Talk:Assisted death/Archive 1

Archive 1

Students

}}

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Estasia13, Joepina.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kylie807, Hunter Santana, Arsmith24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mborj06.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MishaSayenkoCSUEB. Peer reviewers: Kjsnguyen.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:37, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Text removed from article

I removed the following fragments of text from the article, because it's not clear how they relate to the subject matter of this article. If they can be better explained in the article text, it might be appropriate to restore them.

• The Texas Advance Directives Act allows hospitals to withdraw life support after giving 10 days' notice. Oregon and Washington's respective laws specifically apply to state residents only, which prevents citizens of other states from seeking life-ending medical care in either state,and other punishments.
• In Pretty v. UK, a ban against suicide assistance for a paralyzed person wasn't considered as a violation of ECHR by European Court of Human Rights.
• including the United Kingdom (where a bill to legalize it was voted down in 2008)

-Pete (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Weasel!

I added a weasel tag. Any comment? Disagreement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopside (talk • contribs) 22:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Minor changes

I have updated the UK entry to reflect the current situation. The section on published evidence is important since there is so little well conducted research. The section should simply report evidence on Assisted Suicide published in peer reviewed journals or from local government reports. Therefore I have made minor changes to the section headings to reflect this. The comment that this section was based more on opinion is puzzling, unless the writer knows where and how the evidence has been incorrectly reported. --Claud Regnard (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wording

The wording "upon their wanting to do so" strikes me as imperfectly formed. I agree that the concept of voluntary death is an essential point, but perhaps this can be rephrased? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

'Passive' & 'Active' euthanasia

Under the section Factors that influence physicians' attitudes towards physician assisted death both Passive and Active euthanasia are mentioned but they are not defined anywhere in the article nor are they linked (if such links exist within Wikipedia).

IMO under this subject/article the differences should both be defined, at least in an abridged version, along with being linked.

If I were much more knowledgeable regarding the two I would do it myself, but I am not an expert and here these two different aspects regarding assisted suicide should be differentiated and explained if even briefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherchez la Femme (talk • contribs) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops forgot to add my signature, sorry. Cherchez la Femme (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Categories

Another thing which caught my eye of something which seemed a bit biased was the assignment of the category "Homicide" to this article. I don't believe the legal definition of homicide is appropriate for this topic since the terminally ill patients self-administer the medication to end their lives on their own. This categorization of this article is inconsistent with the Suicide article which isn't under the Homicide category. Melissathebarber (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good catch to me. Because it isn't homicide everywhere I don't know why it would be in that category. I'll remove it. Jesanj (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Categories

Regarding this edit, I doubt that everyone accepts that this crime is victimless. I was under the impression that the person who is assisted to commit suicide is considered to be a victim, the logic being that the fact that someone wants something does not necessarily mean that thing is in their best interests. James500 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Image

I removed the image of Socrates drinking hemlock because that was a state execution, not a suicide at all. A better image should be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.115.149.245 (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem with image

I just noticed that the page says that assisted death is legal in the US in 3 states (Oregon, Washington and Montana), but the image next to them only shows Oregon and Washington as highlighted, so I think that this needs to be fixed. I'd do it, but do not know how to edit the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.163.96.103 (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Hippocratic Oath - Outdated

In the introduction, the following sentence strikes me as biased: "The moral code against assisted suicide is stated as early as Hippocrates and included in the Hippocratic Oath traditionally taken by medical doctors."

In watching the documentary How to Die in Oregon I heard a different perspective on this through the physician interviewed in the film, "'First do no harm' is going to be different for every patient. Harm for some patients is, ‘no, no, no, you’ve got to do this the way your body decides as opposed to the way you decide.'" This quote can be heard in the trailer for the film.

Should the Hippocratic Oath sentence in the intro section be changed to something more neutral or should a second sentence be added to provide another point of view? Melissathebarber (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

• I agree completely - I took it out. It was a recent addition, so a consensus version of the article had existed without it for a long time, and it was unsourced. And as you point out, it represents one person's personal interpretation of the Oath, especially without sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, Dawn Bard, for your help. Melissathebarber (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

You should rather be talking about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva - The Declaration of Geneva! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Shift of Strategy

Who are the suicide researchers really? Why are they researching so much, but never uttering a word of sentiment? Where are they? Who are they? What are their "respects"? What are their definite current affiliation? Are they fit to do suicide research? Is their integrity in place for the research to be conducted properly? This may also be added as aspect of suicide and the relevant research!!! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As the psychologists have something similar (to the Geneva Declaration for med. doctors), all that it now takes is the question: "are you conducting your research and other work concerning suicide issues according to your professional ethics?" under one or more lie detectors as they have duties to answer it truthfully! Even if you get suspicions that they are relating to a "weird" interpretation of their prof. ethics, you can "narrow" your question and be more specific toward the ethics concerned! Good? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 12:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTSOAPBOX Lova Falk talk 10:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)

You´re very good with the WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but let me have a few shots: Wikipedia:Five pillars, that Wikipedia is to provide a discussion presenting both sides, like "Opposition" to "In Favour" (Background for the Intellectual Defence), Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith by making the case for people who are suffering, who are weak and vulnerable, Wikipedia:Be bold for daring to stand up to idiots and Jangling Jacks, who do not have the senses it takes to make the clear cases pro- and con- in debates! So this is my answer. Please, stop attacking me for making relevant inquiries into "troubled waters", into cases obscured by hard threats and besieged by deeply crazy people, "you know who". The World is a complex and highly dangerous place. All constructive resources are needed and the idiots are to carry full responsibility for diabolical actions. Likewise, I demand HONESTY from the participants in the debates and I consider this "academic". So I hope you can see this too and let both sides have a voice, where I see this article as defending the "self-righteous" med. doctors and psychologists who are only doing research and who never speak up for the troubled parts of their professional bodies of members. There is a lot wrong in the World. Why are they so silent? Why can´t "Background for the Intellectual Defence" or equivalent be entered into the article? Where are the proponents for Dignitas and the legacy of Dr. Jack Kevorkian? Why are there so few "Jack Kevorkians"??? I think these issues need to be answered honestly and I expect this "accusation of soapboxing" not to be some trick! Nice signature, btw. Cheers! (Consider this from Olsnes-Lea) --109.189.66.249 (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG, and do actually read the soapbox page, as I have referred you to it several times. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to discuss topics. Talk pages are not places for general debate on a topic, they are there for you to discuss how to improve an article. If you are not suggesting changes and providing links to reliable sources, then you are misusing the talk pages. The page Wikipedia:Five pillars does not support your claim. Wikipedia is not here to provide discussion, but information. Nobody has been attacking you, and believe me, we are assuming good faith when you are simply referred to WP:SOAPBOX and not accused of wasting our time with semi-coherent nonsense. If you have questions, then WP:BEBOLD and find the answers, don't just prattle on talk pages. If you can find some reliable sources for all of the claims you make, by all means, add information. But otherwise, keep the talk page guidelines in mind, and try to refrain from using them as your personal soapbox. Jonathanfu (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Adding information: Yes, 1 point for "2 sides", 2 points for defending the weak to grotesque people (torture shops and meat shops, no, they are not nice), 3 points for "honesty" and possibly a 4th point for "few Dr. Kevorkians". Some must be admitted to be good? ;-) Have a nice day! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

What information are you trying to add? And where are the WP:RS to support your information? Jonathanfu (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

‎3 days before Christmas (Christian ethics now redefined?):

Charicaturely, over those who fake the ethical commitment, we get:

Tacitly: Torture more, torture more! *drool* - *drool* - (I can't help myself.)

Explicitly: Stop the suicides, stop the suicides, suicide prevention now! And do support human rights too! (I don't have any suicide-candidate acquaintance, but do you care? They're all gone, aren't they?)

And these notions over tech-eyes and tech-ears, both having "snailhouses" by bio-cords, don't make this any better! Careful-Merry Christmas! 109.189.87.224 (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Background for the Intellectual Defence

The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is: to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? Let's see! I have formerly cited one source for where to obtain "an acceptably complete argument" outside "it's worthwhile to live because those who want to suicide are by definition lunatics and therefore do not carry sound judgment to own pains, fx.". While I've been "warned" by Jonathanfu for adding to this ideal cause, I re-erect this topic for the very use of the information itself. I hope you like it.
End. Comment to the removal:
This has formerly been removed and as there is no other good alternative, I find this offensive, both to all real and potential readers and to myself. What about you?
The fact here is that the debate actually holds the above sentiments on the pro-side and thus DOES NOT at all represent a WP:SOAPBOX, as a pre-emptive strike. This discussion is also a subject to political discussion and the article needs to reflect this by exactly holding these sentiments of the pro-side or else the article merely becomes an idiot listing of "moving objects", without the foundation for reasoning. --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again... Now added under "Defence for Legalising Assisted Suicide", followed by "Opposition". If you are utterly against the above, I want a notification, please! Just tell me how you like to have it... --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Now here is the normative for the medical doctors (and no need to mention Hippocrates Oath): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva , The Declaration of Geneva. Mentioning it twice on this Talkpage, is it allowed? --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Undone deletion of "The Intellectual Defence"!

Given a section on this article, "The Intellectual Defence", it is now proven that Jonathanfu fails to understand what he's "discussing" by this link, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:LFOlsnes-Lea#Your_recent_edits_to_Advocacy_of_suicide_and_Assisted_suicide , where he clearly mixes sides and end up misinterpretating what "The Intellectual Defence" is supposed to imply here, that this section is about pro suicide legislation, that it speaks pro euthanasia/right to suicide, and not con as he seems to "pervert" the whole thing into. So this time, I hope you understand that WP:VAN lies NOW wholly on Jonathanfu. As the case is clear, please...! --LFOlsnes-Lea 12:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Objection goes to User:Bilby too. Also, this user now possibly also carries the responsibility of (blatant) wrongdoing, in doing something this user has no clue to the extent of, i.e., the role of the academia. This user obviously sides with Jonathanfu. --LFOlsnes-Lea 12:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

The pro-argument to assisted suicide further (under the above header): that pains and lunacy are together one psychological fact, that pains entails lunacy "after a while" and that given a pervading combination of pains and lunacies for individuals and families alike, the qualifying routine for getting access to (assisted) suicide must, perhaps, necessarily in because the consequences can otherwise speak insanity for all. You? 82.164.203.117 (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

More block evasion from Lea Jonathanfu (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Organizations opposed to assisted suicide

A number of organizations opposed to assisted suicide have been removed from the list in this article on grounds that they are not individually notable [1]. Per WP:NOTESAL, organizations do not need to be individually notable to be included in a list. They only need to be notable as a group and individually verifiable with reliable sources (not the same thing). James500 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To put it another way, WP:N doesn't apply to the contents of this article, it only applies to its existence. James500 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTESAL applies to stand-alone lists, or articles that are primarily lists of information. This article is primarily prose. I assume WP:EMBED deals with embedded lists like we see in this article, but that MOS article doesn't elaborate much on notability as far as I can tell. Jonathanfu (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Merged discussion from Talk:Aid in Dying

I see that my creation of this article was inadvertently opposed to an earlier decision [above] to merge it. That was a "speedy merge" decision, which concerned the version of the article that existed at the time. There is, in fact, a good argument to be made for having the article, which wasn't made before. The state of Washington now has a "physician aided dying" initiative being considered by voters, and the term has also been accepted in the medical community more broadly than in the state of Oregon. (The American Medical Student Association, American Medical Women's Association, Washington State Psychological Association, American College of Legal Medicine, American Public Health Association, and American Acacemy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have all made official decisions to include the term in their lexicon, in contrast to the term "suicide."

Sources will be added to the article to reflect all this; but in the meantime, it is important to have a separate article on the subject; from a legal standpoint, aided dying is not suicide (which is a crime in Oregon), and there is a growing body of academic and medical work recognizing the importance of the distinction. -Pete (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't observe legalities in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. Aid in dying is not separate from Assisted suicide because it still means the same thing only in a different way. Similarly, you have nothing but a definition there. By merging we can better talk about both topics. .:davumaya:. 22:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

"We don't observe legalities in Wikipedia" is not a response to any argument I made. However, I can see the sense in having a single article, to permit exposition of similar concepts in a structured way. I suspect we can both agree that the present article on Assisted suicide leaves a lot to be desired though, so we have some work to do. I'll think this over and discuss here before making further significant edits. (As I stated before, my reversing of the merge was inadvertent; I didn't notice the earlier discussion until after I created the stub.) -Pete (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I want to express I am not opposed to Aid in Dying or whatever is happening with medical terminology and whatever movements associated with these processes. My comment about legalities was that, there is no need to separate articles because legal definitions separate two topics unless its very warranted. Aid in Dying historically appears to have evolved from the debate on assisted suicide, thus even though its new and different, it's still part of the same idea. This is why its better to have both topics together (for now). On another point, I want to ensure that Wikipedia:Recentism doesn't come into play. AID may certainly blossom into its own sort of thing but there is indeed not enough material to let it stand alone. Lastly, I fear if we leave AID as its own stub it would have been marked for deletion or merge anyway. .:davumaya:. 21:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've had some offline discussions with a friend who works for Compassion & Choices. What I see going on is this: the term "aid in dying" is the preferred term for the legal version(s) of this that have passed or being pursued; and the medical and legal community seems to be happy to go along with that. The term draws a distinction that is significant, but it is not yet part of the common lexicon. So, I'd say the term is in a grey area where it's not clear whether it qualifies as being notable on its own. (As a technical matter I think it is, because there has been significant media coverage of the term; but that doesn't necessarily mean that having a separate article is the best way to go.)

I'd propose doing a major workover of the article, but discussing the best way to approach it ahead of time. I think leading with a definition of assisted suicide, using the second paragraph of the lead section to discuss aid in dying and how it's related/not related, and then get to distinguishing it from euthanasia (which, I think, is a much clearer line, but should be included because people get it confused so frequently).

In the structure of the article, the Oregon and Washington initiatives should be discussed in the context of 'aid in dying', rather than the history section of 'assisted suicide'. It should be explained that 'assisted suicide' was the common term up until XYZ date, and used to be more inclusive than it is now; and that 'aid in dying' covers only acts that are legal, condoned by a medical authority, etc.

What do you think? -Pete (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate for this article. You can also setup sections even if you don't have content for them yet. .:davumaya:. 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the quick reply. I found the article below, which shows that the terms "aid in dying" and "death with dignity" were used at least as early as 1988, in relation to a California ballot measure (which, notably, would have permitted the physician to administer the lethal dose.) The term euthanasia seems to be used pretty loosely in articles from that era. All of this comes as a bit of a surprise to me -- and may be very helpful in determining the best structure for the article. Seems there's more history to the term than I'd thought. Also, are you aware there's an article on Right to die? What are your thoughts on that? I haven't read it closely yet.

Colburn, Don (January 26, 1988). "Euthenasia - allowing the terminally ill to die is generally accepted. But should "active" euthenasia be available in the United States?". Washington Post.

(Link may or may not work without subscription..I've had very inconsistent results with Newsbank articles.) -Pete (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Seems the debate in the medical community and media was largely the result of a 1988 anonymous confession of a young physician who admitted to helping a patient referred to as "Debbie" to commit suicide. Which spurred a debate in medical journals and in the mainstream media. Cohn, Victor (April 12, 1988). "Story of 'Debbie's' death isn't over". Washington Post. -Pete (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to change the title of this article to "Aid In Dying". I have decided to change it because it is used more frequently in the article than the actual term Assisted Suicide is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devan95belt (talk • contribs) 19:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom

I am adding a new paragraph about the solution in United Kingdom that wants to have a medical specialist devoted to assisted suicide. I am adding this because it is not mentioned in the article and I think it is a substantial piece of information because it is a new development and it is shows that assisted suicide is becoming more accepted in the medical field.Devan95belt (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Published evaluation of physician aided dying

I have added some recent published research on PAD.--Claud Regnard (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Added a sentence about the requirements for physician assisted suicide in Oregon. Devan95belt (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Added a recent statistic about the Oregon Death With Dignity Act under the United States section. Devan95belt (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Paragraph Changed

I have changed the following pararaph: The term euthanasia refers to an act that ends a life in a painless manner, performed by people other than the patient, which do not involve the choice of the patient, or which involve passive withdrawal of life support.

to: The term euthanasia refers to an act that ends a life in a painless manner, performed by someone other than the patient. This may include witholding common treatments resulting in death, removal of the patient from life support, or the use of lethal substances or forces to end the life of the patient

with the intent of removing contradictions between euthanasia and Assisted suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.1.131 (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Added a new paragraph under United States, describing how many deaths have been committed since Oregon legalized assisted suicide.Devan95belt (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

More references

I have added some recent references on physician action and attitudes towards assisted suicide in the UK. --Claud Regnard (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a brief description of the Dignitas organizationDevan95belt (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Terminology

If references can be provided for the NGOs cited above that prefer alternative terminology, they can be added to the article. I added the Oregon legal citation, since that's the only one that was provided. -- Beland (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add a new paragraph under the section Legality, which describes a definition difference between aid in dying and assisted suicide. I think this will provide readers with a well understanding that these are two completely different terms. Devan95belt (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I am going to update the current definition of Assisted Suicide to, "Assisted suicide is a term used to describe suicide with the help from another person (such as a doctor) to end suffering from severe physical or mental illness." I believe this definition provides a better understanding of the topic for the reader. Devan95belt (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Changed the paragraph on Reasons for Seeking, because it seemed biased to Oregon patients only. Devan95belt (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Merge

The article Aid in Dying contains information specific to Oregon. It would make sense to place it in the overall context of the Assisted suicide article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

References to “suicide,” when talking about the rational decision of a terminally ill patient who by definition is already dying, is an archaic and inappropriate term. There is a clear distinction between an irrational and emotive act versus one that is well thought through with the support and guidance of a physician.

Suicide is hurtful and derogatory term to both a dying patient and the patient’s loved ones, conjuring up images of irrational, depressed teenagers, adults with mental illness, and terrorist bombers. It suggests guns and violence and it suggests the patient is choosing death over life, when in fact a terminally ill patient no longer has such an option.

Most patients asking for aid in dying have exhausted all possible curative therapies and are left with only the manner of how death comes to them. They may want to choose what some call “the least worst death,” but they cannot choose life over death.

Physicians originally accepted the term "physician assisted suicide" to distinguish it from euthanasia; a process in which a third party, usually a healthcare professional, brings about the patient’s death via administering a lethal dose of medication, most commonly via injection.

Physicians like Drs. Timothy Quill and Marcia Angell coined the term “physician assisted suicide” to signify the voluntary self-administration of medication by the patient. They did not consider the effect the term might have on patients, its negative connotation among the general public, or even in churches that withhold sacraments from “suicides.” Instead, they were after a strictly clinical distinction between the patient’s own control versus the involvement of a third party.

The following authorities and organizations have all recognized the distinction between “suicide” and the rational decision of a terminally ill patient.

In Oregon, where physician aid-in-dying has been a legal option since 1997, Section 127.880 §3.14 of the law states: “…Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.” [1995 c.3 §3.14]. The Oregon Department of Human Services, which reports on implementation of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, announced in October of 2006 that it would no longer refer to a death under the law as "assisted suicide" or "physician assisted suicide” recognizing that these terms are inappropriate.

The American Medical Woman’s Association, comprised of over 10,000 female physicians issued a position paper in which it states: “The terms ‘assisted suicide’ and/or ‘physician assisted suicide’ have been used in the past, including in an AMWA position statement, to refer to the choice of a mentally competent terminally ill patient to self administer medication for the purpose of controlling time and manner of death, in cases where the patient finds the dying process intolerable. The term ‘suicide’ is increasingly recognized as inaccurate and inappropriate in this context and we reject that term. We adopt the less emotionally charged, value-neutral, and accurate terms 'Aid in Dying' or 'Physician Assisted Dying'”.

The American Psychological Association states: "It is important to remember that the reasoning on which a terminally ill person (whose judgments are not impaired by mental disorders) bases a decision to end his or her life is fundamentally different from the reasoning a clinically depressed person uses to justify suicide."

The American Public Health Association emphasizes “the importance to public health of using accurate language” and, accordingly, urges: “That health educators, policy makers, journalists, health care providers recognize that the choice of a mentally competent terminally ill patient to choose to self administer medications to bring about a peaceful death is not ‘suicide’, nor is the prescribing of such medications by a physician ‘assisted suicide’.”

The Washington State Psychological Association “supports value-neutral terminology such as aid-in-dying, patient-directed dying, physician aid-in-dying, physician-assisted dying, or a terminally ill individual’s choice to bring about a peaceful and dignified death.”

And the American College of Legal Medicine has stated: “the term ‘physician assisted suicide’ is arguably a misnomer that unfairly colors the issue, and for some, evokes feelings of repugnance and immorality. The appropriateness of the term (assisted suicide) is doubtful in several respects….ACLM rejects the term ‘physician-assisted suicide’.”

For the reasons above, it is time to recognize the distinction that the more appropriate terminology is “aid in dying” and I believe the term should stand on its own rather than placed in the same context as suicide.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.25.158.34 (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion about this topic nor a forum for your personal original research or for you to be a soapbox. I'm speedy merging this since the original author has indicated they created the page in direct violation of WP policy. .:davumaya:. 09:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The word suicide by itself means just that: sui-cide, inducing one's own death. Whether this act is rational or not, or what feelings it may evoke, is not implied by this term. (Nor are all suicides of not terminally ill individuals irrational or caused by mental disorders.) OTOH the word dying usually means death by a cause outside of one's own will, so aid in dying seems a misnomer to me.

Yes Suicide is suicide no matter what you call it. Assisted suicide is more akin to euthanasia and these articles along with lethal injection should be merged. A Bom Nible (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

There really should be a terminology section in the main article. There are many reasons for drawing a distinction between suicide and controlling one's death via ingestion of provider-prescribed life-ending medicine. (1) Suicide, as discussed in psychiatry, is always coupled with mental distress or mental disorder. Aid In Dying is unavailable (in jurisdictions that allow it, e.g., Oregon and Washington) for patients whose mental distress or disorder is informing their decision. (2) Suicide, often with regard to saving clauses in insurance plan, refers to cutting off life prematurely; that is, ending the life of a patient who wasn't diagnosed with a terminal illness. Terminally-ill have already entered the dying process. It's not a question of whether they'll die soon but how. (3) Philosophically, ending one's life is not necessarily suicide. Is jumping from a high floor of a burning building suicide? Is jumping on a grenade to save other soldiers suicide? Each situation identifies a person ending her or his own life, but it is inappropriate to cast them as suicidal. Rousseau, with similar discussion, regards these acts primarily as preserving autonomy. Jordan 20:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs)

There's an important legal distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia which needs to be preserved if only for legal reasons (though there are good ethical arguments for preserving it also). It would be nice if the English language had a variety of terms to distinguish between types of suicide, or even rational and non-rational: but it doesn't really. Too many euphemisms, however well-meaning, can I think be confusing, especially when there is no agreed consistency from one country to another. However, the word euthanasia is also used as a generic: as in "some form of euthanasia" (by which the reader generally comes to assume can include assisted suicide). This seems to be the direction the relevant Wiki pages are heading and perhaps more accurately accords with common usage and common sense.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Against assisted suicide: more references

If someone could add some organizations that oppose assisted suicide that would be great because currently there is just a lot of groups supporting it making this article slightly biased. Evan 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent Redfield (talk • contribs)

I think that has now been done (I have added one myself). Some of the references seem suspect however; for instance, a Mayo paper is quoted in several places to support arguments against assisted suicide, yet the abstract reads: "One of the most potent arguments against physician-assisted death hinges on the worry that people with disabilities will be subtly coerced to accept death prematurely. The argument is flawed. There is nothing new in PAD: the risk of coercion is already present in current policies about end of life care. And to hold that any such risk is too much is tacitly to endorse vitalism and to deny that people with disabilities are capable of choosing authentically." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12362519 In other words, it quotes the argument to refute it. This is not clear from the Wiki citation given, which is the opposite. I thought I'd flag this rather than remove it straight away, so giving an opportunity for someone to justify the citation or find a more appropriate one. Otherwise the citation should be deleted.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Hippocratic Oath

I added a section under Attitude of Healthcare Professionals titled Hippocratic Oath because I believe a lot of people think Healthcare Professionals should not participate in assisted suicides because of the oath they take when entering the profession. Under the original oath, that may have been true but there is a modern oath taken by doctors that no longer suggests that. Dancer1090 (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hippocratic Oath may not be worth so much anymore. Hans Petter Aarseth, former president of the Norwegian Doctors' Association has openly on public radio said that he, as the president, directly administers how many people who are to kill themselves every year, that is, he "administers the numbers", ref. Rogaland Radio, 1990. There are other disturbing facts out there in the World as well. Please, check it out! 62.16.241.158 (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The entry as it stands is misleading and seems only tangentially relevant in a strict sense, but to omit it entirely would fail to address a common objection to assisted suicide. I have therefore amended the context. (By the way, the Oath as quoted on the relevant Wiki page does not seem to be a correct rendering of the original Oath, as any number of references will show. I will try to get round to amending that page unless someone else does so first.) Parzivalamfortas 23:29, 18 February 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

Euthanasia?

In the beginning of the article (second sentence), it states not to confuse assisted suicide with euthanasia. However, a few lines down, in the "Legality" and "Legality by country" sections, there is a link to articles about legality of euthanasia. This seems to be a double standard. Edit, or no edit? --2myname1 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Tightening that up might be tricky, but seems worth doing. I'll look into it over the next few days. As a general rule, physician-assisted suicide will be legal where euthanasia is legal, while it is very possible for assisted suicide to be legal while euthanasia remains illegal. The Belgium claim confuses that a bit, though, so I'll need to dig. - Bilby (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is a major fault with the article. The lead tries to distinguish between assisted-suicide (whether physician or not) and euthanasia. Yet, most links to legal status in different countries lead to Euthanasia pages. They are entirely different notions. I can agree with a medical doctor who refuses to administer a lethal dose, but using a self-injection machine, or supplying edible lethal doses is NOT euthanasia. These articles need a terminology clean-up.--Tallard (talk) 01:15, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Possible bias

It seems to me that there may be some bias leaning in both directions in this article. It doesn't seem have arisen out of maliciousness, but the jumbled writing style. The section that details the support of assisted suicide seems short on reasons and heavy on more specific information about who is operating organizations, and where they are operating, and what they are doing currently. Whereas the section that has details on the opposition seems to have more detailed information on why they oppose assisted suicide. Furthermore, the supporting section is significantly less readable and subject to being passed over, even as I attempted to find more information on the subject. 129.7.17.174 (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added two organisations to the list, both campaigning on a disabilities issue, but one that is pro and one that is opposed.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the order of the writing should be changed. As it stands now, the order compromises the neutrality of this article. Sections of opposition should be grouped together, sections of support should be grouped together, pros and cons should be in one larger group (that is, nothing else should be there except pros and cons, so the legality section should either come first or last, not in the middle). 76.198.37.8 (talk) 19:06, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The last paragraph of the introduction (and in particular the sentences "Although debatable, a patient’s right to gain control, preserve their dignity, and have the choice to die is undeniable" and "None the less, a nation built on freedom should allow the right to human dignity for those who seek to end the duration of their suffering with a conscious choice to die when a patient feels suitable.") seems very biased to me. It puts as factually true just one side of the debate. 93.32.18.85 (talk) 20:13, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Merge with Voluntary euthanasia

The overlap between this article and Voluntary euthanasia is substantial. There is a slight difference in terminology sometimes - the distinction between killing someone upon their request, vs. providing someone the means to kill themselves painlessly. This is such a fine distinction that both articles end up explaining it and covering issues on both sides of it. It would be a lot easier for readers if there was a single article that simply explained the distinction as needed (such as when describing what is legal in a particular jurisdiction). The title of the combined article should be something that is generally agreed to cover both. Not sure what if there is a strong consensus for what that should be; maybe "assisted dying" as suggested in the intro of Assisted suicide?

There is also substantial overlap with Right to die#By country, which it would be easier to deal with if there were a single, canonical list for legal status to refer readers of "Right to die" to. -- Beland (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a significant difference when you are prosecuted... The Banner talk 17:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I'd oppose a merge - in both ethics and law, these are considered to be significantly different. Given the complexities of each topic, it seems best to address them separately. - Bilby (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

N Oppose merge for reasons stated Ratel (talk) 20:42, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Homicide? NPOV?

User:7&6=thirteen's addition of the "Homicide" sidebar does not seem to be WP:NPOV - suggest removal but I am hesitant to so so myself as the topic seems contentious.

Opinions please?

Well I guess User:Bilby just answered that one

EncycloCanuck (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have commented. Yes, I agree with you - assisted suicide isn't generally classified as homicide, as the person takes their own life, and is therefore categorized separately. In the past we've had arguments regarding euthanasia, but as in euthanasia someone else takes a life there is more of a cause to draw the connection, although the word "homicide" tends to carry a certain amount of baggage. I was also concerned about the sue of the euthanasia sidebar - less of a POV problem, but while the two are debated in the same areas, and we include assisted suicide in the euthanasia sidebar and vice versa, they are generally classified as different things. - Bilby (talk) 08:51, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

US-centricity in the lead

Does anyone else feel the current lead is a little US-centric? Why are we calling out legal status of individual US states in the lead? Can you push all of this to Assisted suicide in the United States? NickCT (talk) 21:07, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree that this much detail on the U.S. doesn't need to be in the introduction of this page since this page is the global context.Jmlsmal1127 (talk) 17:52, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Assisted suicide is prohibited by common law or criminal statute in all U.S. states?

Looking at the line in the lead sentence -

"Assisted suicide is prohibited by common law or criminal statute in all U.S. states"

Is this strictly true? Can we get a reference. I think a lot of people refer to what's going on in California and Oregon and Vermont and DC, etc as "assisted suicide". NickCT (talk) 21:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC) " This really does need to be amended. Medical Aid in Dying is an "exception to the rule against Assisted Suicide. This would be a better way of phrasing it otherwise the distinction makes no sense at all (since the practice in Oregon etc clearly falls under the definition of assisted suicide). The difference, thus expressed, would still be valid (rather than just saying "it is illegal except in ...") The phrase Medical Aid in Dying refers to the action in those states where the various aspects of the action have gone through the due process of law, making it very different from a broader term such as assisted suicide. Parzivalamfortas 21:27, 8 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

Adding to the definition of Physician Assisted Suicide

I added the excerp (3rd source listed) from an academic journal clarifying the definition of Assisted suicide to make it more clear how important the consent aspect of Assisted Suicide is. I also believe it helps differentiate Euthanasia with Assisted suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischi12 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Physician Assisted Suicide over just Assisted Suicide for title

Assisted Suicide is a very broad term. If I just said "Assisted Suicide" in a conversation with someone, they could wonder "Assisted by who". It could be with anyone or anything. I believe Its important that this article is called "Physician Assisted Suicide" to clarify that its tied with a terminal illness verses normal suicide assisted by anything or anyone. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischi12 (talk • contribs) 01:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Removal of the 1997 Study excerpt

The 1997 study posted under "Attitudes of Physicians and healthcare professionals", it gives more information on the views that nurses and physicians have towards euthanasia verses Assisted suicide. That study would be put to better use on the Euthanasia page. It gives no information on their attitudes toward Assisted suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischi12 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

Deletion or edit of Published Research/ Resources for further reading

The section titled "Resources for further reading" seems a bit obsolete because websites for different organizations concerning PAS are scattered throughout the article. Also the cited sources at the bottom of the page are there so that people can read further into studies, organizations, etc. regarding Assisted suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mischi12 (talk • contribs) 19:37, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

United States section

I notice there's a redlinked wikilink for California End of Life Option Act, it really should have that page as the topic is important and the other states already have good quality pages. I'm guessing it was left there for another editor to pick up which I will now do, but if anyone knows of a previous page that was deleted, if any, can they let me know so I can see what the problem might have been. In the meantime I will go ahead in sandbox. Thanks. Mramoeba (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Improving organization of Attitudes of Physicians section

Currently the Attitudes of Physicians section is organized by country, then study. This will only grow unwieldy and hard to interpret over time. There have been meta-reviews and I plan to cite one or a few of those at the beginning, and perhaps create a table of major surveys (including the ones currently listed) so readers can scan across multiple studies quickly. Might be nice to have some non-Eurocentric studies, too. The detail about how many euthanasia and PAS procedures are performed in the UK seems out of scope for this section, or else too detailed. Comments welcome Sharp-shinned.hawk (talk) 14:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

American Medical Association's Code of Ethics

Added the most current version of the AMA's Code of Ethics stance on PAS and the reasoning for their position on the topic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L026r256 (talk • contribs) 01:52, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Suicide contagion effect in relation to the legalization of PAS

This information is should be considered because it may be indicative of a future problem in the legalization of PAS nationwide. It is important to acknowledge this effect and how it plays a role in the dilemma of legalizing PAS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L026r256 (talk • contribs) 01:32, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Source your inclusions properly please. Activist sites are not reliable for our purposes. Ratel (talk) 03:35, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Palliative sedation

There needs to be something in the article about this concept. [2] Ratel (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Physician Assisted Suicide

THere are currently 5 states that have passed a law or a proposition making it legal for physicians to assist terminally ill patients to end their lives. There are many states and people alike that believe that assisting a patient in ending their lives on their terms is morally wrong and or against gods will. The decision should be the patients and not someone that has no idea what they are going through. The patient should have to go through psychiatric evaluation first to ensure that they are of sound mind and are not acting out of depression or emotions at that moment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CarmenGonzalez78 (talk • contribs) 01:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Disability and relevant diseases

For assisted suicide, it is encouraged and driven by anecdotes of people who endure great pain before dying. For disabled and terminal patients, it is believed that assisted suicide could gently alleviate their pain and maintain their dignity. However, such kind of measure would lead to fear, bias and prejudice against disability. Most people in Oregon who have reported to conduct assisted suicide want to pass away not due to pain but for disability and relevant diseases. People have strong fear of disability and consider it to be associated with loss of dignity and control of body. For disability community, they have been living within great pressure and prejudice for years. Loss control of body function and dignity makes them feel shameful and guilty towards family and medical staff. Since the public has the stereotype that disability is a fate worse than death. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxchen1999 (talk • contribs) 22:07, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is a not a forum for general discussion of the topic. If you are offering content, you need to provide reliable sources and say where in the article the suggestion should go. Jytdog (talk) 01:49, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Mental Illness

Yes, terminal illness is known to be the number one cause for individuals to request assisted suicide but, surprisingly, mental illness has come up as a justifiable and reasonable cause to request assisted suicide. "Intolerable psychological suffering is no different from intolerable physical suffering."

There was a case in the Dutch Supreme Court where a doctor assisted one of his patients, who was not diagnosed with a terminal illness, with suicide. This was how he described his patient:

"She was a 50-year-old social worker. She was also a painter in her spare time. She was divorced. She had been physically abused by her former husband for many years. She had two sons. One son, Peter, died by suicide in 1986, at the age of 20. She then underwent psychiatric treatment for a marriage crisis following his suicide. At that time, she strongly wished to commit suicide, but decided that her second son, Robbie, age 15, needed her as a mother. Her son, Robbie, died of cancer in 1991, at the age of 20. Before his death she decided that she did not want to continue living after he died. She attempted suicide, but did not succeed. On July 13, 1991, she wrote to a social worker at the academic hospital where her second son died of cancer; she asked for a contact and for pills, so that she could kill herself. She had bought a cemetery plot for her sons, her former husband, and herself; her only wish was to die and lie between the two graves of her sons."

The woman wasn’t diagnosed with a terminal illness or given a certain time frame to live, she just could not mentally take the pain any longer. This led Dr. Chabot to contend that, "intolerable psychological suffering is no different from intolerable physical suffering."

References

--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Racequeen22 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

This page is a not a forum for general discussion of the topic. If you are offering content, you need to provide reliable sources and say where in the article the suggestion should go. The citations you posted here are not useful. Please see your talk page for information on how to cite sources Jytdog (talk) 01:50, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

China's assisted suicide

China seems to be lagging behind the rest of the world in legislation on many controversial issues. This has a lot to do with China's complex national conditions. In the past 20 years, there are many people attempted to legalize assisted suicide, but they have been rejected by legislators on the grounds that the timing is not yet ripe.

Ma Xuesong, a scholar of the Jiangxi Academy of Social Sciences said that if euthanasia can be accepted by the general public, it is an advancement of both society and morality. Yan Sanzhong, a head of the Department of Law at Jiangxi Normal University, stated that China should first accumulate judicial experience in handling cases regarding euthanasia. The Supreme Court can then come up with judicial interpretations and guidance and finally legalize euthanasia at the proper time.

China still has a long way to go to legalize assisted suicide. So, I added the following content about China's assisted suicide:

"In May 2011, Zhong Yichun, a farmer, was sentenced two years' imprisonment by the People's Court of Longnan County, in China's Jiangxi Province for assisting Zeng Qianxiang to commit suicide. Zeng suffered from mental illness and repeatedly asked Zhong to help him commit suicide. In October 2010, Zeng took excessive sleeping pills and lay in a cave. As planned, Zhong called him 15 minutes later to confirm that he was dead and buried him. However, according to the autopsy report, the cause of death was from suffocation, not an overdose. Zhong was convicted of criminal negligence. In August 2011, Zhong appealed the court sentence, but it was rejected.

In March 2007, while China's National People's Congress, a young woman suffering from muscular dystrophy submitted a proposal for euthanasia legislation. It was rejected due to legislators said the time was not yet ripe.

In 1992, a physician who was accused of murdering a patient with advanced cancer by lethal injection. With the defense by Zhang Zanning, a professor of medical law at Nanjing's Dongnan University’s, he was eventually acquitted. This is a rare acquittal in criminal cases involving assisted suicide in China." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxchen1999 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Passive euthanasia was legalized in India

The latest country passed euthanasia, information as follow:

"On March 9, 2018, declaring the right to die with dignity as a fundamental right, the Supreme Court in a landmark judgment, legalized passive euthanasia in India under strict guidelines." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxchen1999 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Addition of material from review study written by anti-assisted suicide pressure group

Legalization of assisted suicide has negative influence on medical care improvement

One of the most important thing for people to choose assisted suicide is economic issue. For financial cost and medical resources, many patients are reluctant to increase burden on family and ask for medical service. For assisted suicide, the lethal prescription is greatly cheaper than cost of long-term medical care. Legalization of assisted suicide has led to a reduction in medical resources by the government. The government cost-cutting pressure also has great influence on physician’s’ decision. It believes that legalizing assisted suicide would have deadly impact on the economically and socially disadvantaged people who have fewer opportunity on medical resources.

I think legalization of assisted suicide to some degree has negative influence on health care service improvement. Thus I added some information as follow in article page and gave the source for them:

"Legalization of assisted suicide has negative influence on medical care improvement

People choosing assisted suicide are usually disabled or diagnosed with terminal disease. For financial cost and medical resources, many patients are reluctant to increase burden on family and ask for medical service. The profit-drive hospitals usually overrule doctors’ treatment decision due to cost and limited resources. In the case of Oregon, the legalization of assisted suicide leads to slashing funding for over 150 service which is significant for people with terminal illness and disability. In addition, the funding for in-home medical care has also been reduced a lot."

I don't think this piece, written by the Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund who advocate against assisted dying legalisation, offers much proof for the assertions being presented. "profit-drive hospitals usually overrule doctors’ treatment decision" has just one cited example which dates back to 1987, long before assisted dying became a thing. Stating that "slashing funding for over 150 service" and "funding for in-home medical care has also been reduced a lot" come as a result of the legalisation of assisted dying is pure supposition, there's no way you can say for sure that those budgets have been cut as a result of legalisation, or whether those budgets would have been cut anyway. Jdee4 (talk) 17:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you're correct. After go though this source again, I realized it's from pressure groups. Thanks for advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxchen1999 (talk • contribs) 17:29, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Doctor shopping phenomenon

In Oregon state, assisted suicide is legalized. However, legalization lead to doctor shopping phenomenon. Although laws have several regulations on inappropriate conditions of assisted suicide, patients would seek out for several physicians for lethal presumption. By the facilitating of Compassion and Choice organization, the guarantee of two physicists is easy to be circumvent.

Thus I edited the article as follow:

"Doctor shopping phenomenon

In the first three years of legalization in Oregon, patients have to inquire at least 2 doctors before getting lethal prescription. The proportion is around 59% during that period. In fourth year, patients have larger successful proportion to get lethal prescription within two doctors. Leading groups advocating assisted suicide, Compassion and Choice, often facilitates people to Oregon for assisted suicide. About 75% of reported Oregon assisted suicide deaths did with the organization’s assistance by 2002. And almost 90% of people requested assisted suicide is in Oregon. In 2008, The proportion of PAS deaths increased significantly to 88%. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxchen1999 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• I deleted these additions on the basis that while it appears, disappointingly, that this poorly written paper has classed itself as a review study, it is open about being a polemic against assisted suicide from a biased source. The paper originates from a lobby group, the "Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)" in California. The paper is full of shaky logic and thin justifications. Ratel (talk) 22:36, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• After reading this source again, I realized it's from pressure groups. The information in this source is not convincing enough. Thanks for your advise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xxchen1999 (talk • contribs) 17:31, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Difference from unassisted suicide

I would have thought that the idea that "ordinary" suicide involves people who are younger and more physically healthy than people who qualify for PAS is like saying that the Wikipedia:SKYISBLUE, but apparently one editor is concerned that this might not be verifiable.

I think it's important to differentiate the process of legally sanctioned, medically assisted suicide from ordinary suicide. Most of the people who die by suicide do not qualify for PAS. Indeed, it may be true that most of the people with terminal illnesses and who would like to die by PAS do not qualify for it. Compare, e.g., the ~75,000 people in Oregon who are living with the long-term terminal illness of Alzheimer's, against the ~150 people who die through PAS there each year. Under their rules, you cannot qualify for PAS on grounds of Alzheimer's. When a person with Alzheimer's reach the legally necessary "six months or less" mark, they no longer have the necessary decisional capacity to legally choose PAS.

That state, which has a relatively strong culture for PAS and a somewhat higher than typical overall suicide rate, also experiences more than 600 "ordinary" suicides each year, few of whom qualify for PAS. "Ordinary" suicides also involve younger people: Orgeon's PAS suicides have an average age of 71.[3] That's much higher than the median age for ordinary suicide, which is in the 40s (and in the 20s, if you're counting attempts rather than just completions).

All of this means: Yes, it really is true that ordinary suicide is usually undertaken by people who are younger and physically healthier than people who undertake PAS, for reasons of mental disturbance rather than for reasons of irreversible terminal illness. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:07, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

- "Based on the NVDRS 2016 data, the New York Times acknowledged that, among men, those over 65—who make up a smaller proportion of the population—are at greatest risk of death by suicide. The NVDRS 2015 data showed that, among men of all races, men over 65 were the most likely to commit suicide (27.67 suicides per 100,000)." Suicide in the United States#Number of suicides by age group and sex - also the claims that the majority of sucides are physically healthy and that suicide results from "reasons of mental disturbance" need citations - Epinoia (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• "Greatest risk" ≠ "median age". In the US, the highest age risk for causing a fatal car crash is age 18, but that does not mean that half the car crashes are caused by teenagers age 16, 17, and 18, and the other half are caused by adults aged 19 to 99.
• "Mental disturbance" is a quite broad concept, and it includes everything from serious psychiatric conditions and borderline personality disorder, through substance abuse disorders and overwhelming stress, all the way down to an impulsive juvenile decision that "I'll show her: I'll kill myself, and then she'll be sorry!" PMID 26772209 (subscription required) talks about depression, hopelessness, and other mental disorders as being almost like necessary conditions for. PMID 30390504 says "any mental disorder" makes suicide 10 times more likely, and specifically that psychiatric disorders are a "primary risk factor". Importantly, when advocates talk about people not having known mental health conditions, they're saying that people with undiagnosed mental health conditions and people with temporary mental instability are at risk of suicide. (For example, ISBN 9780755973040 talk about "those with a mental health diagnosis" and "those without a diagnosis".) They're not saying that people in perfect mental health frequently choose to die by suicide.
• At least in the US, fewer than a quarter of people who die by suicide have a significant physical health problem (and some of those are PAS suicides, rather than ordinary suicides). This is fewer than the number of people who died by suicide with the risk factor of substance abuse problems (which is considered a mental health disorder). The risk factors for ordinary suicide are pretty much a long list of mental health conditions plus a long list of mental health stresses (e.g., relationship failures and stressful situations). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:22, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• "At least in the US" you insist on extrapolating what you consider to be the position in the USA to the rest of the world. Jdee4 (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

In addition to what Epinoia said, and considering this is a global article, it should be noted that some countries like the Netherlands and Belgium have a rather broad criteria for allowing voluntary euthanasia, and so many of those ending their lives in those countries may indeed have qualified for voluntary euthanasia had the requisite protocols been followed. Jdee4 (talk) 18:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Voluntary euthanasia ≠ assisted suicide.
• Those are such small countries that they do not change the fact that most people in the whole world don't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

• Assisted suicide is equally legal in those countries
• Any statistics? And why is it so important for you to include this alleged fact? Jdee4 (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Any statistics for what? For the fact that 99.7% of the people in the world don't live in the Netherlands or Belgium?

I think it's important to include information that helps the reader differentiate between assisted suicide and ordinary suicide. There's a different legal situation (which varies), a formal process for the one but not the other, different rates (ordinary suicide is much more common), different groups of people involved (e.g., relatively young vs mostly older, mostly physically healthy vs people with terminal illnesses). If the reader doesn't understand these differences, then we've failed to provide a comprehensive description of the subject. So: why are you trying to hide this information? Do you want the reader to think that an 80 year old with advanced cancer is basically in the same situation as a 15 year old with hyperactive–impulsive ADHD who just broke up with his girlfriend? (Serious question, because some opponents of PAS on moral or religious grounds do equate the two situations.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Those finer points of distinction (if indeed valid) need to be made carefully in the main text, with citations, not in the glossary section. Ratel (talk) 01:05, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed. Sweeping statements about the age and medical state of people ending their lives worldwide must have citations. Jdee4 (talk) 01:14, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• Your edit: Most suicide attempts are undertaken by otherwise healthy younger people with mental disturbances, who typically do not qualify for assisted suicide under existing laws.

This smacks of OR. It's full of assumptions and generalizations. Young people can qualify for PAS too, especially in other jurisdictions. Why insert this vague, speculative, US-centric and unsourced statement into a glossary? Makes no sense to me . Ratel (talk) 22:48, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Do you know of any source that says people who die by ordinary suicide are younger than people who use PAS, in any country? Do you know of any source that says people who die by ordinary suicide are more likely to have a significant physical illness than people who use PAS? BTW, PMID 28767342 says that nearly everyone who died from euthanasia or PAS in the Netherlands in 2015 had serious physical illnesses (lots of cancer, some dementias), and that most of them were senior citizens, so I don't think that country will serve your purpose.

For that matter, does anyone actually believe that – worldwide – most people who attempt ordinary suicide are old and physically sick? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact that there are no sources for your assumptions —as you correctly surmise— simply proves that the statement is OR, even if the assumptions feel right intuitively. Come on, WhatamIdoing, you're an old hand, you know this already. Ratel (talk) 02:11, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

The median age for ordinary suicide is around 40. It's actually a bit lower for women.

For PAS, "The median age group for physician-assisted suicide spans those 55 to 84-years-old". If that seems too broad a range for you, then we can also say that the mean age for PAS in Canada is 73.[4] As cited above, the median age for PAS in Oregon is 71. As cited above, the median age for PAS in the Netherlands is around 70. The median age in Switzerland, from reports by three organizations, is past the retirement age of 65, probably around 70–75.[5] – the trend should be pretty obvious by now.

The source with the worldwide PAS numbers is presenting it specifically in the context of differences between ordinary suicide and PAS. It cites PMID 27380345, which adds "More than 70% of cases [of PAS] involved patients with cancer." That number is higher in the US (around 80%) and lower in Europe (around 60%), but just the cancer cases alone are three times the rate of people who died by ordinary suicide, for whom a significant physical health problem was one (of multiple) precipitating circumstances.

So, yes, sources exist. Yes, 40 years old is younger than 70 years old. Are we done with this "OR" complaint now? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

No, not done. Still OR. You've shown (using mostly non-MEDRS sources, small quibble) that suicide mainly occurs in middle aged people (although note that the WP Suicide article states in the lede that "Suicide is generally most common among those over the age of 70"), and that PAS usually occurs in older people. These are still not adequate sources for speculating that "healthy young people with mental disturbances" make up the majority of suicides, nor that young people —or for that matter middle aged people— "typically" do not qualify for PAS. This glib OR is irritating since my own 45-yr old relative recently died a painful cancer death. We really don't need sweeping and presumptuous statements in a glossary section, period. Ratel (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I should add that PAS is obviously commoner in older people because they have much more disease morbidity. However, if a young person should have a terminal illness, they are every bit as eligible, even "under existing laws". Ratel (talk) 08:09, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

• The median age for all suicides comes from the World Health Organization (which you will find mentioned favorably, by name, in MEDRS – a "valuable encyclopedic source", if memory serves), and the median age for PAS comes from a two-year-old review article in a top-tier journal. If you believe that these are "non-MEDRS sources", then we should probably talk about your understanding of that guideline.
• "The median is 40" does not mean "suicide mainly occurs in middle aged people". This is true even if you believe that age 40 is the very beginning of middle age. "Median age of 40" means "half of them are younger than 40". If you agree with the most common definitions given in the article about middle age, then "Median age of 40" means "suicide is mainly in people younger than middle aged, because middle age is from age 45 to 65, and more than half of them happen in people younger than 45". (NB that I didn't say that suicide is a phenomenon of "young people". Ordinary suicide primarily happens in "younger" people than PAS, but "younger than PAS" doesn't mean "teenagers".)
• I agree with you that age (past majority) is not a significant determining factor in the laws, but the fact remains that the typical person who dies by suicide is about 30 years younger than the typical PAS person. It is also true that almost none of them qualify for PAS in their own jurisdictions. For one thing, about 97% of people in the world – and therefore probably about 97% of the people who die by suicide – don't live in one of the few (and mostly smaller) places that have legalized PAS. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:16, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

It's true that some major AS advocate organisations voice opposition against comparison with "ordinary suicide" and the word "suicide". I'll add a bit to terminology with citations. Jdee4 (talk) 11:50, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Done. Hopefully it goes some way to highlighting WhatamIdoing's point. Jdee4 (talk) 11:55, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

I think that helps. Thanks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2018 (UTC)

Looks good to me too :¬) Ratel (talk) 02:50, 22 December 2018 (UTC)