Talk:Euthanasia/Archive 1

possible POV under 'religion'

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)

this doesn't seem to make sense

- 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)

Sources?

What the heck happened to the sources that were there a week or ten days ago? I'm very tempted to revert to the last version of November 26 to get those sources back. Actually, I'll just put the sources back. --ZanshinJ

Clean Up

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)

how come there isn't any Canadian perspectives nor summary of theri laws on this topic, euthanasia? Please include them.

T.

Exact definition?

Can euthanasia really be defined as "assisted dying"?

NO! It helps the person that is dying from going through a painful death!—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.138.50.226 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 19 December 2006 (UTC).

First of all, assisted is an adjective describing dying. Thus, dying is an action of the patient, so euthanasia would be an action of the patient, not of a doctor. Secondly, euthanasia isn't really assisted death. Assisted death can't be confused with euthanasia. Assisted death would be, for example, giving a patient pills to end it all. Euthanasia, on the other hand, requires the doctor to be the final inducer of death, not the patient.

Thus, I ask you guys this question: Should we change the definition of euthanasia in the first sentence? ~dagamezmasta 3 March 2006

euthanasia = good death.

eu = good.

thanos = death.

so technically it does not mean assisted death, but when you take into account that the person wants to die peacfuly now as opossed to remaining in constant discomfort and pain, they are allowed to die and be rid of that suffering. So, it can by extention be used to refer to assited death.

• • The definition of Euthanasia is not a troubling one. However the semantics behind Physician Assisted "Suicide" is problematic. Even in the United States, where the right to life and right to death debate is highly controversial, the courts are cautious with the semantics of the term “physician assisted suicide.” According to Charles F. McKhann, in his book "A Time to Die: The Place for Physician Assistance", citing the legal case of Compassion in Dying v. State of Washington , the judge remarked “…We believe that there is a strong argument that a decision by a terminally ill patient to hasten by medical means a death that is already in process, should not be classified as suicide” (McKahnn 4).

We must therefore make it abundantly clear that the semantics are under review and possibly have a cultural bias and is could be employed as emotional impact. "Suicide" or "Killing" is clearly negative and therefore distorts the issue. "The use of extravagant language discourages debate and polarizes the community at a time when the public would be better served by thoughtful consideration of all facets of such a complex issue" (McKhann 5).

race and ethnicity? gender??

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) Ethanasia is defineted from greek language eu as "good" and THANATOS as death!

I WILL ERASE RACE AND ETHNICITY SECTION

I'm about to erase the race and ethnicity section and the gender! I do NOT see it as a substancial argument for this article. the article should be focus instead in humanity as a whole. it's stupidly lame to be talking about race, race race and more race when the issue is assisted death and two main issues pros and cons!!!! rationality V. morality!!!!--Don Quijote's Sancho 08:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, Wikipedia doesn't exist as a forum for moral debate. There's far more to euthenasia than whether it is right or wrong. And while I understand articles shouldn't just be a random collection of facts, I think statistics about who (age, nationality, ethnicity, etc.) are relevant to explaining euthenasia and its place in the world. ~ Booyabazooka 02:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to create a forum, or a moral debate. If you do some research about euthanasia you'll find two sides that constantly clash; those who see the issue from a rational view (let's say humanism) and those who see it with a sense of morality, often religious dogma. For some it's a crime, for others it's just part of life. what is the difference between a soldier killed in combat by a bullet and a patient killed by a doctor in a hospital? both human, both killed. what is considered murder? who created the definition of murder? can you euthanize a tree? yes! what is the difference? why defend "different" types of living things? why defend the human life over the animal or plants? the prevailance of the human specie? what if we get overpopulated? cannibalism? what if we go into extinction? is it going to make a difference if we disappear? we didn't exist 10 million years ago? or did we?

here is were rationality clash with morality, morality creates some "rules" considered "good", rationality questions it and viceversa. BRAINSTORM! question yourself--Don Quijote's Sancho 06:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I reviewed the race, ethnicity, and gender sections that Fernando/Sancho erased on March 30. I found them informative and would like to see them put back in. Fernando sees this article as about pros and cons. Some people, however, are going to come to this page not with a partisan stance but in order to see the variety of views about euthanasia that people have held and do hold. If the page were strictly about whether euthanasia is good or bad, then demographic information would be beside the point. But if it's also about the cultural phenomenon of euthanasia, then demographic material is useful. Booyabazooka agrees with me. Where do others stand? Jonathan Tweet 23:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Jonathan - clearly, demographic info is useful here. To be honest, I think Don Quijote's Sancho is being a little POV. Ruaraidh-dobson 08:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I added the material back in. Would someone who knows what to do with endnotes please fix them? Thanks. Jonathan Tweet 03:33, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again my point is not about good or bad, every aspect related to euthanasia should be used,but that includes a worldwide view. Race Ethnicity does not have anything to do with "merciful killing" or "assassination",(Maybe is a cultural trend) there is so much information that isn't purely lame statistics that are only produced with less than 0% of the total WORLD POPULATION. You are also talking about the United States only. If this "statistics" were helpful where are Asians? where are those who are ethnically mixed? racially mixed?.. It's simply non-sense.! - I will erase it again.Don Quijote's Sancho 10:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fernando/Sancho- More folks seem to disagree with you than agree with you. How do we resolve this and avoid a reversion contest? Jonathan Tweet 17:51, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I saw the Request for comment for this article.

I believe a "Perceptions" section, including a bit about ethnicity might be interesting, and important enough to include in the article. That said, I feel that the present paragraphs (including the one about religion) don't have the quality one would expect from Wikipedia. I think they should be elaborated. And it should be clear that the section at present only deals with the American situation.

What certainly is necessary, is proper references to reputable sources. If the entire section is based on one or a couple of studies, make that clear, so that the reader can him/herself evaluate the information.

I feel that the way the statistics are presented now, puts too much weight on race and ethnicity, and hardly mentions the effect of social status, education, employment situation, etc.

--LucVerhelst 19:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

--totally agree Luc!--24.62.122.180 13:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The objection seems to rest in part on the geographic focus of the section. While a broader set of statistics that represent other parts of the world would be preferable, these are elements that future editors can add (and I hope they do). If the current information satisfies WP:V and is presented accurately, then it deserves to stand. Durova 01:45, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

It looks as though more people think that the gender and ethnicity material is relevant than think it's irrelevant. It needs to be expanded, but we can mark the section as a stub, or expand it as we go. Fernando/Sancho, if we put the material back in, are you going to erase it a third time? Or will you leave it alone? Jonathan Tweet 13:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

All these can lead to NEW ARTICLES with some statistics of euthanasia with verifiable sources and Worldwide views but not to have a section in the article, instead a link to it as "related"?... Once again I respect everyone's opinion and my intention is to help create a neutral article without biases and stereotypes that could divert the attention from the real issues of euthanasia .There are plenty of books that you can use as reference... If you wish to change the article go ahead, but please make it Verifiable and within the Wikipedia standards... quote: "...editors are strongly discouraged from conducting this kind of research, because original research may not be published in Wikipedia..." WP:V -- "Statistical information is easily and often misinterpreted by the public, by journalists, and by scientists. It should be checked and explained with the utmost care, with reference to published sources. See Misuse of statistics, Opinion poll, and Statistical survey for common errors and abuses." WP:RS. Good Luck Don Quijote's Sancho 06:01, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I found the references the were missing in the Ethnicity and Gender sections. Jonathan Tweet 19:22, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

The black part is biased it is written to insinuate blacks are stupid for not trusting doctors. But I wouldn't trust doctors either blacks are right on with this one.**

Sterbenhilfe...

"Help the dying to die smoothly"? Who in the world tranlated it this way? The meaning would be "aid for the dying" or "help in dying".

---

But that wouldn't capture the issue that Euthanasia is ending suffering. "Aid for the dying" could mean medicines to cure them and "help in dying" might not be painless. However I do agree that "Help the dying to die smoothly" should be changed as Euthanasia is usually only used to cause the death of people who are suffering. A possible alternative term would be "Ending suffering in a merciful and painless way by causing premature death" ----Aphswarrior

Term "killing" (9 Aug 2001)

Wow, is it possible that some people seriously question the use of the word "killing" in this context and think "termination" should be used instead?

Does the wikipedia neutral language policy actually require the use of such extreme euphemism?

If so, shouldn't the policy apply throughout? (Wouldn't want to offend anyone by saying that Nazis killed people!)

Behold, Godwin's law!

Considering that euthanasia is legal in some countries and morally accepted by quite a few, and that genocide belongs to the heaviest crimes, using "kill" for Nazi expressed and teaches contempt. Using "kill" in reference to enuthanasia may be painful to those who are partially or solely responsible for the death of a relative. All forms of terminating assistance when it no longer stands to reason, practiced in all hospitals around the world, fall into the definition of euthanasia.

---

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The word "kill" means "to deprive of life". It does not convey any implication as to motive or moral valuation. Using "kill" in reference to active euthanasia is simply a matter of recognizing reality. Avoiding its use is intellectual and moral evasion. On the other hand, if you are referring to situations wherein a person is simply allowed to die naturally, by refraining from extraordinary medical intervention, I would agree that "kill" is not accurate. But that is not the context in which the substitution I objected to was made.

Using "to kill" is too much like saying that doctors are murdering, butchering their patients. It would be respectful, even if you are opposed of (some form of) euthanasia, to at least acknowledge that there is no criminal intent in the practice. And thus to refrain from these harsh words to describe it.

Even in cases of capital punishment the death certificate reads "homicide", so it's not a power word, just a statement of fact. Beta m (talk)

It's just not very respectful, that's what I stated. "Killing" in this context may of may not be a power word, but I do know it is still too harsh. To call capital punishment homicide is indeed just factual, because (as lots of people would say, including me) capital punishment is a crime in itself - unlike euthanasia which is in virtually all cases an act of compassion (or else, the term is being abused). Now enough with THAT discussion, but I think we should agree that both practices can't be compared at all, for all intent and purposes. I must add that I don't think the article is unfair in this respect, looks a lot better and balanced now (20050427) than it did earlier - or so I remember. I sort of like the first paragraph where it is explained that euthanasia and "mercy killing" are the same. However, I would still never use the latter term myself. Then again, I'm not a native English speaker. -- me

I find "termination" unfortunate because it is a euphemism and because it has too many other meanings which this usage further confuses. I too see "kill" as a neutral term, and not as disrespectful. It does feel uncomfortable (or "harsh") because of the moral problems and many cases when it is immoral, but one should get over that. PJTraill 14:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

I believe that an appropriate term may be "causing the death of" - death is a neutral word and should not present the problem of getting over it. ----Aphswarrior

What about Special Handling? This is the literal English translation of a favourite German term for what was to be done to people to be euthanised.--Toddy1 08:57, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

I agree with the one who says "killing" in any form under any concept is "killing",we we can not try to have a nice name implimented on the word "killing",i mean we just can say someone's life is "terminated" whilst we know that under normal circumstances the word is "killing"§196.212.13.49 10:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC).

Euphemizing the phrase "killing" does not seem to make the article more NPOV. The arguement that "killing" brings connotations of butchery is quite valid, yet any synonym for the word "kill" will surely bring simular connotations - I do not see "terminating" as a more NPOV word. If anything, using euphemism makes the article less neutral, as euphemisms by definition undermine or soften the affect of a word; which in this case is favourable to anti-euthanasia supporters. --Niall9 18:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Potassium chloride

Is potassium chloride with some other drugs used for euthanasia ? - 25 Feb 2002.

• No. 22 Nov 04 Potassium chloride has been used as an alternative to table salt for people on a low sodium diet. While a lot of it could, I suppose, kill you, it is not a particularly effective way of killing people.
  • 2 Jan 05 Actually, the person on 25 Feb is correct. Potassium chloride causes the heart to stop beating. In Dr. Kevorkian's "Thanatron", which is a device to help with assisted suicide, potassium chloride is used. Potassium chloride is also used in the US for executions by lethal injection. (Source: Encarta Encyclopedia)
  • Hmm, look at these informative pages for potassium chloride and lethal injection. It's almost as if this web site is an encyclopedia of some sort. ←Hob 21:22, 2005 Jan 6 (UTC)

Complications

It should be noted that in about a quarter of the medically supervised euthanasias there are 'complications', like respiratory paralysis that make the death anything but pleasant.

Does anyone have a citation for this, and secondly, pleasant for who? The individual undergoing euthenasia? The person assisting? The family of the individual? --Robert Merkel - 20 Mar 2002

Also, in what contry is this person referring to? Different methods in different circumstances happen in different countries

What do doctors think?

What do doctors in other countries think about euthenasia? I know in Australia, the AMA (doctors' association) objects strongly but there are a significant minority of doctors who support it (and some doctors performing or assisting in euthenasia clandistinely). What's the story in the US and Europe? --Robert Merkel - 20 Mar 2002

Nonsense; painkilling

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)

Terminal sedation

I'm not sure that terminal sedation should be a redirect to this article. They are clearly closely related, but not synonymous - which this article does explain fairly clearly and neutrally, I think, but there's enough controversy on the subject that just putting it in this context raises some neutrality questions (a bit like making "abortion" a redirect to "murder", and then explaining within the article that many people don't think it really is murder, etc.). And since it takes three paragraphs to explain TS (and there's still more that could be said) I suggest that it deserves its own article. --Hob 06:23, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That's OK, go ahead.--Patrick 12:39, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've moved & expanded terminal sedation into its own article. I also rewrote the intro paragraphs in euthanasia somewhat as they seemed to say that a patient refusing treatment, e.g. with a DNR order, is a form of suicide - which is not true by any legal or medical definition, though ethically it's open to debate. --Hob 17:15, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

Cleanup/sourcing needed

I'm a little disturbed by the way the article tends to make bold statements with no specific sources. Examples:

• It should be noted that doctors routinely and legally provide medical treatment to the terminally ill involving the use of large quantities of pain-killing drugs, primarily to relieve the patient's pain, but in doses that may suppress bodily functions and thus shorten the life of the patient. (which bodily functions? absent examples, this is misleading; I have seen no evidence that high-dose pain medications shorten life, if side effects are properly controlled)
• It should be noted that in about a quarter of the medically supervised euthanasias there are "complications", such as respiratory paralysis, that make the event of death itself anything but pleasant.
• it is said that several thousand illegal acts of euthanasia have been carried out in Belgium each year
• In the United States, the most common form of euthanasia is withholding tube-feeding to elderly and incapacitated patients .... it is so common in some areas that the family must actively prevent it, or it will occur.

I don't have time to look for sources for all of these, so I'm putting the article on the Wikipedia:Cleanup list. --Hob 17:16, 2004 Aug 4 (UTC)

I agree with your assessment, and it may need a factual accuracy warning too. Rhobite 03:14, Aug 5, 2004 (UTC)

I also agree. Ambi 09:36, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The final statement is still in the article and I see no cleanup boilerplate, just a reference to the talk page. Is this page still in need of cleanup? - Matthewcieplak @ 128.125.70.171 22:27, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this back up. The article seems to have been improved overall and I don't think it needs to be on the cleanup list right now... but that last paragraph, in my opinion, goes beyond "disputed" to just plain inappropriate. First, most definitions of euthanasia do not include the simple withholding of artificial life-prolonging measures. Second, these statements about what is "most common" and "so common" should not be made in an encyclopedia article without some sourcing... not to mention the "must actively prevent it, or it will occur" bit, which is wrong to an inflammatory degree. I've struck the whole paragraph.

The remaining "United States" section might be in need of some reorganization. I think the Florida/Schiavo reference could be improved; currently it gives the impression, by not saying otherwise, that the controversy involves euthanasia; to me, that is POV. ←Hob 06:07, 2005 Mar 31 (UTC)

Painkillers can hasten death. Sufficiently high doses of narcotics are well-known for depressing (or stopping) breathing. Some of them can damage the liver, which -- especially if you've already got serious liver problems -- can shorten your life. Some of them screw up the kidneys. Even mild analgesics like aspirin can have reasonably predictable, life-shortening effects in certain circumstances (like internal bleeding for people with clotting disorders). However, the fact that they can hasten an impending death does not mean that they always will.

The reason this point is commonly discussed in this context is because in the past many physicians refused to prescribe strong painkillers on the grounds that it might somewhat hasten death. Currently, in Western countries, it is commonly the patient's choice whether the possibility of a slightly shorter life is a proportionate trade for a less painful one, but that is not true everywhere. 70.137.129.116 19:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

www.endoflifechoices.org

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)

definition of voluntary euthanasia

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))

I added a clarification in this section to distinguish it from enforcement of a lawful DNR order at the patient's own instruction. These situations are not considered suicide at all, at least in the eyes of the law. Patients of sound mind can always refuse treatment, though they do not always realize this fact and hospitals may not be willing to tell them.

Holy books?

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)

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)

Assisted Suicide

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)

Much of this article is about assisted suicide, distinction with euthanasia in the strict sense is explained.--Patrick 14:56, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Assisted suicide is legal in Switzerland. The article should mention this. (lauri)

Schiavo

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

Incomplete description of the Dutch laws

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)

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)

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)

I'd always been told it was 2 independant doctors. Celestianpower 15:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One has to be independent [1].--Patrick 21:34, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I agree with DodgeK the list is incomplete and it bothers me quite a bit. One docter can be dependent (for example: a friend of the family), he needs to ask 'permission' of an independent collegue, who needs to verify his decision. This independent docter doesn't have to be present at the time of death, like patrick points out, but needs to approve -before the patient is death off course-. The verification needs to include a conversation with the patient to determine whether the patient is clear of mind and fully aware of his/her decision. Furthermore, the patient indeed needs to be clear of mind or 'compos mentis'(I think that is a correct discription -the docters have used this term for my grandfather who is 'non compos mentis' due to demention- but I'm not certain), which not only means not under influence of drugs but also fully aware of alternatives and consequences. has asked repeatedly sounds negative, like the patient has to ask this a dozen times before somebody takes him seriously, ongoing communication/discusion sounds better. My suggestion for condition list is as follows (which is in my opinion a more accurate translation of the conditions mentioned in the law)

• the patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
• the patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time

(The request can not be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illnes or drugs)

• the patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
• there must be consultation with at least one other independent docter who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
• the death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present.

213.46.139.77 16:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

People who died this way

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)

History of euthanasia

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)

German wikipedia: Geschichte der Euthanasie 129.217.129.133 20:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

A history of euthanasia would have to include Hitler. If you are trying to give euthanasia a kinder and gentler slant then Hitler would come off as a compassionate humanatarian. Ouch.

Outdated information

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)

Terminology

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,

1. c. 1650 "Euthanasia" simply meant a gentle, easy death.
2. 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".
3. c. 1850 it comes to mean the action of inducing such death.

PJTraill 17:32, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

To exclude the German euthansis programmes is very convenient for the advocates of euthanasia, but not a historical truth.--Toddy1 17:43, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wanted: Summary of arguments, organization

PJTraill 14:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC) asks:

Does anyone feel up to creating a section on the arguments for and against euthanasia? The links look good, but to see a neutral presentation of both sides would be helpful. Of course one wants to know which groups of people usually present such arguments, and how their opponents usually counter — one level of counter is probably usually enough.

Is there a Wikipedia convention on the order in which they should be presented? It is the sort of thing some people may be touchy about, but it seems reasonable to put first 'for' then 'against'.

I would suggest that the organization of the article should be:

1. Intro
2. Terminology
3. Table of Contents
4. Arguments
   1. Pro
   2. Contra
      
5. as now: Legislation and national political movements
   1. etc
6. See also
7. External links

(I take it one can change the order of sections.)

I'm not sure whether the #History_of_euthanasia deserves a section of its own, or should fall under the national stuff.

A list of celebrated cases (with references) might be considered. This is currently spread among the national stuff, but perhaps that is fine.

If there's to be a section for arguments, I think it should be last - history and current conditions should be the primary focus of any article, unless it's an article specifically devoted to a debate (see for example AIDS reappraisal). But are there really enough contrasting viewpoints to warrant a whole section? If so, I think it's enough to summarize them briefly - the issues are so broadly defined that I don't think there's much point in citing specific groups - and trying to summarize counter-arguments to each one is probably unnecessary and also makes the article much more prone to POV wars. (In the case of the aforementioned AIDS article, the counter-arguments were considered necessary because they involve medical facts that wouldn't be obvious to most readers, but I don't think that's the case here.) ←Hob 19:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Oregon (United States)

The line "Note: It is up to the attending physician to determine whether these criteria have been met." appears to be suggesting that the doctor can give the okay to kill the patient without the patients consent, which is clearly against the law. Also, the law states that there must be TWO doctors giving the okay:

" • The prescribing physician and a consulting physician must confirm the diagnosis and prognosis. • The prescribing physician and a consulting physician must determine whether the patient is capable. • If either physician believes the patient's judgment is impaired by a psychiatric or psychological disorder, the patient must be referred for a psychological examination. "

Directly quoted from "Seventh Annual Report on Oregon’s Death with Dignity Act", Oregon Department of Human Services

I'm going to correct it now.

types-of list

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)

Withholding Nutrition

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)

• hi, i know witholding nutrition is called passive euthanasia amung academics. i agree, lets clear this up Spencerk 21:00, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

This page should avoid self references

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)

Relation to suicide

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)

how

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)

Reverted vandalism

I reverted [2], major vandalism that happened 40 days ago. Has nobody noticed this?--Patrick 10:06, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the history of this article, but that [3] does not seem like vandalism, in my eyes.--Nicholas 10:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Why not? Various seemingly good sections are deleted without explanation.--Patrick 10:48, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

Ok.--Patrick 00:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Netherlands external links

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)

Enough with terminologies and lame statistics of views

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)

Million Dollar Baby merge

There's a passionate section of Million Dollar Baby that would be more appropriate here, I think. Her Pegship 04:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

PJTraill 20:23, 30 April 2006 (UTC) merge (mostly) True enough: Million Dollar Baby#The Myth of "Pulling the Plug" consists of two parts:

• a clarification of the (USA) legal position, which certainly belongs in Euthanasia, with a summary and a reference in Million Dollar Baby.
• a description of Hollywood treatment of the issue, which may belong here (in Euthanasia#In film), in Million Dollar Baby or (unlikely) elsewhere.

Euthanasia Machine / picture

PJTraill 14:44, 13 May 2006 (UTC) Some anonmous users keep messing around with or removing the picture of the euthanasia machine. They also sometimes add links which seem superfluous, given that there is a link to the Nitschke site. I just wonder if they might explain what they are up to (not that it seems very likely). One documented their edit "ROHA: Reverted Jeremygbyrne's rv. as of 23:53, 7 May 2006 (Reason: This is a serious Wikipedia article, not a place for gimmicks.)". But User:ROHA does not (as I write) exist. I do wonder myself a bit about the picture: all that seems needed is something of general interest, and maybe we could thiink of something better. Maybe a picture is superfluous.

Thank you for your comment. I am the user ROHA (though not signed in to the Wikipedia, but there is no obligation to do so), and I will give a short and clear explanation why I deleted the heading link concerning the "Megadeath" group and the only picture from this article: Euthanasia is a very serious and controversial topic in a historical context as well as in todays life in many societies, cultures, and religions. The play with the words "youth" and "euthanasia" is just a play with words and has nothing to do with the topic euthanasia. In this article, we deal with the topic "euthanasia", not with puns like "youthanasia". Hence the link to this pun in the heading of this article is a misuse of this article, probably by some fans of a band called "Megadeath". Regarding the picture of a so-called "euthanasia machine": What is the purpose of this picture within the context of this article? What can this picture illustrate? Does it give any more information about the topic euthanasia than is given in the text? Does this picture clarify anything for anyone? -- I call such a picture, which serves no purpose other than to satisfy some personal interests, a gimmick and an insult for the reader's taste and eyesore. If someone of the readers disagree with me, then please let me know why, since if you cannot give good reason why the link and the picture in question should remain in this article, then I will delete them for the reasons I mentioned. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (15052006) PS: By the way, please don't call me "anonymous", as long as you have my full name and a valid e-mail address at hand...

The image doesn't add all that much to the article as it stands now, but only because it has no explanation. I would be interested in reading about how such assisted suicide devices work, which is definitely in the scope of the article; if we had such an explanation, then the image would be a fitting illustration, don't you think? In the meantime, I don't understand why you're so ferociously opposed to it being there. True, it doesn't make sense as the summary image, because it doesn't apply to the article as a whole... but why not move it down to the Terminology section, which does have some general content about how euthenasia is done? ~ Booyabazooka 02:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

ROHA, the disambiguation link to the musical album is a standard paractice of wikipedia; it is not connected with the content of the article, and is intended to help our readers find what they're looking for. It is certainly not misuse in any sense. As for the Nitschke machine (which you originally refused to believe even existed), it legitimately illustrates an aspect of the subject of the article, and it is standard wikipedia practice to illustrate wherever possible. If you would like to improve the article further, rather than simply vandalising it by continuing to remove content against the apparent editorial consensus, please expand the photo's caption, or add additional illustrations you find more appropriate. — JEREMY 02:25, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation links are a standard practice of Wikipedia, so far you are right. But these links only have their place in articles, where there IS any disambiguation. An example for a valid disambiguation is the term Chaplin, since there are a number of articles within the Wikipedia dealing with this term (name). Whereas "Youthanasia" is not a term, not even a word in any language. It's no more than a pun, as a said before, which has definitely nothing to do with the term "euthanasia" as used in this article. (However, if someone would like to have the pun "Youthanasia" or the "Megadeth album" mentioned in this article, then they are free to add a link in the _LINK SECTION_ at the end.) By the way, you say: "...is intended to help our readers find what they're looking for." This is a very weak argument, since when any reader is searching for a group named "Megadeth", then he will certainly not enter "euthanasia" into the search machine, and whenever someone would like to have information on "euthanasia", then he will hardly be interested in a pun like "Youthanasia". I just mentioned the word "machine": You claim that the so-called Nitschke "euthanasia machine" or "suicide machine" "legitimately illustrates an aspect of the subject of the article". I ask you: Does anyone need any illustration of how euthanasia takes place today? If you say no, then okay. If you say yes, then I tell you: An illustration close to todays reallity would consist in a picture of a pistol or a heart-lung machine with its master switch OFF. But you also claim that "it is standard wikipedia practice to illustrate wherever possible." -- But you forgot to complete your claim: It is well-known Wikipedia practice to only add pictures within any article if the picture makes sense. Pictures in the heading of a Wikipedia article should be a visual reflection, as far as possible, of the whole article. -- Please keep in mind that euthanasia is a serious topic which does not allow gimmicks of any kind. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (18052006)

It is entirely possible someone looking for Youthanasia would search for "Euthanasia"; I thought that's how the album title was spelled when I first heard it named. And one of the reasons I was surprised to see the illustration removed initially was because I'd never seen a photo of Nitschke's device, despite following his story quite closely in the Australian media. The photo makes perfect "sense"; I suggest you examine the neutrality of your point of view in regards this subject. All properly written articles in wikipedia are equally "serious", and eschew "gimmicks". — JEREMY 00:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Please be aware that you are starting to chatter. You have not answered to any of my above arguments. Please read and contemplate them again, before you post another answer to my above thread. Thank you. (For your private notebook: >>> It is entirely possible someone looking for Youthanasia would search for "Euthanasia" <<< -- It is also possible someone who looks for "black" would search for "mail".) Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19052006)

I am beginning to lose faith in your good faith, ROHA. "Youthanasia" is an encyclopedic term (the name of a musical album); it is a homonym of "Euthanasia", and persons searching for the album are quite likely to arrive at this article in error. And your personal feeling that the Nitschke machine is a "gimmick" is not a relevant argument. If you're able to provide a more general illustration, I'd be happy to see the current one moved lower in the article. Until then, please refrain from your unhelpful deletionism. &#0151; JEREMY 01:32, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You make me sick! I do not know if your mother tongue is English, but in the case that it is, and also in the case that it is not, then please have a look at the Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary

http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=homonym

to get an idea of what the word (and the term) "homonym" in the English language means. What you think that a "homonym" might be is as far from the real meaning as of what you think that "euthanasia" might be from "suicide". Someone who states that "Youthanasia" is an encyclopedic term, I cannot take for serious. I say it freely and frankly: You, JEREMY, have not the slightest idea of either the English language, nor the rules that the Wikipedia follows. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19052006)

Obviously I meant homophone, not homonym. &#0151; JEREMY 02:16, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Sheesh ROHA, get a grip. It's easy to forget the difference between homonym and homophone. Both are not words one would use on a daily basis (outside a linguistics-related profession at least). If you're going to be that nitpicky and accusatory, let me point out that "take for serious" is not standard English grammar. And while I know that the German Wikipedia (which I assume you are familiar with, correct me if I'm mistaken) is generally a lot less inclusionist and more (IMO) stuck-up than the English one, on this encyclopedia "Youthanasia" is an encyclopedic term. The rules here are different as well. Also, however serious the topic, there's no reason for editors not to lighten up if it doesn't adversely affect their style. Cohen the Bavarian 14:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC), apologising for his countryman.

You, user "Cohen the Bavarian", seem to be an intelligent person. So I ask you: Why do you allow a template on "Suicide" to be included in a Wikipedia article which only deals with "Euthanasia" ? All I want to know from you is this: What does suicide have to do with euthanasia ? If you, user "Cohen the Bavarian", cannot give an answer to this simple question, then, please, be quiet and return to thinking. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (06062006)

Hello disputants! Good in parts, but my advice is to cool down on this a little. As a reader, I find the style stray and at times destructive. Unfortunately, I can't deny that this has its own kind of appeal, but why encourage aggression? (User:Livedevilslivedevil 18:08, 4 June 2006 (Germany)

I suggest, as mentioned in my penultimate edit summary, that the suicide template be reinserted with an annotation clarifying that "suicide" is not a synonym for "euthanasia". Several of the latest edits appear to me to be rather sweeping, one of them I have reverted for democratic reasons. I also apologise for entitling myself to semi-protect this article and have reverted my own corresponding edit. (User:Livedevilslivedevil 18:29, 8 June 2006 (Germany)

Templates gather together similar articles; they are not classifications or categorisations, nor are they exclusive. Suicide and Euthanasia are clearly closely related concepts. If you disagree with the inclusion of euthanasia in the suicide template, please take it up on the talk page for that template, not here. &#0151; JEREMY 11:23, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I will answer to these statements here: 1) Templates have their proper place within Wikipedia articles. Templates have value and sense only within a clear and well-defined context. This is why you cannot copy a template from one Wikipedia article to another, and then to a third one just on your good belief that this will work "somehow". It does not work with the entry "euthanasia". 2) You claim that "Suicide and Euthanasia are clearly closely related concepts." -- But you have never given any argument for your claim. What you claim is blatantly wrong. I have given good arguments on this discussion page for my statement. 3) You say, while you do not seem to understand what this discussion is going all about: "If you disagree with the inclusion of euthanasia in the suicide template, please take it up on the talk page for that template, not here." -- Here I write it down for your personal notebook: I do not disagree with the inclusion of euthanasia in the suicide template --, I disagree with the inclusion of _the template_ on suicide within this Wikipedia article, which deals with euthanasia. Did you get me now? 4) If anything of what I said remains unclear, then please let me know, JEREMY. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (30062006) PS: By the way, I have found in many Wikipedia articles that when someone is not able to find arguments, then s/he prefers to call the opponent a "vandal", thinking that this serves as a replacement for argumentation.

Good afternoon Jeremygbyrne. My excuses for expressing myself nebulously. I didn't mean to make the impression that I am averse to the appearance of the term "euthanasia" in a "suicide"-template. The reason I left the reinsertion to you is that I didn't feel sure enough about it due to my relatively confined knowledge of how Wikipedia works. This is quite evidently a sensitive topic, hence my original suggestion. I also hope that a certain unregistered user will perhaps take into account what you say about templates. (User:Livedevilslivedevil 14:34, 10 June 2006 (Germany)

No problem; thanks for your restraint. However, ROHA seems to be the only person here who has a problem with the template and, as he doesn't seem to be interested in actually explaining his position (as opposed to railing against other editors in a provocative and entirely uncivil manner), there is no reason not to reinclude it. &#0151; JEREMY 12:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Let me first remind you of the definition of euthanasia as given in this Wikipedia article: Euthanasia (from Greek: ευθανασία -'ευ "good", θανατος "death") refers to assisted dying. -- This definition seems to be accepted by the majority of the readers. Now have another look at the template with the heading "suicide". You will find that this table deals exclusively with the topic suicide in its various forms. You will find one entry on euthanasia, and in the context of this table, the entry "euthanasia" stands for and could be replaced by the term "assisted suicide". It is a simple fact that within the last couple of weeks, someone who read the entry euthanasia in this table erroneously copied it from the article on "suicide" into this article on "euthanasia", thinking that if the template includes this entry, then the template itself would fit into the article on "euthanasia". I think that the person responsible for that mixed up the terms "assisted dying" (which is the DEFINITION of Euthanasia) and "assisted suicide" (which is a way to commit suicide by making use of "a helping hand"). -- A template which would fit into this Wikipedia article on "euthanasia" should have the term as a heading, it should consist of entries that deal with euthanasia in every appropriate form. But I have said this at different times at various places in this talk page, and maybe the whole problem is that some readers / contributors do not read this discussion page as closely as they ought to. I will not mention any name here, but I am sure they are clear. But I will nevertheless give you one striking argument why it does not make sense to simply copy a template from one Wikipedia article to another simply on the grounds that one template entry refers to the topic of the article into which the template was copied: If this was accepted as a Wikipedia practice, then every copy of the template in the Wikipedia article on "number" could (or should) be copied into every article on a specific "integers" relevance throughout the whole English written Wikipedia. And if you agree with this, then I will certainly not remove a template that deals with "suicide" from an article named "euthanasia". As for the moment, I will not remove the "suicide" template from the "euthanasia" article, hoping that some other readers (or even better: the original contributor) will do it themselves. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (11062006)

ROHA, I can't tell you how pleased I am by your welcome decision to discuss your position. I think if you look more closely at the suicide template, you'll notice that it includes entries like Suicide by cop and Forced suicide, which clearly lie outside the more proscriptive definitions of suicide, as euthanasia might be said to do. It also includes links to Suicide methods and Right to die, which talk about or reference euthanasia. You may feel that euthanasia appears on the suicide template as the result of a mistake or the misinterpretation of a definition, and you are welcome to argue that on the talk page for the template, but I expect you'll find that the editors there, like I suspect most of those here, feel that suicide and euthanasia, while not the same, are closely related concepts, and that the template belongs on the page. &#0151; JEREMY 13:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

ROHA is obviously a little off of his rocker with the tone, but there is tab bit of validity to his argument... It could read "physcian assisted suicide" then link it to euthanasia. ER MD 10:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Worldwide view

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)

Inclusion of {{suicide}}

I added the {{suicide}} template to the top of the article and was reverted by 84.148.96.138 -- This article is about euthanasia, for suicide, there is a different article in the Wikipedia. I included the template since it references Euthanasia as the second link under 'Types of suicide'; all other articles referenced by the template include it in the article, its inclusion here is appropriate as well. If you disagree with the template's reference of Euthanasia, remove it from Template:Suicide; restoring the inclusion for now. ~ PseudoSudo 09:55, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It does not matter that a template "references" to some other article within the Wikipedia. It is your duty, as a contributor to the Wikipedia, to make sure that the reference is RELEVANT for the article to which it refers. You must NOT include a template from an article X into an article Y for the simple reason that the template includes a REFERENCE (at whatever position) to the article Y. It is misleading to have a template with the heading "suicide" within the article on euthanasia, since (assisted) suicide can be a form of euthanasia, but euthanasia is not a form of suicide. You seem to have mixed up some technical terms as to referencing among Wikipedia articles. I will remove your template from the article. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (15052006)

I don't understand your reasoning here. Every other article on that suicide list has the template on it. You think euthenasia is special because it sometimes isn't suicide? Then why not take it off the suicide template? ~ Booyabazooka 16:11, 15 May 2006 (UTC) ... I just read what someone pointed out earlier, that assisted suicide redirects to euthenasia. This isn't right, since they're not the same thing. So would you be happier if the template linked to assisted suicide instead, and left euthenasia out of the loop entirely? ~ Booyabazooka 16:14, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Euthanasia and suicide, firstly, both refer to forms of induced death (so does the term murder). Both euthanasia and suicide are generally motivated by the perception that the person's life is intolerable. Here's my definition: suicide is when the person themselves chooses to die, and euthanasia is when someone else decides they should die, with both referring to the decision being motivated by a perceived unbearable, unsolvable suffering on the part of the person who is to die. Assisted suicide is both suicide and euthanasia, because both the person themselves and whoever assists them wants them to die.

Who has the right to decide?

Why is it the government that has the right to decided if its right or wrong to be able to help a loved take their own life? Should if they are suffering and terminal ill and want to end things then this should be their choice not the governements?

Spelling of euthanasia

Could we please refrain from misspelling "euthanasia" on its associated pages? Thank you.

PJTraill 17:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC) Surely we can lighten up a bit here? Obviously it must be spelt right in the article; obviously it is no more than a minor but harmless irritation in the talk.

A Want-to-be-an-admin named Rhobite...

...has "semi"-protected this Wikipedia article for the following reason: "(Protected Euthanasia: semi-protected due to ROHA trolling" -- Now, I have three questions to the "protector" by terms of "semi-protection", i.e. Rhobite: 1) Did you read and understand the discussion page of this article, before you started your adventure of "semi"-protection? 2) If you read and understood the comments that were written on the talk page, why then did you not answer them? 3) Why did you "semi-protect" an article of the Wikipedia, while you are no more than a simple contributor who seems to be too lazy to read, reflect and answer contibutions on the discussion page ? -- I will give you the answer: The user named Rhobite has not understood the idea of the Wikipedia. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19052006)

You're a nuisance and you'd have been banned long ago if you didn't revel in the fact that you can change IPs at will. Rhobite 00:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

You hack onto your keyboard... while you should take a while to think about what you are hacking onto your keyboard and, most of all, what you submit to this Wikipedia discussion page. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19052006)

Jeremygbyrne: "restored {{suicide}}; ROHA's objections are apparently POV-motivated"

Jeremygbyrne's re-introduction of {{suicide}} is apparently nonsense. (He seems to not read or understand what I said on the talk page.) I will delete the template from this article as soon as possible. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (19052006) PS: Such a nonsense contribution like the one of Jeremygbyrne is due to would-be admins like Rhobite.

I seem to be an actual admin, and have been for a while. Please stop editing Wikipedia - as you can see, your efforts here are useless. Rhobite 13:06, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, let me assume that you are "an actual admin" for a while, and let me take it for granted that an actual Wikipedia admin can justify the contents of an article that s/he feels responsible for. It is cheap for an administrator to claim that "ROHA's objections are apparently POV-motivated" if s/he cannot give any reason for such a claim. So, please, give a reason why the template on suicide currently placed in this article on euthanasia should appear here. Since I don't want to repeat myself, I suggest that you have another look at my above comments on this thread. There you will find good reasons why a template that deals exclusively with suicide and therefore has the word in its heading MUST NOT be included in an article that deals with the term euthanasia. And do not forget, dear admin Rhobite, that you ought not accuse other Wikipedia contributors to be trolls or vandals or "POV-motivated" ones, as long as you do not obey the Wikipedia rules for admins yourself. Administrators come and go, and the less they give reasons and justification for their actions and decisions on Wikipedia articles, the earlier they will have to go. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (25052006)

Suggestion

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)

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?) &#0151; JEREMY 08:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

What euthanasia is said to mean

1) Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=euthanasia

": the act or practice of killing or permitting the death of hopelessly sick or injured individuals (as persons or domestic animals) in a relatively painless way for reasons of mercy"

2) Encyclopædia Britannica Article http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9033299?query=euthanasia&ct=

"also called mercy killing act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder. Because there is no specific provision for it in most legal systems, it is usually regarded as either suicide (if performed by the patient himself) or murder (if performed by another). A physician may, however, lawfully decide not…"

3) From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia

"Euthanasia (from Greek: ευθανασία -'ευ "good", θανατος "death") is the practice of ending the life of an individual or an animal who is suffering from a terminal disease or a chronically painful condition in a painless or minimally painful way either by lethal injection, drug overdose, or by the withdrawal of medical support. Euthanasia is a controversial issue because of conflicting religious and humanist views."

I will not comment on these as for the moment. The readers may draw their own conclusions. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (30062006)

Well according to #2 "it is usually regarded as either suicide (if performed by the patient himself)" meaning that euthanasia has a subset that that is suicidal in nature. Hence, if a patient is prescribed a lethal dose of drugs, and decides to take them, that is considered phycician-assisted suicide. In some countries and when the person in incapable of taking medications by mouth, a physician may give a lethal dose of drugs intravenously. This may be at the sihes of the patient or by family if the patient has lost decision-making capacity. Obviously if the killing of the patient was to alleviate pain and suffering and is directed by the patient or by family, it is technically euthanasia or physician assisted suicide. ER MD 05:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Though I do not comment on the above items, I allow myself to ask questions to the contributors. Here is my first question to ER MD: Do you think that a template that was created for the Wikipedia article on suicide should appear in another Wikipedia article on euthanasia ? If you answer yes, then I would like to know from you, why you say yes. (Should there not be a new template be created that deals with euthanasia ?) Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (30062006)

Everyone, please don't feed this troll. He is not interested in understanding the way wikipedia works, nor in discussing his perculiar objections to this article's templates on this talk page. &#0151; JEREMY 06:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

May I ask "everyone" to compare the contributions on the topic that JEREMY and I myself made ? Please have a look for ARGUMENTS that the one or other used. Thank you for reading before deleting. (But never forget: A template about suicide has its place in the Wikipedia article about suicide. A template about euthanasia does not yet exist.) Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (30062006) PS: I suspect that some user is just a frustrated WoW player who will hopefully soon get back to the game.

Roha, Seems to me like it is appropriate, although I would agree that euthanasia does have a component to it that is not initiated by the patient, such as pushing barbituarates on a brain dead patient to terminate a "life." In that case it is not suicide. But the argument can be made that euthanasia has the component of physician assisted suicide and therefore it can be included on the template (I modified the template so that is says so). Obviously you disagree to which I would argue that you simply make the distinction in the euthanasia article. My impression: euthanasia is the above definition, plus the component of being voluntary and involuntary depending on the mental status of the patient. This is not to be confused with eugenics, which argues for killing off people because they contaminate the gene pool. :) ER MD 06:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ER MD, let me give you an example. If there was an article within the Wikipedia dealing only with odd prime numbers, and there was another Wikipedia article dealing with even prime numbers, would you agree that a template that deals with odd prime numbers be incorporated into a Wikipedia article which is about Prime numbers, simply because there is the prime 2 ? What I want to say is this: The template {Suicide} has no place within the Wiki article on euthanasia, since their is no INTERSECTION. Here I repeat myself: The term Euthanasia includes the term suicide, but the term suicide does not include the term euthanasia, which this article is about. To clarify it for all the readers: The term "prime" includes the number 2, but this is not a good reason to enter into the Wikipedia article a template about "EVEN" numbers (among which 2 would have a prominent place as the smallest even number). -- Have you understood me now. If not, please tell us all why not. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (30062006)

Wow! your statement makes no sense. I think you are confused on the issue. Under the group suicide there are multiple different forms. One of those forms is physcian assisted suicide to end suffering, and therefore this process with euthanasia. You are definitely turing into a troll. ER MD 10:28, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Where are your ARGUMENMTS, ER MD, what you write is rubbish. I have aked you this: Why is the template "suicide" added by YOU to this Wikipeia article on euthanasia ? You still gave no answer to my question. Please answer this question. Maybe some one different from you will fiund an answer. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (30ß062006)

I'm not going to be bothered to read this mess (Removed my first, angry comment)... Instead, I'm going to say this: Euthanasia is a bit of a general term that covers most deaths by drug overdose/lethal injection (The way the USA kills of some death row inmates). Some people who commit suicide do it by ingesting vast amounts of drugs. Thus, following a more general view of euthanasia, they are technically commiting SUICIDE, via Euthanasia. Besides, the template does not only deal with suicide. The Template is pretty much a "Link box" for all types of suicide and resources on it, and Euthanasia can be construed as one type of suicide, so it should have it is the reasoning. Besides, if you're this stressed out about a template, maybe you should relax a bit. Sincerely, Logical2u (Wikibreak) 18:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

ROHA: Instead of everyone trying to explain the obvious to you, why don't you get a resource that states euthanasia is mutually exclusion from physician assisted suicide. Euthanasia is simply, allow me to reference this:

2) Encyclopædia Britannica Article http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9033299?query=euthanasia&ct=

"also called mercy killing act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder. Because there is no specific provision for it in most legal systems, it is usually regarded as either suicide (if performed by the patient himself) or murder (if performed by another).

Therefore, its application falls under suicide and that is why the box is there. Think before you write again. ER MD 19:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent edits by ED_MD and ER_MD, et. al.

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)

Indirect/Direct

---

I would like to change this section because it slyly makes so-called "passive" euthanasia no longer count as euthanasia. Though this is something that is important to bring up, it is not made explicit and so I think does do a major injustice to a number of activists, philosophers and others who work on this subject. Consequently, I am going to make the following changes: 1) take out the direct/indirect defintion and replace it with active/passive, this will better correlate with the above paragraph anyway. 2) Replace the current indirect definition with a brief talk on the Doctrine of Double Effect, which seems to be synonomous.

I hope this works, let me know if this rewriting is problematic. Thanks, Pat.

philosophy

I added a Philosophy heading (with Nietzsche content), since there's already a Religion heading in the same section: Perceptions. I resisted the temptation to say anything about whether Nietzsche's endorsement is a good or bad thing in the eyes of euthanasia proponents and critics. Better to keep it strictly historical. Jonathan Tweet 23:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

I like and agree with the comment, but I'm not sure it deserves the title "philosophy"; whilst it is from a philosopher, it is still just a statement of preference on his part. I'd love it to be somewhere in the article though. mr happyhour 11:28 03 Aug

US

Combined Oregon and Texas information into one place, under US header. Jonathan Tweet 15:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Where is the Oregon info? I only see a reference to Texas under the US header. --Clpo13 21:38, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

It never got added so I added it, but it needs clean up Tim Thorpe 17:11, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Oregon ruling is still in effect, so I clear up that part. --clpo13 06:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Animals?

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)

The article begins with the following: "For mercy killings not performed on humans, see animal euthanasia". C mon 06:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Species different from the human race are routinely euthanized in some cultures, and statistics which categorize such beliefs should be helpful to indicate which cultures cutlivate "killer instincts" and why. 04:12, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

perceptions

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

Percepctions seems to me too US-POV... It only says what is the US perception of it... 200.230.213.152 20:35, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Philosophic viewpoints

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

Ethics & Perceptions sections

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)

Edit: I found some citations but some of them don't work or link to anything. Jazzdude00021

Suggested Addition

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)

Netherlands; Perceptions in the US

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)

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)

The church of Euthanasia website is one that needs to be added. It is extremist and distrubing in its philosophy and tenets.

Terminology

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)

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)

www.churchofeuthanasia.com

Globalize!

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)

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)

Thanks for putting it back in! Let's hope it survives this time. --KarlFrei 08:46, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The German Experience

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)

We do not need to be extensive here because most of it is explained in Action T4.--Jorfer 14:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

History Lacks Breadth

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)

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)

• • It should not be removed outright, but what's there already requires a pretty strong cleanup. --64.231.65.108 04:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Given that the Final Solution was one of the biggest euthanasia projects ever attempted, it is surprising that it is not mentioned with loving admiration by the proponents of euthanasia.--Toddy1 21:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality in For and Against Disputed

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)

You are always welcome to add new cited information as long as it conforms with WP:NPOV.--Jorfer 01:33, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

There is a clear bias in the arguments for and against section. My impression that the bias was in favour of euthansia.--Toddy1 21:51, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

I've started revising this section in order to meet NPOV, as suggested by the editorial tag. I suggest that:

• the revisions explicitly differentiate between proponents and critics of VE
• each argument be closely associated with adequate references
• language be kept NPOV with editorial slant kept as low as we possibly can

Thanks. Please comment here before revising this effort significantly. HG 12:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Terminology (cont.) and Proposal

<previous thread...> 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)

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)

With all due respect, I believe some older versions of terminology clarify better the various terms used by different people/groups. HG 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSAL

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)

Notable terms

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

Sample definitions

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).

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)

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)

Royal College of Physicians: "In the statement Medical Treatment at the End of Life (p.115-7), the College draws the distinction between acts where there is a clear intention to end life and acts that are mainly therapeutic, with a foreseen but unintended consequence that life may be shortened. For the purpose of the position statement, euthanasia is the active, intentional, ending of the life of a competent patient, by a doctor, at that patient's request. " NOTE that passive acts are not called euthanasia. ("Euthanasia" by definition is often the act that is considered wrong.)

“Assisted dying” is a general term covering both euthanasia (where someone other than the patient administers a fatal dose) and assisted suicide (where patients are assisted to end their own lives). -- from British Medical Association HG 11:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

"Influence of various factors ..." --> Public opinion + Religious policies

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)

I do not think the article needs any splits at this time.--Jorfer 01:58, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

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)

Country Examples

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

NGOs

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)

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)

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)

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)

Japan and Euthanasia

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：

1. 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。
2. 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。
3. 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：

1. 患者に耐え難い激しい肉体的苦痛が存在すること。
2. 死が避けられず、かつ死期が迫っていること。
3. 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。
4. 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)

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)

United States policy making

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)

Can we have a map please?

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)