Talk:Euthanasia/Archive 1

message: it talks about 'non-affiliates' - are these non-protestant christians, or agnostics, or atheists?
it seems to be written from a protestant POV. Saccerzd 20:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: possible POV under 'religion'

message: - under the 'uk doctors are hardening their attitudes to euthanasia' bit, which suggests they are becoming more opposed to euthanasia, one bit of evidence giving in favour of this hardening of attitudes is "Compared with countries where euthanasia is illegal (eg. Italy, Sweden, Denmark), UK doctors are more open about discussing end-of-life decisions (ELD) with patients and relatives"... surely open discussion means that uk doctors are less hardened in their opinion than sweden etc, and so is not evidence of this hardening of attitudes? Or am i misinterpreting ELD, and discussing ELD means anti-euthanasia stance? Saccerzd 20:22, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: this doesn't seem to make sense

message: I added a section to the US history of the first "death with dignity" law passed in the US, I'm sure I am not doing it right (I'm new) but it was missing so I thought I should add it, I think I gunked things up in that section however so I tagged it for cleanup.
--Tim Thorpe 17:07, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean Up

message: I don't see the importance of these statistics in relation to euthanasia (IS NOT A RACE ISSUE AND SHOULD NOT BE MADE INTO ONE. Is more of a personal view!!! euthanasia will o will not be performed by whoever. only pros and cons without having to publish lame racial statistics. --Don Quijote's Sancho 07:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  race and ethnicity? gender?? 

message: Christian organizations and Dutch anti-euthanasia organizations claim that many old people are afraid to go to a hospital in the Netherlands. Also, the same groups say that per capita, there are less than one quarter as many disabled people in the Netherlands as in the U.S. The same groups say that many doctors in the Netherlands habitually perform euthanasia for unconscious patients with severe maimings (such as double amputations above the knees), and persons with severe disease who are estimated to be near the ends of their lives without consultation, or any significant practical oversight.
There's some very strange claims being made about the netherlands and euthanasia. The only euthanasia that (should be ) occuring is that which occurs in the rare situations where it's officially permitted. I haven't heard of any non-consentual euthanasia happening at all, even in situations where people were maimed most dramatically indeed. Someone will have to provide some kind of clear source for that, or I'd best remove such errr.. nonsense.
Re: Arguments on painkilling:
Note that I'm aware of at least one situation where it became simply impossible to stop pain entirely in the terminal phase of an aggressive cancer. (This is actually quite logical, how would you manage to achieve any X effect be it healing or killing of pain in a system that is fundamentally broken and is currently proceeding to crash in real time?). Note that the level of pain involved here is literally a once in a lifetime experience (no humor intended), so we are epistemologically incapable of imagining quite how much suffering such a person must be going through.
Kim Bruning 22:08, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Nonsense; painkilling

message: I saw that the addition of an external link to 'end of life choices' was reverted. It seems to be a legitimate, non-commercial website that is relevent to this topic. Was there a special reason for keeping that link off the article? -Willmcw 22:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.endoflifechoices.org 

message: The definition currently says Euthanasia in these cases differs from suicide by existing only within the context of the amelioration of suffering in the process of death.
However as examplified by the The Sea Inside movie (based on real-life events) and the recent Vincent Humbert case in France, people may request euthanasia when no life-threatening illness is at stakes. Also if both Ramón Sampedro and Vincent Humbert greatly suffered from their condition (both where paraplegic, Vincent had also become blind and mute), it was no suffering in a physical sense.
(Proposal about terminology moved to new section 80.131.68.93 17:14, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  definition of voluntary euthanasia 

message: From the article:
:The holy books of Christians, Jews, and Muslims tell that it is not "loving" to kill someone, and that pain medications are good enough that suffering is preventable if doctors have the will.
Where exactly do the holy books say this? AxelBoldt 18:02, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Good grief. In future, if you see something as ridiculous as that, could you please go ahead and take it out instead of just gently remarking? Be bold. I also changed the next sentence - "Further, in most Western nations the prohibition on killing is considered a moral absolute that cannot be conditioned by ethical concerns" - which was easily disproved by a glance at the legal codes of most Western nations. ←Hob 06:15, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)
It is controversial whether the Jewish holy books prohibit euthanasia or suicide. The best known counterexample is that of Massada where an entire community of religious jews committed suicide rather than be captured by the romans. Suicide/euthanasia is not prohibited in the Talmud either; the interdiction was created in a subsequent, less holy book whose name i don't remember right now.
As for Christianity, I am sure that the New Testament says nothing negative about suicide or euthanasia. The interdiction of suicide and euthanasia was codified much later, in the Middle Ages. This is a well-known fact and no historian would dispute it. Actually, there are many cults inside Christianity and some of them are more tolerant about Euthanasia.
About Islam i don't know details, I regret. [lauri]
Although the Bible may not directly say if suicide is right or wrong, the Sixth Commandment states "Thou Shalt Not kill". I would say that this includes oneself. Anyone who follows Christianity seriously knows that "our lives are property that is owned by God, and we are merely the trustees of that property" - St. Thomas Aquinas.
* Check out the Ten Commandments, where you will see that this is rendered as "You shall not murder" in newer translations. If "murder" means "wrongful killing", this becomes "Wrongful killing is wrong", which sounds trivial. I suppose the point could be that "murder" is actually defined elsewhere, and the commandment is a summary/reminder, not a definition. But you will find lots more at Talk:Ten_Commandments, unfortunately spread over at least 4 sections. PJTraill 23:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Holy books? 

message: Hi, I noticed that Assisted suicide redirects here. It seems to me that this is a mistake, as there are serious differences between the two.  For example, euthanasia doesnt really require the consent or will of the person being killed, while any kind of suicide does.  Is the redirect intentional, or just because the assisted suicide article hasnt been written? Mgw 07:40, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Much of this article is about assisted suicide, distinction with euthanasia in the strict sense is explained.--Patrick 14:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Assisted Suicide 

message: This section has been moved to Talk:Terri Schiavo by PJTraill 14:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schiavo 

message: The law permits euthanasia and physician assisted suicide when each of the following conditions is fulfilled:
*the patient has asked repeatedly
*the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
*the doctor has prior to the act consulted a colleague.
*the patient has to be at least 12 years old; patients between 12 and 16 years of age require consent of their parents
This isn't complete, I believe. The patient also has to be ehm... I can't quite think of the good English translation (I'm Dutch). He has to have a clear mind during his request, if you catch my drift; the physician has to be sure it's not the drugs talking. I suppose has asked repeatedly kind of hints at this. Also, the colleague has to be present at the moment the physician ends the patients life. At this time patient must again ask assisted suicide in presence of the colleague while having a clear mind. Also, he must be able to communicate his wishes quite clearly (basically, he must be able to use his right to change his mind until it's too late). Anyway, this is from the top of my head, I'll ask my parents later on for the exact proceedings (they're both physicians). -- DodgeK 00:32, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think the colleague has to be present at the moment the physician ends the patients life.--Patrick 14:09, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll check, but I know for certain the patient has to ask again in presence of the collegue. Can anyone help me with a better description than "clear mind"? DodgeK 18:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

text: I'd always been told it was 2 independant doctors. Celestianpower 15:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: One has to be independent .--Patrick 21:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incomplete description of the Dutch laws 

message: In another article there is a debate about how to treat to the death of a man who took his own life 27 years ago in a dignified setting (probably with an overdose of prescription medications) after unsuccessful surgery left him unable to walk and in pain. Friends of the man are objecting to the term "suicide" and strenuously prefer "death with dignity". Opponents of the person feel the opposite way. There is a category for suicides (and murders), but I don't see a category for "assisted suicides" or "euthanized persons". Any thoughts? -Willmcw 10:28, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
:I would suggest regarding suicide as a "nl:geuzennaam", i.e. an insult adopted with attitude to rob it of its sting. But I'm not sure what 'categories' you are talking about. PJTraill 14:39, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  People who died this way 

message: I want to learn about the history of euthanasia, and euthanasia laws in particular, but there is nothing here about it. That stinks and someone should fix it. Eliot 20:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: German wikipedia: Geschichte der Euthanasie 129.217.129.133 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History of euthanasia 

message: The Commonwealth government is now trying to hinder euthanasia and to further inhibit discussion of the concept by the passage of the Criminal Code Amendment (Suicide Related Materials Offences) Bill 2004.  That Bill will probably become law (an Act) sometime after the conservative government gains control of the Senate on July 1, 2005.
This is from the "Australia" section and needs to be updated. --Mr. Billion 05:15, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outdated information 

message: I feel that the discussion of euthanasia is muddied by inconsistent terminology (which discussion is not?).
To me it seems that the essential meaning is that death is made to occur earlier (actively or passively)
and that this is in the interests of the subject (the Nazi usage is, of course, on or well over the borderline).
Whether the agent believes it to be so does not (as my previous proposal suggested) determine whether is is euthanasia,
but merely whether he believes it to be so.
I suggest a section on terminology immediately after the introduction, indicating how one expresses:
* what the purpose of killing is:
** this is usually implicit in the conventional meaning as avoidance of suffering
** the Nazis' murder of those they regarded as "lebensunwertes Leben" (c. "Life not worth living") should not count as Euthanasia
* who takes the decision to kill ("voluntary"/"consensual" v. "involuntary"/"imposed"?)
* who carries out the killing
* whether it is killing by intervention or by terminating an intervention ("active" v. "passive")
* anything else that comes to mind?
The history of the word as seen in the Oxford English Dictionary is also interesting, though that is unfortunately not freely accessible. Briefly,
# c. 1650 "Euthanasia" simply meant a gentle, easy death.
# c. 1750 they say it also meant the means of achieving such death, though curiously most examples are metaphorical, often using the formulation "the true euthanasia" in the form "proposal A would be the true euthanasia of system B".
# c. 1850 it comes to mean the action of inducing such death.
PJTraill 17:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Physician assisted suicide is different than Euthanasia in alot of ethical papers because physician assisted suicide is when the patient "presses the button", while euthanasia has the physician doing the final act. some find this an ethical difference. Any thoughts on adding phsyician assisted suicide to the 'types of suicide' list? 
i am citing the article Voluntary active Euthanasia Spencerk 01:27, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: types-of list

message: It unclear from the article that there is a difference between withholding nutrition from a dying person and withholding nutrition from a person that is not yet dying (even if they have a terminal condition). In the situation that the person is unable to absorb nutrition, as far as I know, it is not considered euthanasia to withhold nutrition, and will not cause pain to the patient. In the situation that a person is able to absorb nutrition, it is euthanasia, and can be extremely painful to the patient.Wanfactor 18:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Withholding Nutrition 

message: Wikipedian Policy. Look it up; if no-one does it soon then I will change this but I am busy right now. --The1exile 11:05, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page should avoid self references 

message: Can someone help me understand the relation b/w this and suicide. They seem closely related, but I'm not too familiar with the specifics. Thanks. Gflores Talk 19:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Relation to suicide

message: how is euthanasia completed? lethal injection? a lethal drug one ingests? i think they should be pointed out more clearly.
:It depends.  In a legalized hospital setting, it's often an injection of drugs.  In legalized home settings, it's typically a fatal combination of prescription drugs.  But in the right contexts, it could be putting a pillow over your loved one's face until s/he suffocates, or shooting someone (i.e., like you might shoot a horse with a badly broken leg).  The method is relatively unimportant; what makes it euthanasia (and not suicide) is simply that someone is killing you instead of doing it yourself. 70.137.129.116 18:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: how

message: I reverted , major vandalism that happened 40 days ago. Has nobody noticed this?--Patrick 10:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the history of this article, but that  does not seem like vandalism, in my eyes.--Nicholas 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? Various seemingly good sections are deleted without explanation.--Patrick 10:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, that was my mistake. I thought you meant that someone had vandalised the page by adding all those paragraphs. What you actually meant was someone has vandalised the article by removing those paragraphs, without explanation. Sorry, my mistake :) --Nicholas 11:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok.--Patrick 00:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverted vandalism

message: Why exactly are there several insanely opinionated US-based articles linked from the 'Against' section under the Netherlands? *None* of the 'Against' articles seem to actually be *from* the Netherlands, and it seems rather unnecessary to have so many compared to just a couple in the 'For' section (this isn't a 'Euthanasia in the Netherlands' article, we don't need a heap of links specifically for the country..).
I'm especially iffy about the Wall Street Journal opinion massively misinterpreting old statistics, complete with a whole paragraph about what it claims with no balancing, and I don't think it deserves me adding another paragraph or more external links to do so. --Fuzzie (talk) 20:12, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Netherlands external links

message: Please search and read about the main issue and that is the controversy between the MORALITY V. RATIONALITY, the moral point of view is a more dogmatic approach and tends to point euthanasia as a "sin" or contrary to their dogma. no one should be killed if it was given a life by god. or if not by god, a more humane treatment within the terms of what is moraly right, keeping them alive at all costs... the rational point of view is a less dogmatic approach and criticizes the moral view for lack of compassion within their own moral standards, a rational view sees; if a living being is suffering why keep them alive? for exaple a terminally ill cancer patient. there isn't a cure!!.. then why keep them alive?
is not cruelty but to aliviate the other person suffering. Is making less suffering for another human worthwhile? just read the pro's and con's of the Terry Schiavo case. I'm doing some research myself and please all of you do so, because the article is terribly in diapers and needs urgent attention considering that is such a worlwide controversial issue...--Don Quijote's Sancho 06:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Enough with terminologies and lame statistics of views

message: This article only talks about the US views, when it's also a controversial issue in other parts of the world , (Europe, Latin America, Asia). Don Quijote's Sancho 21:43, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worldwide view 

message: Could we please refrain from misspelling "euthanasia" on its associated pages? Thank you.
: PJTraill 17:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spelling of euthanasia 

message: To ROHA: Please refrain from making personal attacks on other editors, in particular admins. That is not a smart practice ANYWHERE in the world, and on Wikipedia it is not even a democracy: There is no investigation as to what happens to your body here. Also I'd suggest you might want to "expand" your horizons, there are plenty of other things to contribute to at Wikipedia, this is turning into an edit war.
:PS: Your use of a variable IP address is apt to be frowned upon by the admins here; any serious disruption may result in a large segment of your IP addresses, if not all, being blocked from editing.
To editors: I'd like to suggest that the suicide template be prefaced with something like: Euthanasia is not solely a method of suicide, although it may be applied in that manner. That seems to be a big part of the trouble.
To the article contributors: The euthanasia machine for assisted suicide image that is included in the article will obviously need a larger explanation for it to comply to some wants/needs.
This article is not a laughing matter, nonetheless it is relatively standard practice to disambiguate any sufficient large page to any subcomponents that refer to it. In this case I am referring to the disputed Youthanasia disambiguation links: While it cannot stay per some editors, it also cannot go per others. 
I am not sufficiently versed to clearly comment on the contents of this article, but I can see what's going on here. Sincerely, Logical2u (Wikibreak) 22:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your goodwill, Logical2u. Unfortunately, ROHA is a troll with a long history of vandalising the article and refusing to discuss the issue here. I have requested semi-protection of the page, and strongly suggest we ignore him until he goes away. (Incidentally, the correct place to make suggestions about the suicide template is on its talk page. The disambiguation link is a non-negotiable infrastructure issue. As for the caption on the photgraph, how would you suggest we change it?) — JEREMY 08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestion 

message: I certainly must not be the only one perplexed by the dispute that I appear to have stumbled on today. It looks as if there are one or more sockpuppets or impersonators of ER_MD in conflict over this article, and that at issue is the wording of certain terms in the article. I'm inclined to say that the version by ER_MD is closer to NPOV, though I do have some reservations about deleting the section on Ethics outright. If I could hear any second opinions on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated. --Kuzaar-T-C- 15:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits by ED_MD and ER_MD, et. al. 

message: Combined Oregon and Texas information into one place, under US header. Jonathan Tweet 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Where is the Oregon info? I only see a reference to Texas under the US header. --Clpo13 21:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

text: It never got added so I added it, but it needs clean up Tim Thorpe 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oregon ruling is still in effect, so I clear up that part. --clpo13 06:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  US 

message: I'd like to see a section discussing euthanasia of animals, such as violent dogs, or dying animals.  If this is already addressed elsewhere in wikipedia, a link would be good.  --zandperl 00:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article begins with the following: "For mercy killings not performed on humans, see animal euthanasia". C mon 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Animals? 

message: added perceptions section back in Jonathan Tweet 18:37, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  perceptions 

message: I would like to see more philosophical viewpoints than just nietzche's please.--Nicole M. 23:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosophic viewpoints

message: Several problems with the Ethics section:
1) The text does not seem to be NPOV. ex. "Some people raise issues regarding stereotypes ..." are refered to as "They" in several sentances follwing. 
2) Repetetion of referancing "Some People"- It is used at least 3 times for 3 different groups of people. It needs to say who they are and when they took that POV.
3) Run on and ambiguious sentacnes: Like: "Also, they point out that a severely disabled person need not be in emotional pain at their situation, and claim that the emotional pain, if present, is due to societal prejudice rather than the disability, analogous to a black person wanting to die because they have internalized negative stereotypes about being black." 
Although it's informative, it is really confusing unless you read it several times.
There needs to be a breakdown of the different points and what opposing sides say. Right now its one paragraph that touches on several different contesting points. 
In the Perceptions Section: 
1) Good breakdown on religion. As always more detail would be nice. 
2) Philosophy is lacking. Very lacking. One quote does not speak for all philosophers.
3) Good facts in Ethnicity section but it seems to be more of a demographic political breakdown than specific responses/cases.
4) Who is the research by. There are several referances to "the research" but nothing more specific. All I want to know is the research done by a fourth grader or a person with a doctorate in the field of medical ethics. Could be either.
Overall the entire article needs to be cleaned up. It's not always NPOV and there are many ambiguous sentances. Also there is a severe lack of citations. 
--Jazzdude00021 21:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ethics & Perceptions sections 

message: I recently wrote for school on Euthanasia (I know it needs editing to be put in the article):
===Terminology===
It is often difficult to discuss euthanasia because there are so many different kinds of it:
Euthanasia by means: There is passive, non-aggressive, and aggressive. Passive Euthanasia is withholding common treatments or giving a lethal dose of pain medication; it is currently the most accepted form as it is currently common practice in most hospitals. Non-aggressive Euthanasia is the practice of withdrawing life support and is more controversial. Aggressive Euthanasia is using lethal substances or force to kill and is the most controversial means. 
Euthanasia by consent: There is involuntary and voluntary.  Involuntary Euthanasia is euthanasia against someone’s will and is often considered murder. This kind of euthanasia is usually considered wrong by both sides and is rarely debated. Voluntary Euthanasia is euthanasia with the person’s consent, but is still controversial. 
===History===
The term euthanasia comes from the greek words “eu” and “thanatos” which combined means “good death”. The origin of the word is fitting since the founder of medicine, Hippocrates, was Greek himself. Hippocrates mentions euthanasia in the Hippocratic Oath, which was written between 400 and 300 B.C. The original Oath states: “To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death.”  The English Common Law from the 1300’s until today also disapproved of both suicide and assisting suicide. In 1828, euthanasia was explicitly outlawed in the U.S. However, support grew in the 1900’s for euthanasia. Societies were formed in England in 1935 and in the U.S.A. in 1938 to promote aggressive Euthanasia. In 1937, doctor-assisted euthanasia was declared legal in Switzerland as long as the person ending the life has nothing to gain. In 1939, Nazis, in what was code named Action T-4, murdered children under three who exhibited mental retardation, physical deformity, or other debilitating problems whom they considered "life unworthy of life”. In 1977, California legalized living wills and other states soon followed suit. In 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a Michigan physician, became infamous for encouraging and assisting people in committing suicide which resulted in a Michigan law against the practice in 1992. The “angel of death” was tried and convicted in 1999 for a murder displayed on television. In 1990, the Supreme Court approved the use of non-aggressive euthanasia. In 1994, Oregon approved doctor-assisted suicide and the Supreme Court allowed such laws in 1997. The Bush administration failed to use drug law to stop Oregon in 2001. In 1999,  non-aggressive euthanasia was permitted in Texas. Internationally, in 1993, the Netherlands decriminalized doctor-assisted suicide, and in 2002, restrictions were loosened. During that year, physician-assisted suicide was approved in Belgium. An Australian province approved a euthanasia bill in 1995, but that was overturned by Australia’s legislative branch in 1997. Most recently, amid government roadblocks and controversy, Terri Schiavo, a Floridian who had been in a vegetative state since 1990, had her feeding tube removed in 2005. Her husband had won the right to take her off life support, which he claimed she would want but was difficult to confirm as she had no living will and the rest of her family claimed otherwise.
===Reasons for Voluntary Euthanasia:===
*Choice-Choice is a fundamental American principal and is the basis of our Democracy and Free Enterprise system.
*Financial-It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society.
*Pain-The pain and suffering a person feels during a disease can be incomprehensible, even with pain relievers, to a person who has not gone through it. Society should not be able to force them to endure such hardship.
===Reasons against Voluntary Euthanasia:===
*Hippocratic Oath-Every doctor must swear upon some variation of it and the original version swears against the use of euthanasia .
*Moral-The Bible indicates that God is the judge of when people die, and that mankind must make every attempt to preserve life.
*Competence-People who are not thinking properly cannot be considered in proper shape to make a decision on death. We do not allow insane people so kill themselves; we put those people in insane asylums with straight jackets. Even if they are competent, how can we ever be sure that the person making the decision is not just expressing a passing whim? It is almost impossible.
*Necessity-If the disease is curable or should be in the near future, then there is no reason to euthanize them; they can fully recover and not have to experience the torment, which supporters of euthanasia give as a good reason for it. If the disease is curable, then it could be argued that it is murder to let them be killed. 
===Sources===
*Hippocratic Oath
*http://www.euthanasia.com/historyeuthanasia.html
*http://www.bartleby.com/65/eu/euthanas.html
*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/
--Jorfer 05:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested Addition 

message: *Hippocratic Oath
*http://www.euthanasia.com/historyeuthanasia.html
*http://www.bartleby.com/65/eu/euthanas.html
*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/euthanasia-voluntary/
--Jorfer 05:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: Why is there a separate article for Euthanasia in the Netherlands?
Why is the section "Perceptions in the US" not a subsection of the section "US"?
If noone objects, I would include the material from Euthanasia in the Netherlands in this article. This probably makes the article too long, but only slightly.
Certainly, "Perceptions in the US" should be part of the US section.--KarlFrei 13:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the same reasons as there is a an article prostitution in the Netherlands and Euthanasia in the United States. If we would want to discuss everything in one article, it would be a huge article and a mess. I have reunmerged your actions. C mon 17:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Netherlands; Perceptions in the US 

message: I feel that the old, unsourced terminology list should go in favor of my newer, concise, sourced version. I wasn't going to push my version down everyone throats, but since someone else feels that way also, lets discuss it here. --Jorfer 13:58, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted the IP's revert to an older version except for the terminology section and his history addition--Jorfer 14:26, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Terminology 

message: Last week I started a new article "Euthanasia in the United States", and renamed the section "Perceptions in the US" to "Influence of several factors on opinion", adding a globalize tag. However, this keeps getting reverted, I think as part of other reverts. What do other people think about this? I strongly feel that a section "Perception in the US" does not belong in this article, it is a clear violation of NPOV (if it must be in this article, then as a subsection of the section on the United States). Currently, there is not even a link anymore in this article to Euthanasia in the United States. --KarlFrei 21:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no problem with it. It just keeps getting lost due to vandalism. Editors need to revert the article to before all the vandalism and not just to before the most recent one so this does not occur. --Jorfer 00:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for putting it back in! Let's hope it survives this time. --KarlFrei 08:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Globalize! 

message: The German Government of the late 1930s and early 40s had some fairly aggressive euthanasia programmes.  A lot of this was undertaken by idealistic people.  Though the events of 1945 led to these programmes being terminated, and some of the authors of these programmes were hanged for crimes against humanity.
These programmes should be properly explained in a neutral way in the article.  If this were done, then it would be clear that what is advocated now is not so different.
It is worth noting that under the Nuremburg Laws, it wasn't just the politicians, administrators and who got tried and punished.  A journalist whose newspaper incited people to have views supporting various programmes was also tried, convicted, and hanged.--Toddy1 08:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We do not need to be extensive here because most of it is explained in Action T4.--Jorfer 14:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The German Experience

message: The historical section of euthanasia clearly spins it in a negative light, especially the vague and ambiguous wording of the Kevorkian case. The history of euthanasia is not given the breadth required. The Netherlands practiced a form of PAS and VAE since the 1970s. --130.63.233.209 23:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are welcome to add to it, but the material so far is a good start and should not be removed.--Jorfer 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: History Lacks Breadth

message: There is a clear bias in the arguments for and against section. Not only are there far more premises against Voluntary Euthanasia, some premises for Euthanasia have a negative context within them (argument from utility). I will update this section in the near future with references from the likes of Dan W. Brock, Timothy Quill, Andrew Batavia and Charles McKahnn. As it is now, it is very misleading and has an overly negative bias. --130.63.233.209 21:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are always welcome to add new cited information as long as it conforms with WP:NPOV.--Jorfer 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Of course, and several are experts in their field. Timothy E. Quill is an M.D. and professor of medicine at Rochester. Batavia was a professor and harvard trained lawyer who was a quadriplegic since 16 and spoke extensively on an issue that affected people like him directly. Professor Brock was Senior Scientist and a member of the Department of Clinical Bioethics at the National Institutes of Health and is a professor of Medical ethics at Harvard. 
These are credible sources who offer the side of the debate that is under-represented in this article. By adding more sources pro PAS and VAE will the sections in question become NPOV in the first place. --64.231.65.108 04:19, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality in For and Against Disputed

message: For euthanasia terminology, here are some principles and strategy. Please comment on each point separately.
* 1. There is an unresolved and ongoing WP:Notable struggle in the world over euthanasia terminology. Numerous individuals and groups focus on diverse terms and seek to define terms differently. Therefore, it is unrealistic to expect us and future Users to agree on either the set of terms that require definition, or on each term's specific definition. It's not our fault. For this reason, we will proceed as follows:
* 2. Let us identify the key, most WP:Notable terms related to euthanasia and used in diverse discourses, official or not. By the same token, we should identify less important and obscure terms. (E.g., terms fallen from favor historically and no longer used in official policymaking.) 
* 3. Let us give reasons and citations, where necessary, to justify the difference between key terms and less important terms. I think the main criteria would be WP:Notability (granted, this is somewhat contested). Limited, concise reasons should be given within the article itself. Discussion on the talk page.
* 4. Let us provide WP:Notable yet different definitions for key terms. That is, let us explicitly explain the differences. Some differences and explanations belong in footnotes.
* 5. Let us aim to consistently use the key terms. Where necessary, we should clarify and use the definitions of those key terms that are most relevant to any given section of the article. For example, the British and Dutch sections may focus on different key terms, or focus on the same terms but different definitions.
* 6. When key terms cover mostly the same denotational range, but differ in connotation or implied value, we can use a combination for NPOV writing. For instance, if voluntary euthanasia (VE) and physician assisted suicide (PAS) are used to describe approx the same policy from two competing viewpoints, then our article can use the combo term VE-PAS. 
* 7. (This strategy idea requires comment by wiser WP veterans:) Since terms and definitions are both crucial and confusing, should we set up Euthanasia Terminology as a separate article at least temporarily? This would help us organize the Talk page and focus editing, without confusing edits and reverts with the rest of the long article. The Terminology section could be mirrored by the regular article but not editable there. Maybe we could even tag the Terminology section once it is resolved, so as to encourage Talk before significant edits?
* 8. The opening of the article should not attempt to define euthanasia as it is currently understood. Better to just give the literal translation, maybe a bit of history, and then state that the meaning is contested and the debate is described in the  terminology section. 
Thanks for reading these ideas. Comments appreciated. HG 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  PROPOSAL 

message: Looking back over the history of edits on this article, and based on my own academic research, I would suggest that the terminology section address the following Notable terminological elements:
* Voluntary, nonvoluntary, involuntary. (various interpretations, application when patient is not competent, uses in official documents, ambiguous situations, etc.) 
:: Less notable and more POV: the right to die, and similar phrases referring to choice.
:: Voluntary implies consent. But we don't say consensual euthanasia!
* Active, passive. (interpretations, uses in official documents, philosophical and policy debate over these [[act distinctions, etc.)
:: Less notable and more POV: aggressive, nonaggressive. 
* Euthanasia, especially modified with above terms. Voluntary euthanasia VE is most Notable today.
:: Note: historically, euthanasia can also mean palliative care but that's not current usage.
:: Note: in post-war U.S. and religious discourse today, euthanasia itself has a negative connotation
:: Note: it is be POV to characterize a policy as VAE (active VE) unless the policy itself makes that claim  
* Physician assisted suicide/death. (interpretations, official use). 
:: Death with dignity and similar phrases are positive POV
:: I think PAS can be used roughly interchangeably with Voluntary Euthanasia, though they have different connotations and discourse constituencies. PAS more positive, VE more negative value
:: Mercy-killing is less useful because it's not a current NPOV technical term. It remains a notable term for historical and popular usages -- also, for describing non-professional (VE/active) incidents, e.g. many court cases that acquit those who killed a close relative out of mercy.
:: Suicide is also less useful for an NPOV text on euthanasia, except for PAS as above.
There are various terms for distinguishing the means to accomplish euthanasia. For instance, the article refers to terminal sedation." However, "euthanasia" is not used w/NPOV to describe the means and to say  "euthanizing" is mostly POV. 
* Killing and ending life are fairly NPOV, the latter with a more positive spin for VE/PAS. We need to avoid equating euthanasia with "murder" except in specific instances (e.g., Nazis; court convictions).
Yours comments and additions would be appreciated. HG 16:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the edits you made to the article were fantastic, but I am concerned that we are going to start to lose accesibility to the common reader and by focusing too much on faults in wording. We should keep it simple enough for the average reader while having enough depth for experts which is a challenge. I think you may be more familiar with creating a research paper than an encyclopedia entry, and though we could certainly use the knowledge, ability, and sourcing that comes with that, we need to keep in mind the intended audience which is different than an academic journal. As for your proposal, I found it a bit hefty. I do not think we should clutter the article with unneccesary explanations of definitions; it is better if we still with a set of definitions and use it throughout the entire article to minimize confusion. We are probably at least partially shaping the Euthanasia debate right now with this article so the terminology we use may well become more standardized due to this article. It would be intersting to cover the etymologies behind the terms, but we should be able to cover that in the terminology section as of now; it is currently unnecessary to seperate the article into its own article, but may be neccesary if it becomes unwieldy. Also, I do not think we need to come up with neologisms to be POV-neutral; we can simply indicate what the typical point of view connotations are for common terms in the terminology section and then proceed to use the ones we deem most appropriate unless quoting another source directly. As for number eight, we need to give the current definition of Euthanasia in the introduction; no print encylopedia waits until the the third section to define a term (encarta defines it in the first sentence http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562836/Euthanasia.html ).--Jorfer 03:30, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You are right about the need for accessibility (and about my usually writing for another audience). So I agree about avoiding unnecessary explanations. So I guess outdated or obscure terms can be ignored. And I can agree that we need to grapple w/defining the term at the outset. Nevertheless, I'd like your thoughts on my 1st and key point -- the reason that this article is controversial, and seems to cycle thru various incomplete version (rather than moving toward the quality of a featured article), is because (unlike Encarta, which has a small and stable number of authors) current and future wikipedia readers will not be able to agree on which term to use, not to mention its meaning. There is no single NPOV term/definition that we can agree on. (Granted, I believe that my own choice of terminology is NPOV. But it is unrealistic to think that I could/should persuade others to adopt my view.) You've stated the ideal, but this "typical point of view" does not work for something like euthanasia. Euthanasia is more complicated even than, say, abortion, because it covers such a range of treatment options and circumstances. To get this article out of controversy, we'll need to recognize and honor the terms/meanings of 2 (or more) rival camps. Let's talk thru this 1st point because it's the basic justification for most of my other ideas on how to proceed.HG 05:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: To illustrate my point:  A given act XYZ can be termed physician-assisted suicide by those who approve. But those who disapprove see PAS as a euphemism. So XYZ will probably be called euthanasia by those who disapprove. (Increasingly, euthanasia is used by opponents, whereas proponents prefer other terms.) Choosing one term over the other, then, is implicitly choosing a contested point of view. Let me know what  you think, thanks. HG 05:27, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I have seen, passive, active, voluntary, physician-assisted suicide (hands-off voluntary euthanasia), nonvoluntary, and voluntary are the most used terms. We are never going to make this article politically correct, but we can suceed in making it NPOV by avoiding especially divisive terms. Wikipedia is like a mirror for society; it only reflects the current status of the debate. If we can give the best reflection of the current debate, we have suceeded. We should thus use the most common terminology for the article, which I believe are the above from just looking at encarta and the sources I have seen.--Jorfer 20:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. I agree on passive, active, voluntary, involuntary. Maybe say "physician assisted dying" to cover both suicide (e.g., Hemlock, Kevorkian) and the more common hospital situation (which may equate to various forms of passive or active euthanasia). I am comfortable with nonvoluntary, though I don't think most of the discourse uses such precise distinctions. I feel about ready to start editing, once we find some quasi-official references for these terms. Ok? HG 12:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Physician assisted suicide can be described as extremely voluntary (as the patient has to deliberatly end his own life) active Euthanasia so it has its place. I would consider it suicide, but since it involves a doctor prescribing a deadly drug, it is on the edge of the scope of Euthanasia and is considered by many as such, so we will consider it Euthanasia for this article. Nonvoluntary and Involuntary is an important distinction as it seperates Terri Schiavo from Action T-4.--Jorfer 02:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is a bit over-the-top (POV) to equate involuntary with murder. Some thinkers feel comfortable using the term involuntary to include cases that are (purportedly) beneficent yet without consent. Plenty of involuntary cases are not murder (including some adjudicated), eg Kamisar II.A. Voluntary v. Involuntary Euthanasia. See also, Robertson, John "Involuntary euthanasia of defective newborns: A legal analysis" also in Horan and Mall. It would be unduly harsh to say that so many doctors and clergy etc (incl pre-war) advocates of involuntary euthanasia were promoting murder. Arguably, the Nazis crime was not involuntary euthanasia, per se, but massive and deliberate abuse etc of it.) Anyway, if involuntary simply means murder, then it's no longer is a relevant term for analyzing different sides of the debate. HG 03:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Involuntary Euthanasia is a useful term in that it describes a specific type of murder, one that is considered to be for the good of society and/or the person's own good by the supporters.--Jorfer 20:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable terms 

message: AMA PDA http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8458.html
Euthanasia is the administration of a lethal agent by another person to a patient for the purpose of relieving the patient's intolerable and incurable suffering. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by HG (talk • contribs) 16:11, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Could this be even more POV? Intolerable and incurable are objective terms now? This definition also fails to include physician-assisted suicide.--Jorfer 01:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi. I just thought we should gather some together here on the talk page. I didn't mean to imply that it's NPOV. (Hey, I'm the guy who thinks NPOV here is an implausible goal. Here, found an article to reference the claim that there is no NPOV term! Newhouse News article on Oregon terms) HG 02:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: My point was to say that I know we can find a more neutral definition then one that includes the term intolerable. I also think that the term physician-assisted death would be NPOV had it not been a result of a change in policy.--Jorfer 02:39, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. Thanks for your persistence w/this. Not sure what you are saying is the problem with PAD. Do you mean the BMA's change in policy makes it a POV term? But surely all terms have diverse policies and policy changes associated with them?HG 11:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I did not make it clear that I was refering to the policy change described in this article.--Jorfer 20:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Nice example and it's interesting. Maybe fit it in or ref it somewhere, eg US article.HG 02:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sample definitions

message: This section mixes two different topics: Most of the section deals with U.S. public opinion. The section can be relabelled. Maybe it should then be moved to the separate U.S. article. This would then solve the warning about American bias. Note: current version seems to say both that Catholics are opposed and that they are like moderate Protestants. Problem.
Some sentences and paragraphs describe policies of different religions. These policies should be described more clearly, sourced, and put in a different section. Maybe some will eventually grow to separate articles (e.g. Catholic ethics on euthanasia). Do you all agree that this will create an easier way to organize our improvements for the article?  HG 11:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not think the article needs any splits at this time.--Jorfer 01:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI Just saw this: This page is 58 kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size. -- but presumably still at our discretion. HG 16:09, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Influence of various factors ..." --> Public opinion + Religious policies  

message: I put the country examples in that order because I think it is more appropriate to put them chronological order than alphabetical order. Do you think alphabetical is better?--Jorfer 02:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Chronology is unstable because the order would have to change whenever earlier policies are added (for historical coverage) or new policies adopted. The alpha ordering should be more stable and transparent. I put The Netherlands last only because it is deservedly so long; maybe it should become a separate main article like USA. Thanks. PS Can we rename this "Government" or "Official" policies? No reason not to aim for comprehensive worldwide coverage, plus writers may want to add non-country entities. HG 02:35, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: First, Unless a hidden manuscript emerges detailing early Euthanasia, there should be no change in order. Second, The Netherlands had an article by itself at one point that was merged into this one. I agree with this merge, as I do not think it is long enough to justify its own article. Third, I am fine with renaming the country section as the EU and the United Nations undoubtly deal with such matters as well.--Jorfer 02:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, good point, we should find out higher order groups like EU, UN. Should we put major medical associations in this section too? (AMA, BMA, WHO) And let's keep NL here. But here's what I'm saying about chronology -- it's not a matter of hidden data, it's simply that there's earlier material that needs to be put here and that other wikipedians will eventually put in. For instance, Britain looks like 2006 based on recent legislation, but it has legislation that goes back earlier than what's listed for Switzerland. Etc. See what I mean? HG 03:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with major medical associations being included, but we should seperate them with level three headlines under policies. I understand what you are saying with the chronological data; the history section is more appropriate for chronological information.--Jorfer 20:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. It would be great if you can use the country stuff to "globalize" the history section! Also, more on HG 23:18, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree on the first and think that a sentence for each major non-governmental agency and a link to their Wikipedia article is the best course of action for now.--Jorfer 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how to deal w/religions. Yes, they can be moved under NGOs, though I'd like to see this expand more than the NGOs. Maybe we should keep NGOs separate from Govts leaving room for expansion. Anyway, since religious groups are NGOs, then the heading could stay Govt & NGOs or it could be Govt, Religious Groups and Other NGOs.  Boy, what a stickler I am....    Thanks   HG 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Asian-origin Relig section relabeled to Non-Abrahamic by Mdsats. Ok w/me. Let's see if other religions are added.HG 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Country Examples  

message: As you suggested, started NGOs at level three. Let me know what you think so far. I don't think we want to report on each major medical associations, but perhaps offer a synthesis? I can quote Brody's for now. For advocacy groups, I don't think a synthesis or even a listing (other than a link to listings) is necessary or suitable for an encyclopedia. (It would be overkill and a moving target.) However, somewhere we may want to summarize better the major advocacy and opposition movements, and their key players, over time -- not just put them all into See Also. I think that is a good role for an encyclopedia. But maybe that's for history and not for policy summaries? Thanks for collaborating on this.HG 22:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree on the first and think that a sentence for each major non-governmental agency and a link to their Wikipedia article is the best course of action for now.--Jorfer 01:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how to deal w/religions. Yes, they can be moved under NGOs, though I'd like to see this expand more than the NGOs. Maybe we should keep NGOs separate from Govts leaving room for expansion. Anyway, since religious groups are NGOs, then the heading could stay Govt & NGOs or it could be Govt, Religious Groups and Other NGOs.  Boy, what a stickler I am....    Thanks   HG 02:38, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

text: Asian-origin Relig section relabeled to Non-Abrahamic by Mdsats. Ok w/me. Let's see if other religions are added.HG 11:22, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NGOs

message: Someone has asked me for the source of the Japanese euthanasia info I put on.  The source is called "Gendai Yōgo no Kiso Chishiki"ja:現代用語の基礎知識 (which means "basic knowledge about modern words"), 2007 printing, by Jiyūkokuminsha.  Page 951, the first page on the chapter about bioethics.  The source is one of the most respected dictionary-encyclopedias in the country, aimed mainly at explaining modern social issues and new words in all fields to the lay person.
The original source text is, for those who wish to translate it:
東海大学安楽死事件の判決で示された、安楽死許容のための諸要件：
*消極的安楽死（治療行為の中止）が許容されるための三要件：
#患者が治療不可能な病気に冒され、回復の見込みがなく死が避けられない末期状態にあること。
#治療行為の中止を求める患者表示が治療行為の中止を行う時点で存在すること。ただし、その時点で患者の明確な意思表示が存在しないときには、リビング・ウイルなどの意思表示や家族の意思表示を通じた患者の意思の推定が許される。
#治療行為の中止の措置は薬物投与、化学療法、人工透析、人工呼吸器、輸血、栄養・水分補給など、すべてが対象となってよい。
*積極的安楽死が許容されるための四要件：
#患者に耐え難い激しい肉体的苦痛が存在すること。
#死が避けられず、かつ死期が迫っていること。
#患者の意思表示があること。治療行為の中止と異なり、積極的安楽死を行う時点での明示の意思表示が要求される。
#意思により苦痛の除去・穏和のため容認される医療上の他の手段が尽くされ、他に代替手段がない事態に至っていること。
Japanese Wikipedia has info at ja:安楽死 and ja:東海大学安楽死事件. Bueller 007 03:39, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks very much. Perhaps you or somebody could also put the citation into your write-up. This definitely helps globalize the article, thanks. HG 05:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Japan and Euthanasia 

message: I restored Jorfer's edits to the U.S. policy description (and added a sentence).  I don't think that two paragraphs is too much information (perhaps that's why the changes were deleted without remark?).  If you prefer the old version, please make a note here about your reasoning.  Since the term euthanasia covers a lot of territory and the separate page is not as well-developed as we could wish, it seemed relevant to point out that not all life-ending choices were illegal. WhatamIdoing 01:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  United States policy making 

message: It would be helpful to have a map showing policy/law by country instead of having to wade through such a long article which doesn't mention every country anyway? 
Mu2 16:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we have a map please?