted in a number of ways, including issues of suicide, passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide.http://law.justia.com/constitution/us/amendment-14/35-right-to-die.html As health of citizens is considered a police power left for individual states to regulate, it was not until 1997 that the US Supreme Court made a ruling on the issue of assisted suicide and one's right to die. In 1997 the Supreme Court heard two appeals arguing that New York and Washington statutes that made physician assisted suicide a felony violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10644975876581235704&q=vacco+v.+quill&hl=en&as_sdt=40000006 In a unanimous vote, the Court held that there was no constitutional right to physician assisted suicide and upheld state bans on assisted suicide. While in New York this has maintained statutes banning physician assisted suicide, the Court's decision also left it open for other states to decide whether they would allow physician assisted suicide or not.
Since 1997, four states in the US have recognized the right to die with dignity. Oregon, Washington, and Vermont, in 1997, 2009, and 2013 respectively, have laws that provide a protocol for the practice of physician assisted suicide.http://time.com/3551560/brittany-maynard-right-to-die-laws/ The law in these three states allows terminally ill adult patients to seek lethal medication from their physicians. Montana's law, passed in 2009, does not provide a protocol for the practice, but rather provides legal protection for physicians in the case that they write a prescription for lethal medication upon patient request.
In early 2014, a New Mexico Second District Judge Nan Nash ruled that terminally ill patients have the right to aid in dying under the state constitution, ie. making it legal for a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a terminally ill patient.http://articles.latimes.com/2014/jan/19/nation/la-na-new-mexico-aid-dying-20140120 The ultimate decision will be made with the outcome of New Mexico's Attorney General's appeal to the ruling.
Mdickey17 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Euthanasia in the United States

message: I've just created Lecretia Seales - can you help expand it?  She is worth mentioning in this article too. Tayste (edits) 20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lecretia Seales 

message: Hello, I am Kelly and I am a student editor assigned to edit this article. Please let me know if you end up reverting my edits so I know what I did wrong!
Intro: Grammar and citation
Changed passive voice to active, remove and added articles, removed redundant words, removed commas, fixed some sentences that had unclear antecedents, and added a citation when summarized a philosopher.
Broken up some sentences due to length and flow
Fixed more passive sentences to better the sentence structure
United States
Added information about the right to die movement and major cases that highlight and propagated this movement. Added information in the US section of how the right to die movement began and how it caused major deabte about the issues of legal death. Copied over from sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kjsnguyen/sandbox)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grammar Edits and Adding Information 

message: Why is David’s The Death of Socrates featured on this page? Socrates didn’t commit suicide; he drank the hemlock under duress as a form of execution. Seph Shewell Brockway (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Socrates? 

message: Hello, we are graduate student editors assigned to edit this article. Our work plan is as follows: 
Article chosen
Right to Die
Why this one?  Include WP rating scale? How fit with your interests. Other details as desired
WP rating: Start Class
This article has significant room for improvement and relates to geriatric/end of life care.
You WP editing team (up to 3)
K, G, S
Initial Analysis of the article
When comparing to other “Right to…” articles, we noticed that this article does not have a clear definition/background section. Furthermore, there is limited information about the right to die in the United States. 
Overall organization, what changes
Overall, we will enhance the quality of this page by providing a standard “Definition” section. We may augment other sections depending on necessity.
What will you add?
N/A
What will you remove?
N/A
What will you augment?
Right to die, United States subsection 
What will you decrease coverage of?
N/A
Roles in the project. List members and planned roles. 
- Overseer: S
- Researcher: K
- Editor: G
Team coordination plan:
- We will communicate over private Slack messages. 
- We will meet regularly during our classes. 
- We will collaborate over Google Drive to organize files.
WIP presenter
- K
Peer review from another team (merely suggestions):
-Tighten up the anecdotes of the 3 major cases--less re-stating at the end, more active voice
-citation is still needed for sentence two of the Canada subsection--I suspect it was referring to the 5, not 6, plaintiff Gloria Taylor case?
-Under "Ethics", define what TADA is/link it
-Maybe rename Ethics as "Ethical Arguments"? 
-Remove religion from the introduction as it is restated under another subheadingRose811811 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Workplan for Edits 

message: Should the term "Controversial" be used in the short description? Helper201 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The essence is that the principle of the "right to die" IS controversial to the bone and therefore is not POV as the IP claims. The Banner talk 17:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Its completely unnecessary to include here. As I stated this could be applied to the short descriptions of so many thousands of other so called controversial topics, but isn't, for good reason. Right to life could be classed as controversial, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, suicide, left politics, right politics, drug use etc. A wider consensus should be achieved before such terms are added to short descriptions as this could be applied to so many other subject matters. What criteria has this met that those other subjects have not? Who has decided this criterion? What reliable sources does this claim come from etc? Helper201 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: The RFC you have slapped on this starting discussion is also unnecessary. The Banner talk 17:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at the previous discussions I think starting up an RfC and getting outside opinion was appropriate. There are too many discussions about 'controversial' here and this should stop those one way or the other. NadVolum (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using "Controversial" in the short description 

message: Who is "Pilpel and Amstel"? How did the quotation from their work support or add to the introduction it was placed in?
The article's introduction should have references directly supporting its definitions. 2600:1700:CDA:A2C0:845E:BF52:B14D:7218 (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: the IP already removed the text (s)he disagrees with. Fir clarity sake, I did but it here:
The Banner talk 21:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction needs stronger references 

message: Why not considering a "game over"? A possibility for every human being that doesn't desire to continue living. "Selbsmordrecht". 178.197.234.102 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should just be an option possible in every hospital 

message: Another editor placed a two sections in the lede about the point of view of a philosopher. IMHO, this belongs not in the lede and would fit better in the section "Ethics". But in fact, I have doubt if it belongs in the article at all. Opinions please. The Banner talk 12:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophers