Talk:Philip Nitschke

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Philip Nitschke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724102031/http://www.censorship.govt.nz/news-archive-current-peacefulpill.html to http://www.censorship.govt.nz/news-archive-current-peacefulpill.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 07:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Edit of 28 November:
: In October 2015, the MBA agreed to lift the suspension but imposed 26 conditions, including that Nitschke no longer gave any advice or information to any member of the public, including patients, about how to take their life   (direct vcopyvio bolded) 
Source cited (Guardian):
:In October the board agreed to lift the suspension but imposed 26 conditions, including that he no longer gave any advice or information to any member of the public, including patients, about how to take their life. Collect (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  copyvio 

message: I'm having a bit if a problem with the claim:
:"Nitschke was the first doctor in the world to administer a legal, voluntary, lethal injection, after which the patient activated the syringe using a computer."
My concern is that it seems contradictory. The cases Nitschke oversaw were unusual, but ultimately are classified as assisted suicide.  In this case, he set up the machine, but the patient administered the injection via the computer. I'm not sure that we can say that both Nitschke and the patient administered it - in this case, it had to be administered by one or the other. Is it administering the injection to set up the machine, or is it administering the injection to cause the injection to be given? - Bilby (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Nitschke gave the injection. He inserted the needle. The patient made a selection on the screen and the machine depressed the plunger. It seems pretty clear to me. Nitschke injected, and his machine and software pushed the plunger. Nitschke was the active agent, the patient was simply giving electronic consent. All legally, first time ever. Not sure why you are confused. Ratel (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: "The patient made a selection on the screen and the machine depressed the plunger" - that's the key step that makes this assisted suicide. If Nitschke had triggered the injection, it would have been euthanasia. But instead he built a machine which allows the final choice - the administration of the drug - to be made solely by the patient, which is why this was termed as assisted suicide. If the patient administers the drug by triggering the machine, it seems that Nitschke could not have administered the drug. He certainly assisted in its administration, but that has happened before under other assisted suicide laws. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: No, this goes well beyond physician assisted suicide (PAS), which involves giving someone the drug or more usually, a prescription for the drug. The only input from the patient was an affirmation, everything else was done by PN or his machinery. You'd have a hard time convincing a court that this is PAS. Ratel (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: The machine wasn't there just to accept the affirmation - it was there to deliver the drug when triggered by the patient. It was not Nitschke who administered the injection, or who caused the injection to be administered. It was the patients triggering the process set up by Nitschke that caused their deaths. The source you are lining to is a bit confused, but describes it repeatedly as both euthanasia and assisted suicide. Our article on the machine makes this clear, and Nitschke has described how it was important to him that the patient was in control of the administration of the drugs , and that the machine was there so that he did not have to administer the injection, instead allowing the patient to choose to do so themselves - even if he was not in the immediate personal space when the patient made that decision. - Bilby (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a grey area we can debate, but in the end that description has been in the article for years, and has been printed in many news articles for years (lots of sources), and is claimed by PN himself. I don't think it should be removed. We can qualify it again with "Nitschke says" if you like. Ratel (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the sources using that description were taking it from us, rather than the other way round. I'll see if I can find better wording, but I'm not convinced that even Nitschke was describing himself this way, or if he does (and I know one sources claims he does) he also describes himself as not administering the injection, so we end up stuck with the contradiction. - Bilby (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  First voluntary lethal injection 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Philip Nitschke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081228124139/http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/iua21.htm to http://www.internationaltaskforce.org/iua21.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140729032606/http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=13588 to http://www.catholicweekly.com.au/article.php?classID=1&subclassID=2&articleID=13588
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140725214023/http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/national/2014/07/24/kennett-says-nitschke-has-damaged-the-cause.html to http://www.skynews.com.au/news/politics/national/2014/07/24/kennett-says-nitschke-has-damaged-the-cause.html
*Added  tag to https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/24539412/euthanasia-advocate-philip-nitschke-hits-out-at-midnight-assassination/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140201140544/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/05/03/17/55/dr-death-to-fight-nitrogen-complaint to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2013/05/03/17/55/dr-death-to-fight-nitrogen-complaint
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the interest of neutrality, there should be a section on the criticism of Philip Nitschke.  He's a controversial figure, and heavily criticised by many advocates of euthanasia.  He, arguably, sets back any acceptance of euthanasia under law with his "euthanasia creep".  When most people are polled on euthanasia, they think of someone with a terminal disease, in the last stages and in unbearable pain.  Someone in the final stages of pancreatic cancer for example.  But Nitschke offers his services to people who are not suffering from terminal illnesses, but are merely old, or depressed.  This goes beyond euthanasia, into what should be called suicide.  Opponents of euthanasia legislation often talk about the "slippery slope", that any law will be steadily pushed beyond it's initial limits and be stretched to those who are not terminally ill, but merely tired of life, and that eventually the old and valuable will feel pressure to end their lives rather than burden the medical system etc.  Nitschke makes it difficult to dismiss the "slippery slope" argument because he is extending those who he feels are eligible for his help way beyond those in unbearable physical pain and terminally ill.  I'm not qualified to write such a section, but it should be included to provide balance.  The extensive sections on Nitschke's court cases and disputes with the AMA do not adequately deal with this.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.90.98 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: But Nitschke offers his services to people who are not suffering from terminal illnesses, but are merely old, or depressed. What services are you alluding to? Regarding the slipperty slope, even mentally troubled people in Holland can get access to euthanasia , so your objections have less to do with PN's ideas and more to do with how euthanasia should be applied. If there is something missing from PN's page, it's a section on rational suicide. Ratel (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism Section