Talk:Euthanasia/Archive 3

Inconsistent

The opening claims that some forms of euthanasia are legal in small number of countries. By that it must mean active euthanasia since as it points out later, withholding of medicine and nutrition is quite common and legal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MathHisSci (talk • contribs) 16:29, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Also seems inconsistent in use of the term 'active euthanasia', (the use of drugs to end life- i.e the means). Under this definition 'assisted suicide' is a form of 'active euthanasia'... but this is implicitly denied in the setion on Classifications of Euthanasia/Assisted Suicide. It needs to be clearer that while the means, the drug in both cases makes it active euthanasia, the distinction between the providing/using them is what differs.

The sentence "allows assisted suicide, while all forms of active euthanasia (like lethal injection) remain prohibited." would be better phrased "allows assisted suicide, while all other forms of active euthanasia (like lethal injection) remain prohibited." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Heligan (talk • contribs) 07:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nazi Action T4 and Euthanasia

I would like to argue for some minor considerations concerning the section about Action T4 and Euthanasia. As expressed on the wiki page of Action T4 and in the accompanying talk page, in Nazi Germany the Action T4 program was referred to as an euthanasia program. However, there seems to be a clear difference between the modern definition and use of the word of euthanasia and the practice of action T4. The Action T4 seems only to be called a euthanasia program, rather than that it actually is a euthanasia program. I would like to cite an American Military tribunal (the Doctors' Trial (ref 63):

Between September 1939 and April 1945 the defendants Karl Brandt, Blome, Brack, and Hoven [...] were principals in [...] the execution of the so called "euthanasia" program of the German Reich [...].

Additionally, in the page on Action T4 professor Robert Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors and a leading authority on the T4 program, is referenced (ref. 65): "[The Nazi concept of "Euthanasia"] is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's ‘right to die' or ‘right to death' or ‘right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, [The Nazi concept of "Euthanasia"] was pointing to the state's right to kill."

Finally, Dr Stuart Stein of the University of the West of England is referenced (ref. 66): The consistent use of the term "euthanasia" in this context is somewhat misleading. The Chambers Dictionary includes in its definitions "the act or practice of putting painlessly to death, esp in cases of incurable suffering." The Shorter Oxford Dictionary refers to "a quiet and easy death," and the "action of inducing" the same. However, the "incurable suffering" that the underlying ideology that rationalized the killings referred to was not that of the patient-victims, but that of the policy originators, their willing bureaucratic assistants, and those who directly handled the victims… Their demise was not painless, quiet or easy. Many were not suffering from any mental or physical dysfunction aside from the physical consequences arising from having fallen into Nazi hands… The dying rituals and procedures applied under the auspices of this "programme" were invariably identical to those that obtained in the extermination camps. The underlying objective was the same — the eradication of unwanted segments of the populace. In both instances no term other than murder is congruent with the circumstances.

I would like to argue that this page should not state that "Nazi Germany carried out an involuntary euthanasia program", but that "Nazi Germany carried out a so called "euthanasia" program" and that the difference between the Nazi concept op euthanasia and the modern concept of euthanasia is explained (as in the Action T4 page).

LennartVerhagen (talk) 19:48, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am uncomfortable with the heavy emphasis on Nazi "euthanasia" on the page, and I feel it may have been put there by people ideologically opposed to any form of euthanasia so as to falsely associate the whole concept with the murderous Nazi regime. Go ahead and make the change. ► RATEL ◄ 22:59, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that something akin to the new statement should be added but not that the old one should be removed. The article makes clear that this historical use of the term Euthanasia is not what is meant currently by the term. What you wish to add will just further clarify that. --Jorfer (talk) 06:20, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and cleaned it up. The article is full of weasel statements, unsourced claims, and conservative slant. The T4 program is very fully discussed on its own page and actually was deceitfully mis-named a "euthanasia program" to hide its real intent, which was state-sanction genocide and murder. The fact that there was so much detail about it on this page, including emotive photos of Nazi eugenics propaganda, is an unforgivable lapse of judgement by past editors.► RATEL ◄ 08:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi all, (especially Jorfer and Ratel) thank you for your contributions. I think that together we made this page a little bit better.I mean, what the heck was wrong with it anyways!? Best, Lennart. LennartVerhagen (talk) 17:36, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Let me clarify that I support the new sourced and neutral more neutral version of the article, though originally opposing the idea of removing the section. While I feel that Action T-4 is relevant to the possible abuse of the legalization of modern euthanasia, it differs from the intention and implementation of modern systems of euthanasia, and thus as a historical usage should be discussed extensively on its own page rather than here.--Jorfer (talk) 21:30, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't at all agree that the current version is neutral. By excising one of the very strong arguments against it, the slippery slope, it slants the article. By removing historical facts which are critical of euthanasia, the edits are highly POV. It is sufficient to state the facts and to point the view of advocates of euthanasia regarding the program. Just because the program did not fall within the most common modern conception of what the term means, does not mean that it is not part of the history of euthanasia. Most sources on euthanasia address it, often in detail. And advocacy of this kind of involuntary euthanasia is not just a thing of the past. For example philosopher Peter Singer recommends abortion and euthansia including infanticide.Mamalujo (talk) 23:32, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Mamalujo, please include a suitable insert of a sentence or two on the slippery slope concept under the subhead Reasons given against voluntary euthanasia on the page. That should answer your concerns. Aktion T4 is not a good example of a slippery slope that started out as true voluntary euthanasia and slowly degenerated into something worse. It started off at the bottom of your so-called slippery slope. The T4 program is universally agreed to have abused the word euthanasia as a euphemistic misnomer to conceal murder. As such a mention of this fact is fair, and a link to the discussion on another page is also fair. ► RATEL ◄ 00:32, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, I should have said more neutral. Obviously Euthanasia is a very broad term. It refers to the physical implementation rather than the philosophy behind it. I have thus amended the article to refer to it as the common current view. Since Wikipedia is missing one, I think that a well sourced discussion of involuntary euthanasia article would be appropriate, but what is not appropriate is the creation of a straw man by simply mixing Aktion T-4 information with that of the common current usage of the term.--Jorfer (talk) 04:34, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Agree with your edit. Although when you say "common", you probably mean commonly accepted. In fact the Nazi double-speak of ethanasia=murder is unique in history, AFAIK. ► RATEL ◄ 05:10, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

User:Jorfer and WP:OWN issue on this page

I am alarmed that this very young person, who professes to be a "born again" Christian and has a userpage and talk page full of religious material, also has a very long history of reverts and POV edits on this page. There are clearly WP:OWN issues here as well. I do not intend to let it continue, and I see that we shall have to have this page reviewed at some stage by admins. I think a RfC is a good start on the Nazi material. ► RATEL ◄ 21:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a failure of WP:AGF. Some of my personal beliefs are expressed on my user page which makes clear to other editors my biases (which is a common practice) and is allowed under Wikipedia:User page. My reversion was simply based on your lack of references per WP:V. The previous edits are longstanding, so I performed a wholesale reversion. A request for comment would be great. For now, to avoid the appearance of WP:OWN I will add this section to Wikipedia:Third opinion.--Jorfer (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

When you make wholesale reversions against the consensus wishes of two editors, without discussion, now THAT is a failure WP:AGF. And if we start deleting unreferenced material from the page, we may as well start from scratch, because the majority of it seems to be unreferenced. ► RATEL ◄ 23:19, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

BTW, you've requested a 3rd opinion, but there already are three opinions here: mine, yours, and LennartVerhagen's. ► RATEL ◄ 23:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Jorfer, I have added references to this small section as you suggested. Thank you for that suggestion. I agree that the section could be improved by adding references. Also, I get the impression that you would like to avoid an edit war. So would I. Therefore, I agree that asking a third or fourth (or fifth) opinion is never a bad idea when you aim to obtain neutral point of view. However, I would like to disagree with your statement that the detailed article on Nazi Action T4 is badly referenced. I have re-read the article with special attention to the references and I still think that that article is particularly well referenced. Maybe we should ask for a third opinion on that matter as well. Best, Lennart.LennartVerhagen (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, Lennart hadn't weighed in on what had become of the page, so it was two at the time. I never meant to say Action T-4 was badly referenced. I meant that the relevant section, Action_T4#T4_and_euthanasia is badly referenced as it has citation needed tags all over it. I would agree that before it was WP:UNDUE, but I did not have time to just undue the addition, so I performed a wholesale reversion until you referenced it. Consensus on one version was not clearly established, though the idea I would agree was, but two people over a short period of time is not good evidence of consensus. The only problem I have now is the use of quotation marks. The use hear immediately indicates point of view instead of letting the facts speak for themselves as is required under WP:NPOV (as accepted as a point of view may be). We don't need to baby sit the reader hear. The Nazis and Euthanasia would be a perfectly neutral header. Replacing "so-called" with "what they called" also should be done.--Jorfer (talk) 04:29, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Is there still need for an additional opinion? (EhJJ)^TALK 20:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. ► RATEL ◄ 21:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

"ending a life" in the introductory text

"ending a life" = killing in this case, right? --91.11.115.188 (talk) 12:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Wrong. You can have self-euthanasia (auto euthanasia), and passive euthanasia. ► RATEL ◄ 13:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratel, neither of your examples are inconsistent with the word kill. Ending a life and killing are synonymous in dictionaries and used interchangeably in this article. To "kill oneself" is a common usage with which you are surely familiar, and your tone is unnecessarily harsh. But due to their synonymity, I see no good reason to change the first sentence. JoeFelice (talk) 08:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I would agree what killing = ending a life (be it your own or someone elses) I think the problem is that many people automatically associate killing = murder (and therefore read ending a life = murder). Maybe the legal/moral difference needs to be explicitly stated to avoid giving the wrong impression; though clearly the voluntary-involuntary distinction in euthanasia does address some of this- I think this could be bought out better in the text. I suppose the holocaust examples of involuntary euthanasia and the potential slippery slope argument for disabled etc, if not classified as murder (which is unlikely in the extreme) would still be seen as an 'abuse of positive liberty' (because it really isnt in anyones best interest to be dead, unless they- rather than someone else- think it is). Of course abuses of positive liberty, are a bit of a tangent, but there is probably a wiki link for it. Heligan (talk 07:34, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Euthanasia of children

There ought to be an article on the euthanasia of children since it is a controversial topic, especially since there was much debate on this when it was legalized in the Netherlands not long ago. ADM (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Strawman argument?

"Economic costs and human resources: Today in many countries there is a shortage of hospital space. The energy of doctors and hospital beds could be used for people whose lives could be saved instead of continuing the life of those who want to die which increases the general quality of care and shortens hospital waiting lists. It is a burden to keep people alive past the point they can contribute to society, especially if the resources used could be spent on a curable ailment.[37]"

This seems to be a strawman: afaik, noone has ever seriously argued this to be a good reason to legalize euthenasia. I think it should be listed in the 'con' list, since it's an argument against euthenasia: people are scared that a situation as described may appear. (192.87.23.66 (talk) 10:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC))

It may not be a primary reason for the vast majority of supporters, but it is a secondary.--Jorfer (talk) 03:46, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Health Care Professionals

A 1997 study conducted by David A. Asch MD, MBA and Michael L. DeKay, Ph.D, surveyed 1,139 United States critical care nurses about their attitudes towards physician assisted suicide. The survey sought to explain the reasons why some critical care nurses had favorable attitudes euthanasia, while others did not. One obvious explanation for why some nurses have sympathetic tendencies towards euthanasia is because, "some...see euthanasia as a legitimate response to end human suffering". However, Asch and DeKay cited additional factors that influence health care professionals' attitudes towards euthanasia including religion, religiosity, and age.

Factors that influence physicians' attitudes towards euthanasia

religion, religiosity, age, gender, previous experience with physician assisted suicide and work environment are all factors which influence health professionals' attitudes towards euthanasia.

• The study found that nurses who had previously been a participant in euthanasia were; "younger, less religious, and more likely to be male".
• A second study conducted in Australia, on end of life treatment reported results that those who are the most likely to oppose euthanasia are older, western educated, catholic and female.
• Physicians who identify themselves as palliative care professionals are less welling to support the practice of euthanasia.
• Of the nurses included into the study 19% reported previous participation in euthanasia, 76% reported never having engaged in euthanasia and 4% of respondents were unclassifiable.
• Those who have previous engagement in euthanasia were more likely to respond to the survey that they felt that passive and active euthanasia are ethical practices.
• Age is and important variable in predicting the attitudes of a health care professional towards euthanasia, "for every additional year of age the odds of having engaged in euthanasia decrease by 3.1%"
• The variable of age does not tell us whether age is the only factor in changing attitudes towards euthanasia or if the younger nurses simply reflect changes in attitudes towards euthanasia over time.

Factors that influence doctors' decisions in end of life care

• Medical training
• Personal background:
• Previous euthanasia experience
• Respect for patients' wishes
• Other sociodemographic factors: age, gender, religion

Therefore, it is not surprising that research on Doctors' decisions on the treatment of those facing death reveal that doctors do not make uniform decisions in managing and distributing treatment.

Opposition

There are many health care professionals, especially those concerned with bioethics, who are opposed to euthanasia due to the detrimental effects that the procedure can have with regard to vulnerable populations. Those who are opposed to euthanasia often cite that vulnerable populations such as persons with disabilities are more at risk of untimely deaths because, "patients might be subjected to PAD without their genuine consent". Opponents point to the importance of self-determination and patients' wishes in deciding the course of action to take during end of life care and they also assert that when the patient is incapable of making informed decisions that they may be at greater risk for medical neglect or abuse.

Also, prejudices against disabled people may be enacted with regards to end of life care. For example, do not resuscitate orders are more frequently issued for those who become hospitalized and previously suffer from severe disabilities. In addition, many people who suffer from lifelong disabilities suffer from "burn out", which is a general feeling of depression and sadness that comes as a result of years of intolerance and prejudice. Naturally, those individuals suffering from "burn out" are more likely to want to refuse treatment and end their fight for life prematurely.

Improvements in end of life decision making

Currently only a small fraction of patients, about 15% have clear directions in the form of a living will or a health care proxy in place to advise family members or physicians of their end of life wishes. This leads to uncomfortable questions if the patient suddenly no longer has the ability to speak for themselves when answers are needed to important medical questions. Even if a patient has selected a proxy they may, "be guilt ridden, wondering weather they acted to hastily or if there decision was inconsistent with the patient's desires"

In order to preempt some of the difficulties that are associated with end of life care many medical schools and nursing programs now stress the importance of early discussions with the patient about their wishes and planning for the future. Unfortunately, since the views concerning physician assisted suicide are so polarizing, many doctors are reluctant to discuss withholding and withdrawing life sustaining treatment. In fact, in a recent study of 58 physicians, 19 admitted that they did not feel comfortable discussing end of life care with their patients.

In an effort to change the apprehension that is associated with end of life care new techniques are being explored to ensure more doctor to patient communication including:

• analyzing the cognitive ability of the patient to make their own decision regarding end of life care
• encouraging doctors to initiate end of life conversations
• making sure that the patient is made fully aware of all options regarding their personal medical treatment
• providing counseling and support for families of patients especially in situations where a decision to remove life support and/or stop treatment is involved

In short there are two major ways in which the physicians can more easily be made aware of the wishes of their patients. The first of which simply involves participation in the informed consent process or, "engaging competent patients in comprehensive discussions of treatment options and likely outcomes." The second of these methods involves advance care planning which ensures that patients tell their doctors exactly what they wish to be done in case a medical emergency arises in which that are not able to speak for themselves.

Ssjordan (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, you have no right to insist on medical treatments, only to refuse them in advance! The only function an 'Advance Directive' has therefore is to tell a practitioner that you would not wish your life to be prolonged under a given set of circumstances - since there are ZERO reliable predictive algorithms for recovery from ANY condition, the default mechanism remains a practitioners' decision regarding what is in your 'best interests' - they are supposed (under GMC regulations)to consult family members, but are under no obligation to carry out their demands for continuing active treatments, and can withhold everything but 'nursing care', prescribe opiates over the BNF safety limits and basically suffocate you in your sleep. In the absence of being able to insist on treatments in an advance discussion or directive, UK practitioners are given carte blanche to exercise their own malign judgements regarding the 'quality of life' (or worth) of any patient in their 'care'. The 'Liverpool Care Pathway for the Dying' - being used in the NHS currently - is causing grave concerns amongst senior Doctors of Medicine in the UK - see <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html> for example. 79.69.16.236 (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)DrLofthouse79.69.16.236 (talk) 00:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Euthanasia and China

"Support for euthanasia is predicted by decreasing importance of religious belief, higher family income, experiences in taking care of terminally ill family members, being non-Christian, and increasing age..." It is wrong to say that "being non-Christian" is a reason to follow euthanasia. China used to be Buddhist. Which also against euthanasia. By saying that "...by decreasing importance of religious belief, higher family income, experiences in taking care of terminally ill family members, being non-Christian, and increasing age..." the editor of that section implies that it is Christianity is the ONLY reason that prevented people from euthanasia in China. Also, note that fact that Buddhism arrived in China BEFORE Christianity.

PLEASE REMOVE "being non-Christian" because it has "decreasing importance of religious belief". This current one sounds like a pro-Christian evangelical editor. Why being non-Christian? Why not being non-Buddhist or non-Hindu?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.147.198.255 (talk) 03:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I haven't seen the article, so I would encourage you to look it up to check what the article says, but it is probably because the rate of acceptance among Buddhists and Hindus is higher than that of Christians even though it is lower than that of the non-religious. The fact that Christianity is a relatively new phenomenon in China is not important here; it would be like suggesting that being an evolutionist has no demographic bearing because Darwinism is a relatively recent phenomenon.--Jorfer (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Given that...the editor who created this sentence was not clear and failed to use correct grammar, so I will fix that up.--Jorfer (talk) 22:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Anyway, the survey was conducted in Hong Kong and tell us little on factors associated with "attitudes towards euthanasia in China" (which looks as vague as "attitudes towards euthanasia in Europe"). Note that Chong & Fok distinguish Protestants from other Christians.

There are indications on such factors (among the public and among health personnel) in several papers of Chinese Medical Ethics (中国医学伦理学). The article on euthanasia in Chinese Wikipedia (zh:安乐死) is helpless.

For English readers, there is a good summary of the issues in Li, Grace, Euthanasia, A Matrix of Cure or Exacerbation - A Legal Perspective of Current Bioethics Issue in China, Journal of International Biotechnology Law, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2005, pp.166-174, downloadable from [1]. See also Eun Kyung Kim, Neonatal Euthanasia in Modern China, The Lantern, a Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Vol. 3, Issue 1, Jan. 2006, pp. 23-25; Ng, Milly W.I. Bioethics: in the Chinese Context (or [2]), Revista Lationoamericana de Bioética, No.7, July 2004, pp. 96-101; Sleeboom-Faulkner, Margaret, Chinese Concepts of Euthanasia and Health Care, Bioethics, Vol. 20, No. 4, Aug. 2006, pp. 203-212 and older articles. --Touchatou (talk) 23:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Factors in attitudes towards euthanasia

• Religious belefs - or absence of religious beliefs - is a known major factor affecting attitudes towards euthanasia. This should be better documented in the article. The article talks about "holy scriptures", offical organisations and religious leaders, but do not say a word about what buddhists, christians, muslims, agnostics, etc. really feel and think. References needed.

• Other factors have been identified, particularly, age, gender, education level. Here also, references needed.

• "Ethnic origin" (proxy for a mix of culture and religion?) appears to be an extremely important factor. Look at the graph on a ward in Los Angeles. People (all of "low socioeconomic status") were presented (a) clinical scenarios of hopeless situations and were asked whether they would want starting life support and (b) clinical scenarios of terminal situations and asked whether they would agree stopping life support. Percentages of replies "ready to stop life support" range from 14% among Filipino Americans to 90% among Jewish Americans. I wish good luck to politicians and legislators if they want to please everybody! The sample was very small. Any better references?

--Touchatou (talk) 23:09, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Euthanasia in Andalusia

The references added point to two newspapers whose headlines, in a sensationalistic style, do affirm that Andalusia WILL allow euthanasia. Nevertheless, the body of the articles state that the andalusian government PLANS to debate a law about euthanasia, which is not approved nor voted up to my knowledge. I could not find any reference to an approval of such law, hence the entry of Andalusia as a place where euthanasia under some conditions is legal is not supported by the given references, or any other, and should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.57.170.179 (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Asking to remove reference to euthanasia in Andalusia (Spain)

{{editsemiprotected}} References to euthanasia in the Community of Andalusia do not support the existence of euthanasia but the preparation of a law that might or not be approved in the future. The reference to this geographical area as a place where Euthanasia is legal under certain conditions should be removed.

Please remove:

</ref> the Autonomous Community of Andalusia (Spain),

(Contributor333 (talk) 20:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC))

Done Celestra (talk) 14:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Euthanasia and the Disability Rights movement

There are complex views towards euthanasia amongst disabled people and the disability rights movement in particular. One pole of the debate holds that availability of euthanasia is a right for disabled people who find their situation intolerable, the opposite pole sees the availability of euthanasia as a major problem in a society where many people's view of disability is 'I'd rather be dead' and some at least see Aktion T4 as appropriate. Arguably this creates a societal pressure pre-programming at least some people who become disabled to seek euthanasia, functioning as a stealthy form of eugenics. That's a view I share, so I don't feel able to do NPOV, but I don't think the range of opinion is adequately reflected at the moment -- the only reference is buried under 'Euthanasia Protocol'.

well I tried to add some info about disability to this talk page for perspective in the 'opposition' section and Jorfer deleted it within minutes of my posting it, along with another comment on the health care debate that I added to the talk page. Not sure what he thinks I did wrong - new to this - but it seemed to me that just deleting the comments of newbies immediately is not the spirit of Wikipedia. I actively solicited feedback and got none. How am I supposed to learn if instead of feedback I just get whacked??? Please I am disabled and it was hard enough to post it in the first place, could you at least let me know how to fix it so I can do better next time? 208.127.241.81 (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Military euthanasia

It's a pretty common theme in war stories to kill a mortally wounded comrade, or enemy, as an act of mercy. It seems widespread and less controversial than civilian euthanasia. I came here curious for information about it but found nothing, when it probably deserves its own top-level section. Mbarbier (talk) 18:58, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

The article Coup de grâce definitely needs improvement. You can help.--Jorfer (talk) 00:58, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}}

Addition to the Australia section: "In 2009, an Australian quadriplegic was granted the right to refuse sustenance and be allowed to die."

Source - http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/08/14/australia.right.to.die/index.html

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Weasel3927 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 14 August 2009

Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. Celestra (talk) 22:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

End-of-life counseling

There should probably be an entry on the topic of end-of-life-counseling, given that it has been in the news recently, essentially because of Sarah Palin's allegations about death panels within President Obama's health care reform. [3] ADM (talk) 01:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to note it in this context: Americans have responded with fierce resistance to even the perception of mandatory involuntary euthanasia. One example of this is the America's Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009 where according to a 8/15-17,2009 NBC News Health Care Poll 45% of the public believed the final bill would include mandatory involuntary euthanasia...

The problem with this is that we can't really quantify the level of outrage. We can do a better job of this later partly because if the bill doesn't pass because we can note it may have resulted in that (we would assuredly have a reliable source that says so). This is one problem with trying to include recent events in Wikipedia other than the inherent bias to put undue weight on them (which we may be doing here as well) because Wikipedia exists in the present rather than the past, so I say hold off on any inclusion of this in this article (it is already mentioned in the article on the bill).--Jorfer (talk) 03:12, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

So-called 'euthanasia panels' is pure propaganda and fiction. Any references to the current health reform debate should stay in the health reform subject and not contaminate this article. The political climate around health reform is explosive and the rhetoric is dishonest. 208.127.241.81 (talk) 02:39, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I disagree - several highly respected Geriatricians have recently expressed serious concerns about the entire 'End of Life Care Pathway' currently in force in the NHS in England (see Telegraph article September 2009 at <http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6127514/Sentenced-to-death-on-the-NHS.html> ). Currently, in practice, UK law allows a practitioner to decide it is in the 'best interests' of a patient to die - then get their colleagues to rubber stamp the decision to avoid overshoots in their waiting lists - the 'death panels' already exist within the NHS today. 79.69.16.236 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)DrLofthouse79.69.16.236 (talk) 00:38, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Moral / theological against -

Arguments for and against> reasons given against> moral/theological:

Doesn't it seem objectionable to specify "Christians"? Couldn't you just put "as well as many religious belief structures", because if you really want I can cite things, but its rather obviously unnecessary. 75.87.127.235 (talk) 02:50, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:RS is the standard.--Jorfer (talk) 04:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Terminolgy

Maybe outlining the possible combinations of terminolgy at the beginning might clarify things. There is an excellent Table In Dickenson, Johnson, Katz (2000)'Death, Dying and Bereavement' ISBN 0-7619-6857-1 pg272

                       Voluntary                    Non-Voluntary             Involuntary

Passive patient refusal treatment persistant vegatative state medical rationing (drugs/treatments) Active patientrequest for termination persistant vegative state unlawful killing, (e.g. Nazi)

Heligan (talk) 08:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Biased

You use the term 'euphemism' to refer to the Nazis describing their programmes as 'Euthenasia' - they did not use the term as a Euphemism, they genuinely saw it that way - people who have no capacity for moral thought still think they are being 'merciful' by ending the lives of the disabled or elderly. None of the books published by the Eugenics movement that preceded Hitler had any 'ethical' or 'moral' deliberation at all - the 'fittest' are the more 'intelligent', therefore their views are should automatically be considered 'superior' - current UK Law and GMC Guidance still affords this 'superior' status to practitioners who are making decisions on behalf of Incompetent patients - by allowing them to act in what they consider to be the patients 'Best Interests' - this permits them to withold and withdraw any treatment they consider would be 'too burdensome' for the patient - like antibiotics to cure an infection!. 79.77.114.66 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)Dr. Lofthouse79.77.114.66 (talk) 23:05, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that stating that the Nazi program only bore the name "euthanasia" euphamisitcally is POV and is only put forth by some writers on the subject. I have edited to reflect the fact that some commentators call a euphemism. The idea that the euthanasia movement was distant from T4 is not supported by the facts. Indeed, British and US advocates of the practice also advocated involutary euthanasia. I've made the appropriate sourced edits. Mamalujo (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed section on Nazis. If you want to insert that, do so on the Involuntary euthanasia page. ► RATEL ◄ 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Reorder of page

To the established editors of this page: the page is illogically organized. We need to use the article as a switchboard to give a brief overview of the various subcategories of euthanasia, then link to pages that deal specifically with each type of euthanasia. A good example of this is the page Prostatitis. Something similar needs to be done here to stop people conflating completely separate issues here. Comments please. If there are no comments within a few days, I shall proceed to radically alter the page along these lines. ► RATEL ◄ 00:21, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with this as long you don't edit out information that just hasn't been developed on other pages yet.--Jorfer (talk) 01:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Page now switchboarded, as agreed. This should make some of the arguments subside. Euthanasia is a very vague term. It only becomes meaningful when specifically described. ► RATEL ◄ 00:34, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Recent Action T4 edits

There's been a bunch of back-and-forth on the way to include Action T4 and the Nazi programs. The recently added content seems highly problematic, confusing euthanasia with eugenics (eg "The euthansia movement had enjoyed a brief period of momentum in the 1930s" seems confused.) Much of the content strikes me as a "you know who else had a toothbrush moustache..." kind of reasoning. --TeaDrinker (talk) 21:19, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

POV deletions of reliably sourced material on Nazi section

I am additing the NPOV tag on the Nazi section. One user has been repeatedly deleting sourced material which does not comport with his view that T4 is unrelated to euthanasia. Certainly, there is source material which says calling the program euthanasia is a euphamism, but there is also reliable sourced material which notes that the program developed out of the euthanasia movement and, even after news of atrocities, had sympathy within the Anglo-American movement. Simply deleting sourced material with which you disagree and presenting one POV as if it were the only view is a blatant violation of NPOV. I think the tag should remain until balance is restored. Mamalujo (talk) 19:35, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Note what an admin has said in the section above this one.
2. Please present evidence here of an RS that links Aktion T4 to euthanasia so we can decide if it is fit for inclusion on this page rather than the Aktion T4 page.
3. Equally, if you wish to alter the carefully consensus-arrived version of Aktion T4, use that Talk page first to put your case. ► RATEL ◄ 00:21, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

1. The admin is decidedly biased and in fact removed tags on the Action T4 page despite the fact that there was a legitimate dispute addressed on the talk page. His input doesn't hold much weight with me. Also the admin is questioning the facts (brief momentum in the 1930s and historical connection of euthanasia and eugenics movement) which the RS states (and which are indisputably part of he historical record).
2. The sourced edit which I made and which you deleted in violation of 3RR had the evidence. The evidence is in the source and the cited edits. I don't have to meet your approval here, despite the fact that you seem to think you own the article. It was a RS sourced edit which provides balance. I am going to reintroduce the edit. Don't remove the RS sourced material without a valid basis for doing so (btw there isn't one).
3. Depite your assertion that this is a "consensus" version of the article, the section in question plainly states only one point of view as if it were undisputed fact. Your obstructionism is merely to prevent the article from being balanced with a point of view you don't like. The idea that euthanasia is unrelated to T4 and the eugenics movement which spawned it, i.e. that calling the program euthanasia is only a euphemism, is only one POV held by scholars on the subject of euthanasia. Whatever pretext you attempt to make to prevent the opposing view is just that, a pretext. Without this material the section violates NPOV and gives the one POV undue weight. Mamalujo (talk) 18:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

You are trying to link euthanasia, which in this context means voluntary euthanasia since we have no article on voluntary euthanasia — although we do have an article on involuntary euthanasia (where your edit may belong, possibly) — to a brutal campaign of eugenics and state-sanctioned murder. It's not on. We have both articles on Action T4 and involuntary euthanasia that you could look at. ► RATEL ◄ 04:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I am not trying to link them. Sources link them. They are historically linked. It was not only Nazis but also others supporters outside of Germany who sometimes connected voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Also, T4 and the one time advocacy by many in the Anglo-American euthansia movement had a notable historical impact on the vountary euthanasia movement. This belongs in the article - you can hardly find a book on euthenasia which does not address it. Mamalujo (talk) 20:21, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

I have non-opiniated medical sources that link Aktion T4 to involuntary euthanasia only. [PMID 16900935] [PMID 11512180] [PMID 19479283] and more. You are not going to edit this material into a page on voluntary euthanasia, I assure you. ► RATEL ◄ 23:51, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Passive vs "non-active"

I searched the Pubmed database for "non-active" euthanasia but got no hits. I have removed it from the article. Non-active is really one more form of passive. ► RATEL ◄ 06:23, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Ratel's recent changes

I reverted Ratel's recent changes, because it seemed to be directed at User:Mamalujo instead of improving the article, including writing in all caps for emphasis which is discouraged by WP:ALLCAPS.--Jorfer (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I used all caps because the template page shows all caps. You are welcome to change to mixed case. Do not assume things they way you have done here. AGF and ask first. ► RATEL ◄ 00:54, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, but why remove the Nazi section? It separates the Nazi's description of their program from its typical use today. It seems necessary to address the Nazis for comprehensiveness.--Jorfer (talk) 03:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I thought that was well explained before. The Nazi Action T4 program has only a peripheral relationship with any form of euthanasia, and that is to involuntary euthanasia. So it was moved to the Involuntary euthanasia page, where it belongs. Our page here relates to voluntary euthanasia (as can be seen from some of the headings, like Arguments for and against voluntary euthanasia etc). So the Nazis are not excluded, merely relocated to the correct place. It is POV-pushing to try to link extreme and corrupted forms of involuntary euthanasia, such as Action T4, to voluntary euthanasia. This must not be allowed. Whoever added it to this page in the first place was on a mission. ► RATEL ◄ 03:52, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

That is understandable. Like you said there is no page for voluntary euthanasia, so this page is about voluntary euthanasia right now. I would like to see this become the switchboard you suggested above, which would mean it would include information on both topics. The Nazi information was here not because of POV pushing, but because it was included in a source used to make the history section along with the voluntary information. The Nazis calling the program a euthanasia program seems to have resulted in the mangling of the two topics in places.--Jorfer (talk) 04:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll get onto the switchboard this week. Of course each form of euthanasia has a different history. Maybe you could start working on the invol. euth. page, which seems a little mangled as you said? ► RATEL ◄ 07:37, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Merger proposal

In all honesty, I cannot see why Passive euthanasia was spun out in the first place. Five sentences in two paragraphs, from a single source, could all be easily kept in this article without any loss of information. I would myself support such a merger, based on the above. John Carter (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My primary motive for creating a separate entry on passive euthanasia was that there was already a sub-division on voluntary euthanasia and involuntary euthanasia, which are ethical categories that are somewhat analoguous to the active/passive euthanasia dichotomy. ADM (talk) 16:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless it is expanded, I support the merge as well. It was important to have separate articles for voluntary and involuntary, since the differences are so large that it tends to result in a straw man being built. The difference between passive and active is more subtle.--Jorfer (talk) 17:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Support merge Not sure why an experienced editor like ADM would make an error like this, spinning off a term into a new article. ► RATEL ◄ 22:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

External link to Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law article

I added a link to an article on euthanasia in the Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL), which was removed. Whilst MPEPIL is a subscription resource, the article on euthanasia is provided free-of-change. This article, written by Professor Carlo Focarelli of LUISS Guido Carli (an expert in the field of euthanasia), deals with the legal implications of euthanasia. I would urge you to reconsider allowing this link to stand as this article is an excellent introduction to the subject of euthanasia for any legal scholar or lay-man looking for a legal perspective on the subject. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spellern (talk • contribs) 17:00, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Passive Euthanasia

It's critical that we change the phrase "... is a matter of moral interpretation, but in order to pacify doctors' consciences, it is usually regarded as a passive measure" to this: "... is a matter of moral interpretation, but at least partly in order to pacify doctors' consciences, it is usually regarded as a passive measure."

I know the original language comes from a sourced article. But here are two independent reasons to change it:

1. On this point, the source article is either poorly worded or mistaken. It is mistaken if the authors intended to exclude all other reasons (psychological, moral, legal) as candidates to explain why the use of high-dose opioid analgesia is regarded as a passive measure. It is poorly worded if the authors did not have such an intention.

2. The preferred language is an entailment of the original. So the source article still serves the exact same justifying role. And the preferred language is weaker, therefore more likely to be true.

It's win-win all over the place. Please ESTABLISHED USER, make the change. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Logic523 (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

I suggest that the passage below is erased, since it confuses two separate distinctions (intentional vs. unintentional with active vs. passive). Active and passive euthanasia has to do with whether active measures are taken in order to hasten the death of the patient (in relation to his or her condition). "administration of increasingly necessary, albeit toxic doses of opioid analgesia" is neither active or passive euthanasia if the purpose does not involve the death of the patient. If the purpose was that the patient should die (as is not the case in the exmaple) then, of course, it would be a case of active euthanasia. I suggest that the the following sentence is earased:

"Whether the administration of increasingly necessary, albeit toxic doses of opioid analgesia is regarded as active or passive euthanasia is a matter of moral interpretation, but in order to pacify doctors' consciences, it is usually regarded as a passive measure." Mezzamur (talk) 15:40, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

No. The sentence comes directly from a much-quoted study. Moreover, doctors give opioids in large doses knowing full-well that it hastens death. ► RATEL ◄ 22:54, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That line seems drastically out of place, and especially "in order to pacify doctors' consciences" hardly seems neutral. What happened to the link to the "Principle of double effect" page that discusses that very issue? This seems akin to something like chemo therapy, which is hardly euthanasia, and this hardly seems the place to discuss it Tsuioku (talk) 01:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Delete the article

There is no useful information in the article. It is only a source of contention. Has multiple links to suicide which is false and the article and discussion page is controlled with a few people who have an obvious agenda. Save your views of doctor assisted suicide for a blog.Mantion (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Controversy and assisted suicide

Ratel deleted outright a passage I added to the lede. I'm contesting it here to discuss it, and have made some fundamental changes to the passage I added which I hope clears up somewhat the terminological difficulties. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 01:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't know why in particular Ratel would have removed the text. However, there is a significant distinction between Euthanasia, Voluntary Euthanasia, and Assisted Suicide. Generally assisted suicide is used where the person takes an active role in their death, typically by using a device or substance provided to them by another person for the express purpose of ending their life. Voluntary euthanasia is where a person has expressed their wish to die, providing informed consent, but does not take an active role, so that another individual takes the active role.

The distinction is important, as it is possible to permit assisted suicide while still being opposed to voluntary euthanasia. - Bilby (talk) 01:52, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Those definitions do not appear to be inline with what others have defined. Please keep in mind that we do not simply accept political parlance as a definition, rather we explain such terms as political or even professional parlance and not as accepted terminology. don't know why you are capitalizing the terms - generally thats an indication of overspecialization and WP:BSM. The wording in question is:

Because of its controversial and politicised nature, the terminology is...

Because of its controversial and politicised nature, the terminology is difficult: The term "euthanasia" is ostensibly reserved for involuntary acts (where the subject is incapable of deciding for themselves whether to live or die), however the term "voluntary euthanasia" has arisen to apply to cases where individuals choose to terminate their own lives. If one is assisted in such actions, such actions are often referred to as assisted suicide, and in most legal jurisdictions the helping party is considered a responsible and therefore culpable in a death. The term "voluntary euthanasia" is used in place of "suicide" or "assisted suicide" where the latter terminology is thought to improperly reflect negative connotations (self-destruction and despair).

In more general terms, the wording I've added adds something to what is a skeleton article. I'm focusing on something basic to Wikipedia article ledes (WP:LEDE) which is to tie in other related concepts. The current article as it stands (without my additions) does only two things: It defines euthanasia as a human (not animal) concept quoting a definition of euthanasia, and claims there are two fundamentally logical categories of euthanasia, "voluntary" and "involuntary." I may agree that the latter distinctions are nonsensical, as one may not "euthanize oneself" if euthanasia is largely involuntary. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:24, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'm surprised to hear you say that they're not in line with other definitions: this is pretty much the distinction drawn in bioethics. The key part is the distinction between someone killing themselves, by their own hand, with or without a degree of assistance, and someone being killed by another person, with or without their consent. The former is suicide, the latter can be euthanasia. But I certainly agree that the article needs expansion, by the way. We just need to be careful about how we do so. - Bilby (talk) 02:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Bilby wrote: "But I certainly agree that the article needs expansion, by the way. We just need to be careful about how we do so." - How do you suggest "we do so?" -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean - I guess the usual way? My major question at the moment is what works can be considered as definitive in subject area, so that we can use them for basic issues such as definitions. - Bilby (talk) 02:48, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

If we are looking at basic definitions, looking at a few dictionaries should be valuable.[4][5]": (Keep in mind here that the term here has a coined meaning, a constructed meaning, a historical meaning, and a politicized meaning, etc.) Ideally we will start with the original usage:

The historian Suetonius describes how the Emperor Augustus, dying quickly and without suffering in the arms of his wife, Livia, experienced the "euthanasia" he had wished for."

Most sources credit Bacon for bringing the term into the English and into medical jargon, who referred to an "outward euthanasia" (in which it was a "physician's responsibility to alleviate the "physical sufferings" of the body)" —the term "outward" he used to distinguish from a spiritual concept of "the Euthanasia which regards the preparation of the soul."

The word euthanasia was coined from the Greek language ... in the seventeenth century by Francis Bacon to refer to an easy, painless, happy death. In modern times it has come to mean the active causation of a patient's death by a physician, usually through the injection of a lethal dose of medication.

The point here is that there are some interesting history with the use of the word, and its usage in promoting a medical concept. Into which I suppose the distinctions range from palliative care to eugenics, not voluntary to involuntary, which seems to be a bit inane. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 04:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

That's excellent stuff - I was thinking we should probably do a historical discussion, and the Bacon reference wasn't one I had heard before. For more recent use, I have an excellent paper by Beauchamp and Davidson, "The Definition of Euthanasia", that provides a good accounting of different definitions and what a definition would need to do, as well as providing one of their own. It is entirely from a philosophical/bioethics viewpoint, but it should provide a good starting point for that side of things. - Bilby (talk) 03:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and added some of my notes to the article. I think its clear that there is more than just one dichotomy between the opposing arguments. Voluntary v. involuntary are only one dimension. Regards, -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 05:18, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

PS: What would be good is for us to put together a concept cloud of concepts and terms of what belongs in the top sections. Death with dignity and right to die are two. Brainstorming. I suppose dichotomies are perhaps more essential here than most other topics, we can deal with ideas like killing v. dying also. -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 22:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Euthanasia: murder remains being murder (sources)

Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Netherlands: "...the new Act does not as such decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide [...]The new Act contains, however, a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person..."

Carmen Tomás Y Valiente, La regulación de la eutanasia en Holanda, Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales - Núm. L, Enero 1997: "Holanda es el único país europeo en el que existe una regulación de la práctica de la eutanasia activa. Se trata, como enseguida veremos, de una regulación peculiar -tanto más por cuanto su contenido fundamental se refiere a cuestiones procedimentales y no sustantivas-que posibilita que, en determinadas circunstancias, conductas de homicidio consentido y de participación en el suicidio no sean castigadas a pesar de que ambas permanecen tipificadas en el Código Penal...Por otra parte, es necesario señalar que el término eutanasia se emplea normalmente como sinónimo del homicidio cometido a petición del paciente..." Translation: "The Netherlands is the only European country where exists a regulation of the practice of active euthanasia. It is, as we shall see, a peculiar-regulation -moreover as its main content refers more to procedural than substantive issues- which means that in certain circumstances, consent homicide and assited suicide are not punished although both conducts remain qualified as offences in the Criminal Law ... Moreover, it should be noted that the term euthanasia is normally used as a synonym of homicide committed at a request made by the patient..." -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 04:17, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The difficulty was that your first source didn't seem to support the claim, and the use of "any" seemed overly strong. The above clearly holds in the case of the Netherlands, though, which is cool. - Bilby (talk) 04:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Let ask: Can anyone quote at least one law claiming that euthanasia is something else than a certain number of exceptions or conditions under which the physician perpetrator of that homicide will not be prosecuted nor punished? Is there any legal definition claiming that killing a person is not an homicide?

Just let quote another example, that is the only other example, because the only other country than The Netherland which has legalized euthanasia is Belgium and also applies the same:

R Cohen-Almagor, Belgian euthanasia law: a critical analysis, J. Med. Ethics 2009;35;436-439: "On 20 January 2001, the euthanasia commission of Belgium’s upper house voted in favour of proposed euthanasia legislation that would make euthanasia no longer punishable by law, provided certain requirements were met"

-- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 05:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Again, Carmen Tomás Y Valiente, La regulación de la eutanasia en Holanda, Anuario de Derecho Penal y Ciencias Penales - Núm. L, Enero 1997: " ... Moreover, it should be noted that the term euthanasia is normally used as a synonym of homicide committed at a request made by the patient ..." and sir, I guess I don't have to quote each of the criminal codes aroud the world to demonstrate that homicide is by definition and by law: killing another one. But, as I presumme good faith on you, then I encourage you to provide the proof that any of those laws legalizing euthanasia, at least one of them, claims that euthanasia is not homicide as you are the one claiming that under a legal point of view euthanasia sometimes is not an homicide. PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:21, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Why not just avoid using the word always? It's obviously difficult to prove. HiLo48 (talk) 06:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That was my thought. :) I'm not concerned with the claim, just the strength. - Bilby (talk) 06:58, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

In fact it would surely require a good source saying so to make the always claim. HiLo48 (talk) 07:02, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Just quote each one of those laws legalizing euthanasia. I would agree that it would be a good source -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 07:22, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That would be WP:OR. If we want the article to say "All countries do [...]" we have to find a source that explicitly says so. It is insufficient to have several sources saying "Country A does [...]", "Country B does [...]", etc. and combining them to reach the conclusion that "All countries do [...]". Gabbe (talk) 07:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It is always a lot harder to say "it is always the case ..." as opposed to "it is the case in ...". You're doing the former: saying that euthanasia is always considered homicide, when what you have is one quote that says it is, in the Netherlands, considered to be homicide. I don't have an problems at all with keeping your wording if there's a source which supports the "always" claim, but I haven't seen that yet. Similarly, the Belgium quote you're using doesn't really support your claim, as it only states that euthanasia has been legalised and is acceptable if certain conditions are met, not that it continues to be regarded as homicide. As an aside, it is also legal in Albania, parts of the US and Luxembourg. - Bilby (talk) 05:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No sir, you are wrong, from a legal point of view, only a criminal offence can be punished or not punished. So actually claiming that "euthanasia is not punished under certain conditions" is a proof that euthanasia is still considered a criminal offence. Let me try another example: homicide commited by self defense is not punished, but it is still an homicide. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 08:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll give all of that to you, happily. However, just because euthanasia may be regarded as a criminal offense in Belgium, this doesn't mean that it is also regarded as homicide. I tend to be very literal on Wikipedia with sources as we rely so heavily on them, and are strong against interpretation. That said, it isn't really a concern, and focusing on it is probably an error. - Bilby (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

PepitoPerez2007: Yes, that's true in the US. There, homicide is an overarching term that includes both illegal acts (like murder and manslaughter) as well as legal acts like justifiable homicide (including self-defense and, in some jurisdictions, capital punishment). While this is also true of some jurisdictions outside the US, it's not true for all of them. A lot of legal systems in the world will not classify self-defense resulting in the death of another human being as a form of homicide. Gabbe (talk) 09:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Gabbe: Your source and example of that legal system is lacking. Perhaps because, as I know: it doesn't exist. Whatever, I already provided a source (see the article). -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Bilby: You can read by yourself the Belgium Law if you still believe it declared not punishable another criminal offence than homicide. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 09:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

The Swedish Penal Code, for example. [6]. Gabbe (talk) 09:38, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

False:

1. Chapter 24 of the Swedish criminal code states various conditions for which a person will not be sentenced in court for committing an criminal offence. Those are exemptions from criminal responsibility. It is like in US, an excuse or justification: a defense to criminal charges. The criminal offences remain being criminal offences but the perpetrator is not liable to punishment, for example if demonstrates self-deffense before a judge (Chapter 24 Section 1). It applys for any criminal offence not only for murder.

2. Chapter 3 Section 1 of the Swedish criminal code states that a person who takes the life of another shall be sentenced for murder to imprisonment. Neither in this chapter nor anywhere else, but Swedish criminal code doesn't say that murder is not murder if the perpetrator acts in self-deffense.

-- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree with that assessment of Swedish law, but I don't think either of us is going to convince the other on it. Anyway, what's the point of saying "euthanasia is homicide"? Either we use the word homicide to mean "the taking of another person's life, whether punishable or not", in which case it's redundant – the article already makes it perfectly clear that euthanasia involves ending another person's life. Or you use homicide in the non-judicial laymen sense of "the punishable act of taking of another person's life" in which case the statement "euthanasia is homicide" is not true for all jurisdictions in the world. It feels very tendentious to label euthanasia as homicide without simultaneously explicating on what one means by "homicide". Gabbe (talk) 10:50, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you desagree before the evidence. In good faith: it seems that you don't understand properly the legal issues and basic concepts. Anyway I'm restricting the definition to the sources. Taking another peron's life is an homicide and euthanasia is generally a criminal homicide, that from a legal point of view (see for example: [7]). And as an indiscutible legal issue, its legal definition must be included in its article. Would not be a biased and tendentious article if it just include the dictionary and ethimological definition and not the legal/judicial definition? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Homicide and the lead

We have an editor, PepitoPerez2007, who seems determined to stick the word homicide in the article. This has led to a second paragraph in the lead which is clumsily written, adds little, and stands on it's own, seemingly independent of the flow of rest of the article.

An obsession with one word like this could perhaps fit somewhere else in the article (I still have my doubts) but doesn't belong in the lead as it is now.

HiLo48 (talk) 21:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

The paragrahp goes about the definition of euthanasia from a legal point of view and the lead of the article has to do precisely with the definition. Meanwhile I've added a sentence precisely showing it is about the definition, I hope it is giving coherence. The wording has been modified until now by the user Bilby and the user Gabbe. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 23:23, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I tend to share Gabbe's concern. The definition PepitoPerez2007 is putting forward may be accurate, but it doesn't say any more in the lead that what is already there. All instances of someone killing another person are homicide. Euthanasia is an instance of someone killing another. Therefore euthanasia is homicide. That's logically sound. However this means I'm stuck wondering, as per Gabbe, why it needs to be pointed out that euthanasia is a homicide under these terms. Euthanasia is already defined as someone killing another, so using another word to describe that adds little. And just being a homicide, according to the linked source, says nothing in-and-of itself about the legal status of the act, as a homicide isn't necessarily criminal. It then adds the risk of confusing the legal definition used here with the common belief (also mentioned in the linked article) that homicide = murder. - Bilby (talk) 01:43, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

1. Then will you replace in the definition the words "ending a life" with "killing a patient"? and will you include the word homicide in the definition? Is that your proposal?

2. And from the sources given: euthanasia is generally a "criminal homicide", so shouldn't be it included in the defintion?-- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 03:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

That would be reasonable....

....if we did the same for every article about every war, and every incidence of capital punishment. HiLo48 (talk) 04:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Hilo48: is that your proposal? I would agree. But be aware that I'm not demanding that condition in order to change the euthanasia article. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 04:50, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

No. That's not my proposal. It would be quite silly. I'm just using that example to highlight how inappropriate your addition is for this article. Can you explain why it SHOULD be there? HiLo48 (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Already done: The paragrahp goes about the definition of euthanasia taken from reliable sources. Can you explain why it should notbe there? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 18:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

1. It adds nothing useful. 2. It seems to be a POV obsession with one word. HiLo48 (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hilo48: are you obssesed avoiding a word? Perhaps it is not useful for you but it is nothing less nothing more than the definition of euthanasia given by reliable sources and as I understand the criteria is WP:OR -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 05:08, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hilo48 do you have a specific agenda that the word homicide conflicts with?Mantion (talk) 05:29, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

I had decided to hold back from this discussion for a while because there seemed little likelihood of the main promoter of this word seeing my point of view, but given that specific question, it's worth commenting again. The article is about euthanasia, a word that has a fairly standard meaning across the globe. One editor wants to introduce the word homicide to the lead. That word has differing but very strong and specific legal meanings in most countries, usually associated with murder. In the context of euthanasia it is a highly loaded word. Any connection suggests that the article is saying that euthanasia is murder. It's a view that many obviously disagree with. It would be blatant POV. It may be valid to add that perspective later in the article, as one alternative view of euthanasia, but I believe it has no place in the lead. HiLo48 (talk) 05:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Both sides of the "debate" around euthanasia, which is a legal debate (legalize or not legalize euthanasia, more precisely declaring or not it unpunishable) are both represented in the article. Even the lead still includes a kind of definition which is not using words like "killing" nor "homicide" but euphemisms like "ending a life"; an euphemistic definition which was not touched by my editions as it is a new paragraph in the lead. Therefore, now I could ask where is broken the WP:NPOV criteria?. But as far as some users are so obstinately convinced that sometimes killing another person (homicide) is not killing another person (homicide), then now I will only repeat that for sure those users disagree and think this is an "alternative view", but for the sources killing someone is always an homicide and euthanasia is homicide and euthanasia is defined as a form of homicide, even more, judicially it is generally defined as a form of criminal homicide and I have to remember that the criteria here is WP:OR or am I wrong?. --PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Arbitrary break August

Even though "ending a life" is usually a euphemism, it has a purpose in this case; "killing a person" does not adequately describe passive euthanasia, where the patient is allowed to die from an existing condition, and it does a disservice to the role of the patient in voluntary euthanasia. Voluntary euthanasia is a mixture of suicide and homicide; the patient decides and the doctor acquiesces.--Jorfer (talk) 03:28, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

That is your opinion Jorfer, but for the sources: from a legal point of view euthanasia is always homicide. From a legal point of view: passivity and activity has to do with the subjective elements of a crime (intention, culpability, justifications, etc.), but the objective element remains the same: someone is killed due the actions or inactions of another one: homicide remains being homicide. Evenmore, from a legal point of view dolus (intention) has not only to do with actions but also with inactions. If you disagree please provide the sources. Meanwhile: let the lead of the article as it is now. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 04:01, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, legally (it should be noted that per Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Clarity, legal language should only be used when needed), there is a more diverse view on the categorization of euthanasia than the current paragraph indicates. For example, Germany decriminalized passive euthanasia recently while retaining criminalization on assisted suicide (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10414647). Whether euthanasia is active or passive does change the objective element. How someone is killed (and I should note that a falling branch can kill someone so this is not agreeing that "killing a person" is a good phrase to use) is objective. The legal use of the term physician assisted suicide in places like Oregon where it is legal indicates a view that it is akin to suicide. The preceding statement is thus not just my opinion and not an opinion that is outside of the realm of the legal system.--Jorfer (talk) 05:18, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Please read the full disscusion. I already noticed -using sources- that only a crime can be decriminalized which means it still remaind being a crime but not punished under certain circumstances. Killing is killing, it is homicide whether it is punished or not. And it is necessary to use the legal terms because this article and the "debate" is about a legal issue: legalization or not of euthanasia. And you have to notice that Germany didn't decriminalized euthanasia but a court in a particular case considered a person shouldn't be punished. Decriminalization and legalization in Germany is something that can't be done by a court but by the lawgiver, but perhaps you read the new and thought they were true. In the lead it is quoted the general aspects the particular details must go in another place, for example it is already there the particular situation of the netherlands and Belgium. And you also must notice that assisted suicide is something different to suicide, in fact in law it is a criminal offence while suicide not. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Getting back to this edit, my problem with the sentence is not that it lacks a source, it is that it says "euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide" without specifying further according to whom euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide. Is it lawyers? Legal scholars? Politicians? Ethicists? Philosophers? The general public? Is it generally considered only among Americans, or in other places in the world as well? "X is generally considered Y" is still a weasel phrase, even if it is one used by a source. The fact that there is a source for it is not a carte blanche for quoting that source without further explanation.

The first paragraph, the allegedly definition of euthanasia claims it is "taking another life to relieve a person from suffering". Why it is not specified the source? is it a dictionary? a physician? an euthanasia supporter? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

The first paragraph says "According to the House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics, the precise definition of euthanasia is "a deliberate intervention undertaken with the express intention of ending a life, to relieve intractable suffering." In my view, that's pretty explicit: The House of Lords Select Committee on Medical Ethics are attributed with standing for this definition. If there's another definition from a better source on the topic then of course we can discuss replacing it. Gabbe (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

What purpose does it serve to have the article say "euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide"? Is it to inform the reader that euthanasia can mean killing another person? The article already says so. Is it to say that euthanasia is punishable in most parts of the world? There are more explicit ways of saying that, for example "euthanasia is punishable in most jurisdictions in the world". Is the purpose of inclusion to inform the reader of the strict judicial meaning of the word "homicide", as opposed to the somewhat less strict layman's sense of the word? Then why not do so in our article on the death penalty as well? Gabbe (talk) 07:32, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

what purpose does it serve to not say "euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide"? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

By avoiding the sentence "euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide" we can instead choose clear, direct and concise language that isn't vague about its punishability and that explains what euthanasia is about without implying that we take a stand concerning its morality. More on that below. Gabbe (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I certainly know many people do not consider it to be criminal homicide. This includes health professionals who daily make decisions, usually with close relatives, to "allow" incurably ill patients to die so as to avoid further suffering. While that is my WP:OR, it's true. It makes the word generally in that sentence a nonsense. HiLo48 (talk) 11:46, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is your opinion, and perhaps the opinion of some people you know but that is WP:OR. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 20:08, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Both sides of the "debate" around euthanasia, which is a legal debate (legalize or not legalize euthanasia, more precisely declaring or not it unpunishable) are both represented in the article. Even the lead still includes a kind of definition which is not using words like "killing" nor "homicide" but euphemisms like "ending a life" and subjective opinions like "retrieving from suffering"; an euphemistic definition which was not touched by my editions as it is a new paragraph in the lead. Therefore, now I could ask where is broken the WP:NPOV criteria?. But as far as some users are so obstinately convinced that sometimes killing another person (homicide) is not killing another person (homicide), then now I will only repeat that for sure those users disagree and think this is an "alternative view", but for the sources killing someone is always an homicide and euthanasia is homicide and euthanasia is defined as a form of homicide, even more, judicially it is generally defined as a form of criminal homicide and I have to remember that the criteria here is WP:OR or am I wrong?. --PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:50, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Pepito - this is NOT a debate about the legalisation of euthanasia or or not. It is a discussion on what should be in the Wikipedia article about euthanasia, which is also NOT about its legality or illegality. That is only one aspect. That to many in the medical world it is part of their everyday lives, based on compassion, demands that don't just emphasise legal aspects. You are strongly pushing a POV here. That many feel differently from you must show you that more than one view exists. We write with consensus, not from legal statute. HiLo48 (talk) 21:43, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

It is your opinion -Hilo- that i'm discussing the legalization or not about euthanasia, cause in fact whta Im' doing is to notice that this debate is a crucial and relevant aspect around euthanasia topic and giving the concerning legal context and facts. As you said: euthanasia is not only a medical issue but also a legal issue, but you haven't notice that its legal aspect is very relevant, as you can read in every news, programm television, etc. My editions are not POV as I am not deleting the medical aspect nor definitions already there, not even the euphemistic definition taken from a dictionary, but I'm adding the relevant aspect of the legal definition and facts around euthanasia. If doctors are practicing euthanasia not concerned about its legal status, that is their problem or their fault or perhaps their power as it means they are allowed to kill without concerning on legal punishment, but concerning about this article: you must document on sources -not on your own opinion- that the legal aspect and definition is not an issue relevant to the euthanasia topic. I have the impression that you are the one pretending to erase the legal definition because you don't agree with it, so you are the one trying to force your POV. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 22:36, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Pepito - rather than different opinions, what you and I are presenting is different perspectives. Both are valid, and that is my point. We must make every effort to make the article as neutral as possible. That euthanasia is still technically illegal in most places is important to mention, just as we must also explain that it is often also accepted as part of normal medical practice, with police and prosecutors turning a blind eye. We must describe what IS, not what we want things to be. I wish it wasn't illegal anywhere. I suspect that you wish it was more strictly prosecuted. Both of these views are irrelevant to the article. The article should just describe what euthanasia is and its position in society, not JUST in the legal statutes. HiLo48 (talk) 23:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Pepito's edit as the statements are not statements on Euthanasia but meant to clarify the legal meaning of the term "homocide". Pepito, WP:OR is not the only criteria for inclusion. WP:NPOV is an important criteria as well, for example. Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Clarity is a standard on Wikipedia for how things are written. Since the legal use differs from other more limited uses for the word, it is important to note the legal meaning of the term. Words have multiple meanings and it is important to note that. Wikipedia is not a legal encyclopedia, so it is not assumed that word usage is always in the legal context.--Jorfer (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Jorfer edits as this is not the article on homicide but on euthanasia. I also added a source expresively related on homicide in relation with euthanasia. And notice that homicide even in legal terms means: someone kills another one, exactly as the common meaning of that term, therefore you are the one trying to add specific legal terms as lawful and unlawful or criminal or non criminal. I keep the definition as clear as it can be but it must be kept as the legal aspect of euthanasia because its relevance.

Hilo: if -as you wrote- euthanasia is a criminal offence and doctors normally practice euthanasia but prosecutors are turning a blind eye as you also wrote, then some serious crimes are happening and you MUST denounce them (fill criminal charges and provide the proofs), otherwise you could be prosecuted as accomplice and because of omission to inform criminal offences. That is not my concern, but for the article on euthanasia, just answer: why must be kept the definition given by sources concerned with medical or ethical issues (first paraghraph) but not the definition given by the sources concerned on legal issues (second paraghraph) as far as the legal aspect is very relevant around euthanasia topic? and please explain how keeping ONLY the point of view which claims euthanasia is that euphemistic definition is not a POV. I've kept BOTH sides and your arte the one trying to keep just ONE.

-- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 02:36, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If homicide is to be used in the article at all, then it seems extremely relevant to note in what context it is being used. It is important to note that the use of homicide in this context does not necessarily relate to its legal status - that it is possible, in this context, for homicide to be lawful or unlawful, and thus simply saying the euthanasia is homicide does not necessarily mean that euthanasia is unlawful, whether or not that happens to be the case. Thus I agree with Gabbe's and Jorfer's additions. - Bilby (talk) 02:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Bilby you are wrong, homicide in this context has to do with its ONLY legal status. Homicide is always killing someone, there is no other "status" for homicide. If it has to do with lawful or unlawful, that is another legal thing and more specific and more complicated as implies more legal terms, but in anycase it keeps its legal definition: killing someone. And must be notice that euthanasia is not related with lawful homicide, as justifiable homicides are strictly described in the legal literature and do NOT include euthanasia. In fact the legal treatment differs in those few places where some forms of euthanasia are legally allowed, for example in Belgium it has noit to do with lawful homicide (justifiable homicide) but with excusable homicide, in other places it has to do with homicide not punishable under certain conditions, so on, so on, so you should add more and more legal terms. Therefore keep the more clear definition taken from the legal encyclopeadias. And finally: Gabbe could you please quote here the source you added, I mean: quote exactly what it says about euthanasia in relation with homicide?-- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 03:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I edit Wikipedia from several computers and only the one at the university has access to sciencedirect. I should get to that one by the end of the day. The first sentence ("Homicide can be classified into lawful (non-criminal) and unlawful (criminal) types.") is a direct quote from the source, the second one — I agree — is a summary. The source goes through different ways of categorising lawful homicides in different legal systems and notes (as you do) that one way is to distinguish between "justifiable" and "excusable". We can leave out the second sentence for now until I get access to an exact quote, or, if you like you can add a better source in the meantime. You say "justifiable homicides are strictly described in the legal literature and do NOT include euthanasia". That as may be, but it isn't up to legal literature to decide what is punishable and what isn't. That is the collective job of legislatures and the judiciary. And in some jurisdictions, euthanasia (just as killing another in self defence or the death penalty) is not a punishable form of homicide – it would be misleading for the article to imply otherwise. Gabbe (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Having looked at the source more thoroughly it appears I was mistaken. While Mohanty goes through euthanasia, self-defense, etc. within the context of different ways to define homicides, he doesn't explicitly classify them as lawful/unlawful. I apologise for my presumptuousness, and I will be more cautious in the future. Anyway, since Mohanty isn't used to substantiate this any more, I guess it's a moot point. Gabbe (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The consensus is it is not obvious which context homicide is used in here; homicide is often used in plain speech to indicate unlawful homicide which is not how the term is being used by itself in the sources ("criminal homicide" is a different matter). Your definition is still there: "West's Encyclopedia of American Law says that "a 'mercy killing' or euthanasia is generally considered to be a criminal homicide" and is normally used as a synonym of homicide committed at a request made by the patient". The preamble is just to reduce confusion. Even though it mentions the encyclopedia is a law encyclopedia, the viewer may not realize that the legal usage is different from common usage.--Jorfer (talk) 03:33, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

As an aside, I meant to say "does not necessarily relate to its criminal status" rather than "legal status" above. My apologies. - Bilby (talk) 03:54, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No Jorfer, the paragraph using the word homicide explains exactly what it means: killing someone, and moreover it shows that -according to the sources- euthanasia is generally considered a criminal homicide. That is also its general criminal status Bilby. Otherwise the "preamble" you are defending, refers to legal terms (lawful and unlawful and criminal and non-criminal) which are not clearly defined so actually add confussion and moreover I already noticed that those terms has not to do with euthanasia but with another types of homicide but homicide as such has always to do with euthanasia. Do you yourself understand the difference between unlawful and lawful, criminal and non-criminal? do you think the common meaning of those terms are also the legal meaning? do you think people understand those more specific legal terms? for example: do you know that in some lawful homicides you will also have to face a trial to demonstrate it was a criminal offence justified or excused so it is not lawful in the same way as drinking water? or do you know that a non-criminal homicide (the correct legal term is justifiable homicide) from a legal point of view remains to be a criminal offence but not liable to sanction? instead of that remember that homicide is always killing another one, be it from the legal point of view, be it from the common sense. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 04:04, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

In common English usage, homicide is often taken to equate to unlawful murder. However, when used in a legal sense it does not assume that the killing was unlawful. This is a significant difference that needs to be made clear, yet the point which makes this clear is the line that you seem to keep removing. At worst making this distinction is unnecessary, at best it clarifies the use of the term in the current context, removing a possible misunderstanding some readers may hold. While it might well be reworded, and I'd be very happy to see the wording corrected, the actual distinction seems well worth making. - Bilby (talk) 05:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Have you realized that the common sense meaning of unlawful is also different from its legal meaning? Are you going to explain also this difference? for example: are you going to explain that types of so-called unlawful homicide does mean that it is still a criminal offence thus an offence to the law? Moreover, types of lawful homicide do NOT include euthanasia but self defensse, war, arrest. Seems that you are trying to add a legal context but using english common terms (like unlawful and lawful) used as it was legal terms and that is actually misleading. Otherwise the word homicide is used in the article preeceded by its explicit meaning: killing someone, so it does not need further explanations which moreover are not really explanations but sentences with missused terms. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 05:31, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's a problem with the use of unlawful, then I'm very happy with an alternative wording. But we need to clarify what homicide means in this context, in order to avoid misunderstanding against the common use of the term. Can you suggest an alternative? - Bilby (talk) 06:30, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Pepito: I agree, all sorts of problems arise when we introduce legal terms. It unnecessarily bloats the article with definitions, technicalities and clarifications. Its one of the reasons why Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Clarity says that we should avoid legal jargon. You said above that this is not the homicide article and I agree. If the article has any pretence of informing the reader, the lead of it should say a couple of things about euthanasia. One, that it can mean killing another person by either act or omission (that is, letting another person die). Two, that it is punishable in most jurisdictions and (depending on circumstances) not punishable in a handful. Neither of these statements necessitates using the word "homicide". If we do introduce the legal term "homicide" to the lead, we must give a brief definition over what this word means in this context, since we would not be using the word in its layman sense. It is completely unacceptable to insist on letting the lead say that euthanasia is homicide while simultaneously refusing to provide a sourced clarification over what we mean by this. That is obfuscation. Gabbe (talk) 09:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

To clarify, I'm not opposed to using legal terms properly, but doing so is no excuse for being laconic. Gabbe (talk) 10:25, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Gabbe: the etimological, the legal and the common meaning of homicide is: killing someone and it means nothing else nothing less, and it is clearly defined in the lead to avoid misunderstandings. It is a generic definition. The legal consequences of killing someone are so diverse in relation with the so called euthanasia, that should be in the part of the article where it deals with its legal status, because it varies from country to country and not even the few laws which allows doctors to kill have the same treatment and terms, and your proposed word 'punishable is a more specific and difficult legal term to understand so...; I have another question: are you proposing that we also have to explain the context of the generic definition given by the first paragraph, because "good death" is just a greek word but that is not the context nor the origin of the word, but that is a word introduced by someone who considers that killing someone is something good in some cases, so it is a biased definition? Are yopu porposing to change the first paragraph to say clearly that beyond the greek meaning of the word it is killing someone? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, common usage of the word is often limited so a common misconception of the word is that it is limited to the unlawful variety, and it is within the scope of an encyclopedia to clear up misunderstandings. The entire article is dedicated to explaining Euthanasia, so the meaning of euthanasia is clear in it. The article is not dedicated to the legal classification of the term, so that context should be explained.--Jorfer (talk) 15:12, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I reverted Pepito's edits. The consensus here is that the context has to be included with the discussion Pepito has proposed. Also, passive and active need not be legal terms for them to be included in the article (see Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Clarity). You insist that euthanasia is not a legal term, but the Oregon document contradicts you: "The Act specifically prohibits euthanasia".--Jorfer (talk) 18:16, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Homicide is a criminal law type or term, murder is also a criminal law type or term but not euthanasia. So the Act tells exactly what it means or refers when says euthanasia. Passive and actiove need to be legal terms in the paraghraph which goes on legal definition -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 18:39, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it doesn't (see http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml). This is the only place euthanasia is used (and the active designation is apparently legally understood as well).:

127.880 s.3.14. Construction of Act. Nothing in ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall be construed to authorize a physician or any other person to end a patient's life by lethal injection, mercy killing or active euthanasia. Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law. [1995 c.3 s.3.14]

--Jorfer (talk) 18:46, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

That warning precisely says the Act must not be construed as allowing euthanasia, mercy killing or authorizing a doctor to end a patient's life by lethal injection, seems used as synonims. Is the Act saying that euthanasia is a legal term? is the Act claiming euthanasia is a criminal offence? Is actually euthanasia a criminal offence? Murder and manslaughter are criminal offences but not euthanasia. That's what I'm taking about. If a doctor face a charge and is liable to punishment, he will not be punished for euthanasia but for murder. Concerning the article I organized a little bit the paragraphs. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I did not touch the first paragraph as Jorfer reverted my sourced editions taken from the Britanica enyclopedia. I organized the second paragraph in two paragraphs to imporve the reading, but I kept all Jorfer editions in the lead of the article. Any problem? Bilby, could you take a loook of the wording now? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 20:14, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

You were warned by another user (User:SarekOfVulcan) and not me about the WP:3RR violation (I was going to warn you that you probably violated it but he or she got to you first), so he or she was of the opinion that you broke WP:3RR. Whether "euthanasia" is a legal term or not is irrelevant. Commonly used words are used just as well, in legal documents. Yes, active euthanasia would fall under the categorization of homicide and under the vast majority of jurisdiction, murder.--Jorfer (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

There is no need of more discussions about euthanasia being or not a legal term or if that is relevant or not; there is no need of discussion if you did not undestand my point; there is no need of discussion because I am sure SarekOfVulcan and you have already noticed that I dind't deleted but I have kept all your edition although I broke it into two paragraphs to improve the reading. Any problem with it? Could user:Bilby take a look on the wording? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 21:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Quickone, 6 July 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} Grammar issue in the 3rd paragraph "Much hinges on a whether a particular death was considered an" the first 'a' should be removed

Quickone (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Gabbe (talk) 20:31, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Placement of paragraphs on legality

I think the current version is much more preferable to previous versions. However, I do have concerns over the length of the lead. The second and third paragraphs comprise about 214 words out of a total of about 381 in the lead, or approximately 56%. Per WP:LEAD, I think those two paragraphs would be more appropriate to beef up the currently very brief "Legal status" section of the article instead, leaving a short summary in the lead. Gabbe (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I wouldn't object to that, but make sure if you summarize the paragraph in the lead that you keep it balanced. I do not even want to touch the article now after what happened.--Jorfer (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Animal Euthanasia

Stray animals, sick/injured animals, unwanted animals are all routinely put to death. This is generally called euthanasia. Even animals slaughtered for meat is supposed to be humane and may be considered to be euthanasia. The article, as written, addresses only human deaths. 173.66.64.90 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

That is why the top says "For mercy killings performed on animals, see Animal euthanasia".--Jorfer (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Mention T4 in the lead?

I've moved the following recently added paragraph from the lead here in order to discuss it:

Euthanasia was exploited on a widespread scale by the Nazis during the Second World War under Action T4, a euthanasia programme that sought to exterminate "lives unworthy of life" as part of their "racial hygiene" concept. As a result at least 200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people were killed by medication, starvation, or in the gas chambers between 1939 and 1945.

The connection between Action T4 and Euthanasia is not trivial and uncontested, see for example the section "Action T4#T4 and euthanasia", as well as the perennial and quite lengthy discussions on Talk:Action T4. If we are to include a mention of Action T4 and its connection with euthanaisa in the lead of this article it must be thoroughly sourced and should include all relevant positions on the topic. Gabbe (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree - Action T4 isn't accepted as euthanasia in the current sense. As such, it seems an error to present it as if it is in the lead. - Bilby (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I came across Action T4 quite by chance whilst translating articles for the portal on the Elbe Sandstone Mountains and, specifically on the Sonnenstein Death Institute. Since it was actually called the "Euthanasia Program (Action T4)" and appears to be the largest (and only?) example of a state using euthanasia on a mass scale, it seemed entirely appropriate to me that this article on euthanasia should mention it, both in the lede and in the main body (referenced, of course), in order to maintain balance and be complete. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

There's no doubt that Action T4 was referred to as "Euthanasia" by the Nazis, nor is it disputed that Action T4 was the largest programme of its kind. What is disputed is whether Action T4 was a form of euthanasia or not. Gabbe (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Well then, it seems quite reasonable to include that in this article and highlight the different standpoints, for and against, taken by the authoritative sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. Gabbe (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

It's worth noting that there aren't really a lot of different standpoints on this - Action T4, in the sense of the debate held now, is not considered to the euthanasia. Historically there is debate about whether or not action T4 and euthanasia share some basic concepts, and Action T4 has traditionally arisen in the slippery slope debate as a possible consequence of allowing euthanasia, but Action T4 and euthanasia aren't generally regarded as being the same thing. (Involuntary killing of healthy individuals for the sake of the state is generally distinct from voluntary or non-voluntary killing for the sake of the patient). - Bilby (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I agree that few, if anyone, would support euthanasia as practised by the Nazis, I'm not sure the sources are universal in dismissing their actions as not being "euthanasia". The Oxford Dictionary definition of euthanasia comes close to it and as recently as the mid-nineties, the memorial site themselves - hardly likely to be proponents of what was committed there - published a book called "Nazi Euthanasia Crimes in Saxony". Either way, all I am saying is that the subject is relevant and, if there are differing viewpoints, they should be exposed here in a balanced and unemotive way (reflecting the sources). --Bermicourt (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't one of support, but one of definitions - few, if any, would define euthanasia today in such a way as to include Action T4 as euthanasia. That the term was used to described Action T4 at the time is clear, hence its use elsewhere, but this isn't the same as saying that it is euthanasia. I don't see a problem with raising it, as Action T4 is, as I mentioned, pointed to as a possible outcome of legal euthanasia, but I wouldn't want to conflate the two, and the distinction would need to be clear. - Bilby (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

What I certainly realize is: those who say that Aktion T4 is not euthanasia are those who support euthanasia, therefore they are trying to white-wash the term. But actually, just to mention only one detail, Aktion T4 was judged in Nuremberg based precisely on the legal fact that euthanasia was not legal in Germany then. Some people here said that the killing of patients made by the Nazi-Germany is different than modern euthanasia because it has different intentions, but that is a superfluos and naive claim. It is also well documented that nazis used also such sort of intentions to get a positive public opinion for their programs included the euthanasia one, they even made a movie and their porgramm were partially supported by the euthanasia supporters in America and England. Actually nazis refered to the killing of patients as being a mercy death, thus for compassion. Of course their claimed intentions do not denny their real doings and interests (racism, economics, etc.) But back to the present, is not solely me who have good reasons and proofs to warn that modern euthanasia is also implemented in favour of less sacral interests than those claimed by their supporters. So I think one can not define nothing by considering solely its ideal intentions but one should consider its related real facts. The objective perspective applies not only to realize that nazi euthanasia was an euphemistic name for an indeed killing of patients, but a factual aproximation should also be applied in order to consider and to define the modern so called euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

Action T4 used the term to legitimise a campaign of murder. That doesn't make the use of the term accurate. And it certainly doesn't make the use of the term accurate in today's debate or by today's understanding. That said, I do support mentioning it - just not in such a way as to conflate the current understanding of euthanasia with Action T4. - Bilby (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Does not also current euthanasia supporters use the term to legitimise a campaign of murder? Of course an euthanasia supporter will say "no", exactly as the nazis claimed. Be it just another similarity. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 00:16, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It goes beyond simply claims and to the actual process of determining if someone qualifies for euthanasia. Modern euthanasia requires voluntary consent. Also, any claim that euthanasia proponents arguments are a mask for their real intentions are WP:FRINGE and likely Wikipedia:Libel and must be treated in accordance with Wikipedia policy on the matter.--Jorfer (talk) 01:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

That euthanasia is a mask to legitimise murder[8] as needy for other interests (like economics)[9][10][11] is claimed by reliable and verifiable sources. In practice, in a lot of cases modern euthanasia does not requieres a voluntary consent of the victim even in those few countries were it has been legalized (see Groningen protocol), and it is illegal and considered a crime in most of the countries, for example murder or mercy homicide, therefore in those countries the support of euthanasia should be understand as incitement or apology of crime whih in non-legal terms means: using a word as a mask to legitimise a crime. Those are arguments not legal threats but unavoidable terms when dealing on so called euthanasia. But should I ask Jorfer, if he is legal threatening me of calumny or the sources? whatever, I do not need for such an answer. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 03:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Suggested text for Action T4 section

Here is a proposed text for the article. The main section is a cut-down version of the lede from the Action T4 article and aims to stick to referenced facts. I have placed the words "Euthanasia Programme" in quotes to indicate that this was its name and cited the official definition, thus leaving readers to form their own conclusions on whether it was or wasn't euthanasia. Hopefully that keeps POV out of it:

Lede Text

During the Second World War, the Nazis ran a "Euthanasia Programme", codenamed Action T4, which was supposed to grant "mercy deaths" to incurable patients. In practice it was used to exterminate "lives unworthy of life" as part of their "racial hygiene" concept and, as a result, at least 200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people were killed by medication, starvation, or in the gas chambers between 1939 and 1945.

Nazi Euthanasia Programme "Action T4"

Main article: Action T4

[[:Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg|thumb|150px|The poster reads: "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this patient with a hereditary disease costs the community during his lifetime. Comrade, that is your money too."]] During the Second World War, Nazi Germany initiated a "Euthanasia Programme", usually referred to since as "Action T4", that officially ran from September 1939 to August 1941, but continued unofficially until the demise of the Nazi regime in 1945, during which physicians killed thousands of patients "judged incurably sick" in accordance with Hitler's secret memo of 1 September 1939.

There is evidence that Action T4 was preceded by "trials" following Hitler's instruction to Karl Brandt in 1938 to evaluate the euthanasia petition of a boy, who was later killed in July 1939. Hitler also instructed Brandt to proceed with similar cases. In May 1939 the Committee for the Scientific Treatment of Severe, Genetically Determined Illness was founded and a secret order to start the registration of ill children was issued on 18 August 1939.

Official Nazi files reveal that, during the official stage of Action T4, 70,273 people were killed. However, the Nuremberg Trials found that German and Austrian physicians continued the extermination of patients after October 1941 and that about 275,000 people in all were killed under Action T4. More recent research based on files recovered after 1990 gives a figure of at least 200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people who were killed by medication, starvation, or in the gas chambers between 1939 and 1945.

The "euthanasia decree", signed by Hitler on 1 September 1939 states:

Reich Leader Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are charged with the responsibility for expanding the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, to the end that patients considered incurable according to the best available human judgment [menschlichem Ermessen] of their state of health, can be granted a mercy death [Gnadentod].

References:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bermicourt (talk • contribs) 07:39, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

The text suggested above provides a pretty clear description of Action T4. However, it does not provide for much discussion over the connection between T4 and the rest of the article. In fact, there's almost no discussion at all, the word "euthanasia" has merely been put in quotes. For example, we could add a quote from the article "'Euthanasia': a confusing term, abused under the Nazi regime and misused in present end-of-life debate" (doi:10.1007/s00134-006-0256-9) which says that:

Judging strictly from its wording, the intention of [the decree bringing about T4] appears very similar to the present understanding of “euthanasia.” However, under the Nazi regime true medical examinations of the patients subjected to the program did not take place, the patients were not necessarily incurably sick, and there was no “mercy.” [...] The program was aimed at “cleaning the deck for the coming war,” and what was euphemistically called “euthanasia,” in reality was ethnic cleansing.

and in its summary, the article further states that

The term “euthanasia,” as it is used in the present Dutch and Belgian legal provisions, refers to the facilitation of a gentle death by a physician at a patient's request and consent. [...] Under the Nazi regime, however, the term “euthanasia” was abused as a camouflage word for manslaughter and murder of innocent subgroups of the population on the grounds of disabilities, religious beliefs, and discordant individual values, with no consent whatsoever.

Would that addition be acceptable? Gabbe (talk) 09:29, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Quote 1 is good in drawing attention to the difference between definition and practice; apart from the last sentence which is POV and not accurate on 2 counts: first, whilst there was an ethnic element, most of those killed were e.g. mentally ill or mentally retarded Germans e.g. from old people's homes or mental institutions. Second, it is difficult to see why the programme would have any real impact on the war effort ("cleaning the deck for the coming war"?) not least because it happened during the war, not before it.

Quote 2: the second sentence is ok although it comes across as a rather emotive which slightly undermines its point.

So for now, I'd go with the first part of quote 1 plus quote 2 with references. Hope this helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

My general problem is that the proposed text effectively restates content already in Action T4, but doesn't place Action T4 in the wider context of euthanasia. What is probably needed is a proper history section where Action T4 is mentioned in terms of the relationship to the early 20th century euthanasia debate and its impact on the debate that followed, rather than a duplicate of content available elsewhere in more detail. The difficulty being that such a section will take a while to develop. Mind you, the whole article needs work. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:42, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

About those quotes bringed by Gabbe: I found that both of them but evidently the second one try to imply that the opinions and intentions from Dutch and Belgian law were undeniable facts, while the intentions proclaimed by the nazi-euthanasia programm do not. It is a self-confesed fact that the authors of this book are pro-euthanasia, and I already noticed above that pro euthanasia supporters usually judge the nazi euthanasia program based on the facts but instead judge current euthanasia based on their claimed intentions. That is POV and there are a lot of sources which contested that subjective and biased approximation; not solely the nazi euthanasia programm but every euthanasia should be considered and defined by an objective and factual approximation. For example, it should not be presented as a fact that pro-euthanasia law in Dutch and Belgium is something good as "gentle death" and such a things; some sources I bringed, explicity refer to that sort of garnish of the language, used in order to white-wash the real facts (killing of patients, etc.) surrounding euthanasia support. The own opinion and intentions that the lawgivers and the supporters claim about their pro-euthanasia laws, should not be presented as facts exactly as the capital punishment can not be defined as a "correct killing" just because there exists (what a shame!) such a laws which allow and defend an allegedely State's right to kill people. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:48, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the above, but "intent" plays a key role in the euthanasia debate. The consequence - that a person dies - is a given. What is therefore important in the debate is the reasons for that death, and whether the death was justified. Thus issues such as intent and autonomy come to the fore. For example, the principle of double effect has often been seen as distinct from euthanasia, in spite of involving actions which hasten a person's death, specifically because the intent of those actions are not to bring about that particular outcome. Similarly, Action T4 is not considered euthanasia, in the modern sense, in part because the intent of the action was not to relieve suffering, but to limit the cost of the disabled on society. (Other issues are also raised, of course, which are not so based on intent - such as the involuntary nature of the killings). I think Singer described it well, in spite of being a utilitarian, when he stated that the Nazis never had a euthanasia program in the proper sense of the term. - Bilby (talk) 05:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well it depends on the definition of "euthanasia" and the Nazi definition is similar to that of the Oxford Dictionary, those in this article and mentioned above. How the Nazis applied it in practice is another matter.

Anyway, we're getting away from the proposal to include an acceptable form of words in the article. I agree Action T4 should form part of a history section in due course, but until one is written, can we at least agree on the compromise above, imperfect though it probably is? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:40, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

To clarify: The paragraphs I listed above are taken verbatim from the source I provided. If they are to be included in the article (along with Bermicourt's suggested T4 text), they must be carefully attributed to the authors — and not stated as an undisputed fact. This applies regardless of whether the paragraphs are added as explicit quotes, or (preferably) paraphrased. What I wanted to do was provide a source detailing one view of the connection between T4 and the article topic, feel free to suggest other opinions. Gabbe (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

This is why we're told not to use dictionary definitions in philosophy. :) Actually, one thing I'd like to see is a proper definition section - I've been working on it, but there's been a lot of literature since Beauchamp and Davidson, so catching up on the complexities is tricky. Part of the problem is a tendency to define euthanasia for a particular research study, even when those offering the definition acknowledge that it isn't accurate.

My concern is a mix of due weight and context. Bermicourt has done a great job summarising Action T4, but without putting it in context that's a big chunk of the article devoted to something that is generally not regarded as euthanasia. Context would help, as without it even using "euthanasia" in quotes suggests a correlation that isn't in most of the literature. My assumption is that it will end up being a paragraph in a longer history section. I'll see if I can come up with something to help once I get this marking done. - Bilby (talk) 06:59, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I've started improving the definition, and I expect that will change a bit as other editors get involved. I'm not in a position to do the history section at the moment, as it has taken several months to catch up on the current state of the definitions debate, and I still need to do some more research on that topic before catching up on the history literature. However, my thought was that there are two ways to address due weight - reduce the coverage of the new section, or increase the coverage of the rest. So it seemed to me that if expand the general discussion, we will be better able to fit the new Action T4 section, covering my due weight concern. I hope that is ok. I still think we'll need some context and some commentary, per Gabbe, but that can come.

In regard to mentioning it in the lead, while looking at the definition I realised how unsatisfactory the current lead is - we'll probably need to rewrite it later, whatever happens. - Bilby (talk) 00:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Euthanasia in America

The major problem with this article is that it misuses the term "physician assisted suicide" and "voluntary euthanasia." Physician assisted suicide is not the same as voluntary euthanasia, which is illegal in America. (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year4.pdf?ga=t) This link is a report on the Die with Dignity Act in Oregon, it clearly states that euthanasia is illegal, and is not the same as assisted suicide. The article is locked, though. These are major errors that need to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conundrumbandit (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It clearly states that only active euthanasia is widely illegal, the term "euthanasia" in its legal context is not used for what in other contexts is called passive euthanasia. Withdrawing life support with patient consent is considered voluntary, passive euthanasia in a non-legal context, but it is legal throughout the US as you can see by reading the reference.--Jorfer (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

An introduction to Euthanasia in America should not be void of mention of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a.k.a. "Dr. Death," a Michigan physician who participated in over 100 cases of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in the late twentieth century (See Caddell, D. P. & Newton, R. R. (1995). Euthanasia: American attitudes toward the physician's role. Soc. Sci. Med., 40, 1671-1681. Boyler1 (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Under the jurisdictions section on the right side of the page, Japan should also be listed. Japanese culture is less prone to view suicide as a sin or a crime than most Western cultures, and therefore the Japanese public have differing attitudes toward euthanasia than many other societies. (See: Otani, I. (2010). "Good manner of dying" as a normative concept: "Autocide," "granny-dumping" and discussions on euthanasia/death with dignity in Japan. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, no. 19, 49-63.)Boyler1 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Under the History sub-heading on the main euthanasia page, there should be mention of more history than just the Nazi T4 initiative. In pre-modern Europe, people often removed the pillow from beneath a dying person's head or placed the dying person on the ground in order to hasten death and subsequently shorten the remaining length of time suffering (See: Stolberg, M. (2007). Active euthanasia in pre-modern society, 1500-1800: Learned debates and popular practices. Social History of Medicine, 20, 205-221.)Boyler1 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Under the History sub-heading on the main euthanasia page, there should also be mention of ancient societies' euthanasia practices. In ancient Greece and Rome, citizens could acquire poison from a physician for the purpose of ending their own lives, and in Sparta, voluntary euthanization of the elderly was practiced (See: Gesundheit, B., Steinberg, A., Glick, S., Or, R., & Jotkovitz, A. (2006). Euthanasia: An overview and the Jewish perspective. Cancer Investigation, 24, 621-629.)Boyler1 (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Intent

Bilby said:

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the above, but "intent" plays a key role in the euthanasia debate. The consequence - that a person dies - is a given...Action T4 is not considered euthanasia, in the modern sense, in part because the intent of the action was not to relieve suffering, but to limit the cost of the disabled on society.

— Bilby

Yes, you did not understand my point. One can not assume that nazi-eutahnasia-program's intentions were bad and masked but current-euthanasia's intentions are good and clear, in order to define euthanasia. A proclaim of intentions made by the euthanasia supporters is not a proof exactly as the intentions claimed by the nazis were also not any proof of their innocence. Proclaimed intentions do not explain the real contexts and facts. There are investigations that contextualize euthanasia and investigates the real interests and circumstances (economics, politics, etc.) around and beneath it, thus the facts and not solely the proclaimed intentions. But those investigations also contextualize and explains the use of certain proclaimed intentions and certain language used for example by the propaganda-support, and they even compare the language used in different moments by the pro-euthanasia movements included by the nazis. For example: those reliable sources have noticed that a "modern sense" of euthanasia is not a fact but an opinion and in many cases a sort of euphemism used by the euthanasia supporters to white-wash that term of its nazi past. So, those investigation goes far beyond than a very simplistic dictionary definition based on summary claimed intentions. I have provided some of those sources. Trying to define euthanasia based on the intentions claimed by its supporters in a dictionary is subjective, superfluous, naive and POV. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, defining euthanasia by its intent is the standard approach - see, for example, Bordy's "an act of euthanasia is one in which one person (A) kills another person (B) for the benefit of the second person, who actually does benefit from being killed", where intent plays a key role ("for the benefit of"); Williams's "... either an assisted suicide or a killing by another for humanitarian reasons and by merciful means, generally with the consent of the person killed" ("humanitarian reasons going to the intent of the action); or perhaps Beauchamp and Davidson's third necessary condition:

"B's primary reason for intending A's death is cessation of A's (actual or predicted future) suffering or irreversible comatoseness, where B does not intend A's death for a diferent primary reason, though there may be other relevant reasons; and (b) there is sufficient current evidence for either A or B that the causal means to A's death will not produce any more suffering than would be produced for A if B were not to intervene."

(Beauchamp and Davidson actually go into some detail about why "there must be a beneficient motive or a humanitarian reason in cases of euthanasia"). I also rather like Wreen, who argued, amongst other things, that "euthanasia is defined in terms of the intention to confer a benefit, a good, on a creature" (although that actual wording was more to show why plants and non-sentient animals can't be euthanised).

Many commentators relating Action T4 to the modern euthanasia debate consistently make this point: Gardella argued that "the program had little if anything to do with mercy and everything to do with saving money and freeing medical resources for the German war effort", referring to the intent of the actions, and Gardella wasn't an advocate and was warning of risks with euthanasia. From Kushe we get "the motivation behind these killings was neither mercy nor respect for autonomy: it was, rather, racial prejudice and the belief that the racial purity of the Volk required the elimination of certain individuals and groups". Michalsen and Reinhardt even go to the point of arguing that the Nazi's abuse of the term has so damaged it, and is so unlike the current debate, the we shouldn't even use the term "euthanasia" to describe what is being argued for today.

The point is, I guess, that this is ethics - intent is core to ethical debate, along with consequences and actions. There are, as you suggest, arguments that euthanasia comes to the fore during times of economic stress, although that has been far less of the issue in the last couple of decades, but the modern debate is very much about the intent. If the intent is not to relieve suffering, then the action is not, according to the modern understanding, euthanasia. - Bilby (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Bilby, you missed my point. And you are wrong, the thing is not limited to intents although some sources certainly do. But even if we limit to the intents, I also noticed that the intents proclaimed around euthanasia in the "modern sense" were also proclaimed by the nazis, and viceversa. Even the claimed definition of euthanasia and the legal debate around have not changed in its essentials, as any one can read[12][13][14]. But certainly claiming that the nazi-euthanasia intents were just a mask but the current intents do not, it is a sort of naive that turns any serious source I introduced as useless. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case, no, I have no idea at all about what you're talking about. My main point, though, in regard to Action T4, is that if I kill someone in order to steal their money, but say that my intent was to relieve suffering, then I may be claiming euthanasia, but it is not euthanasia. if the Nazis claimed that they were killing people in order to relieve suffering, but they were actually killing people for economic benefit or for eugenics, then they were not engaged in a euthanasia program. I'm not claiming that all current intents are pure - I am saying that intent is a core part of the definition, and if you don't have the intent to relieve suffering, you may be claiming that you are engaged in euthanasia, but according to the modern understanding, you are not.

A good history section would explore why euthanasia was proposed, and it would look at times when the push for euthanasia was related to economic benefits, eugenics, or other aims. What it shouldn't do is claim that killing for eugenics or economic benefits instead of for the benefit of the patient actually is euthanasia, according to current definitions, and this would need to be highlighted. - Bilby (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should add that I think "modern sense" is a bad term, as intent has been in place since at least Moore in the 16th century, and in a general sense, as you say, the definition is more-or-less consistent. I guess my distinction is with the work from the 50's on, where there has been more of an effort to get to the nature of the definition - Wreen and Beauchamp being but two of those who have spent time clarifying the limits and what is meant. - Bilby (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps we are trying to define a ghost as perhaps there lacks a factual evidence of an existing euthanasia (good death, good killing), at least one for the beneffit of the patient, although each euthanasia supporter, included the nazis, has claimed that intent. I don't want to engage in a trascendental discussion if a dead patient is still a patient who can testify that death was something good and better than life. Thus, I just have to say that I strongly believe that at any rate one lives better alive than dead. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Original intent of the proposal

Folks, this is becoming a subjective argument about the merits (or not) of "modern euthanasia" vs. "Nazi euthanasia" which is interesting, but not essential to the limited expansion to this article that Gabbe and I are proposing. Can we please go back to that?

@ClaudioSantos. Please be careful. In amending your comments, you accidentally deleted mine, hence I have reinstated it above. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not realized it. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why I separated the two. :) This relates more to an eventual definition section. - Bilby (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I summarize my point: nazi-euthanasia programm can not be presented as it was not euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Er, surely you've just contradicted yourself? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not. --ClaudioSantos (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So far Bermicourt and Claudios support the addition of information on Action T4 to this article. Bilby and myself support a much more limited addition of information on T4. While Bilby has focused on intentions, Wikipedia cannot use intentions to make a distinction. Wikipedia:Verifiability prohibits that. What is verifiable is that many more scholars disagree with the Nazis use of the term "euthanasia" versus the modern usage. What is also verifiable is the different circumstances surrounding Action T4 from that occurring today (e.g. husband deciding to take a wife off life support versus a government doing so; it should be noted that the earlier case is mostly not considered euthanasia by the government in the US). Action T4 is important to the history of involuntary euthanasia, but modern euthanasia is voluntary. The modern definition of the term and the modern definition's origin is the focus of this article and thus should be given more weight. A section on the history of voluntary euthanasia needs to be added first before Action T4 is added. Bibly seems to be working on this. This is important in keeping with WP:UNDUE.--Jorfer (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a passing comment, "intention", in the sense I mean it, only refers to how euthanasia is defined - that it, it is defined as an act intended to benefit the subject. Thus I'm referring to the argument given by many scholars who disagree with considering Action T4 euthanasia, (ie that it wasn't intended to benefit the subjects) rather than the intent of anyone involved in this discussion. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also Claudio, I looked at Groningen Protocol and found that "The Groningen Protocol does not give physicians unassailable legal protection...no black-letter law exists in this area" This means it is not actually law; this is because it is a widely accepted interpretation of the law. Legally, parents are widely considered the consent givers for children in almost all matters. One more thing. mentioning libel is not to connote a legal threat. It is simply to point out that any accusations of masked intentions of supporters of Euthanasia in Wikipedia's voice is against Wikipedia policy and possibly against US law.---Jorfer (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have provided some sources that claim that Aktion T4-nazi-euthanasia-program can not be presented as it was not euthanasia. And there are even more reliable and verifiable sources, and they are not few. Therefore it is also a fact that many sources claim that AktionT4-euthanasia-programm was euthanasia. About WP-policies, etc., perhaps it is useless to repeat that considering euthanasia support as a crime (e.g. incitement to murder, incitement to crime) and a mask to cover murders, is something claimed also by reliable and verifiable sources (I provided some), surely based on the legal fact that in most countries euthanasia is nothing else but a crime. Thet is a claim that could be inserted at any place in the article as it is claimed by reliable and verifiable sources. So I do not understand if Jorfer is going to put a complaint in the noticeboard against those sources. Whatever. Also I do not undertsand Jorfer's point about Groening protocol. Indeed, as noticed by Jorfer, if parents are those who decide about the euthanasia (the killing) of their children, then certainly it is not voluntary euthanasia, so the current use of euthanasia and that term is not restricted to voluntary euthanasia as Jorfer firstly stated. But perhaps it is useful to notice that actually AktionT4-nazi-euthanasia-program started with the killing of children and it was also needed the consent from their parents to proceed with the euthanasia (the killing) like in the current euthanasia-Groening Protocol, therefore it seems to be another identity between nazi euthanasia and current euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst no-one today is advocating a Nazi-style programme, Action T4 was still a form of euthanasia, albeit involuntary and horrific in the way it was used, and should still form part of the history of euthanasia in this general article, not swept under the carpet. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It should not be swept under the carpet. But context matters. The context is that what was performed in Germany was not necessarily what was meant as euthanasia prior to the Action T4 program, and is not what is meant as euthanasia now. The arguments connecting the two are largely slippery slope arguments - euthanasia will lead to Action T4 - rather than arguments that the term means the same thing in both contexts. Ignoring that would be doing the reader a disservice.

I note that in the Action T4 article a good chunk of time is spent discussing the relationship of Action T4 to euthanasia - the context that I'm referring to. It seems to me that if Action T4 is to be covered here, that's the bit that matters. - Bilby (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Claudios, the point is that the programs are designed as voluntary, but laws applying to the consent minors result in a different legal situation for them, so I will clarify, modern euthanasia programs are not involuntary in the way that Action T4 was if you. You cannot infer that because it is illegal in most jurisdictions that it is because mostly considered a mask to cover murder (at least on Wikipedia per WP:OR). All this indicates is that most countries view the cons of euthanasia as outweighing the benefits. This does not mean that they do not believe the reasons supports give are genuine. The potential reasons may include feasibility of implementation, for example. Your sources need to reflect the weight of your accusation.--Jorfer (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Jorfer I am not implying nothing, I am just going to summarize the thing: many sources say explicity: euthanasia is murder and a term used to cover murders. Jorfer, frankly, I am getting tired to repeat something that seems you are unable to understand as you even swaped the premise and the conclusion of my sentence and put them upside down. Jorfer you are the one just arguing your own point of views. I do not know if I even have to refer to your "argument": "current involuntary euthanasia is not involuntary in the way that involuntary-nazi-euthanasia was". To be honest that sounds very ridiculous and superfluos like sayig "this is not that because this is not that", and this is not a personal attack but my objective appreciation of that sort of sentence. I noticed that involuntary euthanasia against children is practiced today and involuntary euthanasia against children was also practiced by the nazis and even that both of them required the parents consent. Then I showed two similarities, instead of your answer which absolutely lacks the difference you just solely claimed. If sources claim that nazi euthanasia was euthanasia, then is POV to demand them "to reflect the weight of their accusations", that criteria is not the criteria about sources but just to be reliable and verifiable.

Bilby, you said that "what was performed in Germany was not necessarily what was meant as euthanasia prior to the Action T4 program", but here is a source[15] that shows that the euthanasia movement firstly supported the nazi-euthanasia programme and if they made some critics it was just about the methods but they supported the results(!). This source shows that the american euthanasia movement only tried to differentiate and to emphatize on "voluntary" because of the public opinion against nazism. That source also shows a lot of identities between nazi euthanasia and the euthanasia movement at that time, for instance actually also the american euthanasia movement introduced a bill to legalize involuntary euthanasia for "idiots, imbeciles, etc." exactly in the same way as it was understood by the nazi-euthanasia programme. Other similarities have been also stated between the english euthanasia movement and the nazi euthanasia programme, see for exaple this source[16]. For isntance, the concept of "mercy killing" with or without voluntarity was something common to the rethoric of the euthanasia movement and was used not solely by the nazis. These sources even states the reponsability that had the euthanasia supporters in the subsequent massive killing. And so on. Similarities to the current euthansia are also to be found and described by many sources. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never denied similarities - I only deny that use of the term in the debate held today is not the same as the use of the term in Action T4, to the extent that there are essentially different things, and that the commentators I've read have also argued that the use of the term prior to Action T4 was not generally in keeping with the way it was used in Germany - including in how the term was officially used in the country. The literature comparing Action T4 today does not claim that it and euthanasia are the same thing, but the euthanasia can lead to Action T4. It continues to be an important part of euthanasia history and debate, but that doesn't mean that the use of the term is accurate. At any rate, this is pointless. Over time I and others will provide the needed context to the article.

In regard to you other comment, there is no legal involuntary euthanasia being practiced today in any jurisdiction. - Bilby (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

AktionT4-nazi-in(non)voluntary-euthanasia was not legal too. Groening protocol is a current juridical agreement that allows the doctors in The Netherland to commit in(non)voluntary euthanasia against newborns: prosecutor will not prosecute the doctor. So involuntary eithanasia is being practiced in ate least one jurisdiction. If it is practiced illegal everywhere, I just noticed that aktion T4-nazi-euthanasia programm was also no legal.-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. They are considered to be separate concepts. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. But, as you seem lost and drowned under terms, then I have to say it in plain words: whatever be the euphemis used to mask the killing of children perpetrated by doctors, the facts are: during the nazi-euthanasia-AkTiont4-programme, doctors killed children using the motto euthanasia, and nowdays following the Groening Protocol doctors still kill children using the same motto: euthanasia. Parents' consent was "required" then and parents' consent is still "required" now, although certainly was the doctor who had and still has the last word and main responsability. They argued "mercy" then, they argue "mercy" now. If it was illegal then and it is illegal now, then that is another similarity, and I certainly can note some other else, even essential ones. And I also remember some other cases than Groening Protocol, such as the recent attempt to kill one little baby in Canada, against his parents' will. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to catch up on your history and the definitions of types of euthanasia? There's not much point in continuing this if you continue to make fundamental errors. It seems best to drop this and return to trying to improve the article. - Bilby (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No Bibly, you are evading the point and trying to hide the thing in terms and euphemisms. The killing of children by doctors is called today non-voluntary euthanasia (and by some authors, certainly not all of them), at nazi time the killing of children was called euthanasia or gnadentod (mercy death), but the point, evaded by you, is: during nazis-euthanasia programm the doctors killed children and today also the doctors kill children, both of them use the same motto: euthanasia. Both of them requiere the parent's consent, both of them argue "mercy", and both of them are not legal. So there are fundamental factual similarities and both used the same term euthanasia. So, it seems you are not imporving nothing but evading the dicussion in order to force your own point of view. That is really a fundamental error. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there's no value in continuing. Action T4 is mentioned in the article, and we'll slowly expand the history to handle the weight problems and context. - Bilby (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already noticed that value (worth, unworth, unworthy life, etc.) is your criteria. Nothing personal (person=mask) but certainly a fundamental and societal error. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can so badly misread what I'm saying, either I'm saying it wrong, or you're not going to pick it up. Time to move on, and my apologies for wasting other' editor's time with what proved to be a pointless digression that wasn't necessary to improve the article. - Bilby (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ronpanzer, 9 May 2011

Stealth Euthanasia

Stealth euthanasia is a method used in the United States and imposes death without an official recognition of the procedure. Stealth euthanasia is often accomplished through the "Third Way" method of terminally-sedating a non-agitated patient continuously while assuring that no fluids are provided to the patient. Through terminal sedation, the patient dies through dehydration while in a medically-induced coma.

Stealth Euthanasia

• "Serving Patients Who May Die Soon and Their Families: The Role of Hospice and Other Services" by Joanne Lynn, MD; JAMA. 2001;285(7):925-932.
• "Responding to Intractable Terminal Suffering: The Role of Terminal Sedation and Voluntary Refusal of Food and Fluids" Timothy E. Quill, MD; Ira R. Byock, MD; and for the ACP-ASIM End-of-Life Care Consensus Panel.
• "Palliative Care: The New Stealth Euthanasia" by John Mallon.
• "Creeping euthanasia: In many places, it advances by stealth" by Alex Schadenberg.
• Stealth Euthanasia: Health Care Tyranny in America (Hospice, Palliative Care and Health Care Reform.

Ronpanzer (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That's hardly a reliable source, especially for such an inflammatory claim. The author (apparently you) notes in the foreword that the entire book is comprised of anecdotal evidence. As your username is the same as the author of the work you're citing, please read our guideline on conflict of interest. — Bility (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

AktionT4, historic section

I have deleted a quote dealing on current legislation in section dealing with the history of euthanasia. I've kept the argument while I just addded an argument dealing with the history of euthanasia. Those sources points the relation and confluencing within eugenics movemente, euthanasia and the nazi euthanasia porgram. At any rate the quote is unduly too long. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I desisted on the last changes. I prefered to add a new subsection dealing on the historic relation on eugenics and euthanasia, and I have quoted some sources. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Eugenetics

I severly doubt the addition of the paragraph about eugenetics. Connecting those two seems rather dodgy. I suggest the removal of the entire paragraph. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm OK with that, but I think maybe a sentence or two from The Black Stork could be appropriate in the History section. I also don't think the sentences: "The origins of euthanasia in Nazi Germany commenced before the Second World War. The parents of a disabled child campaigned to euthanize him, the case was put before Hitler who agreed with the parents, this killing went ahead 25th July 1939" belong in the lead. Jesanj (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Numerous reliable and verifiable sources connect the history of eugenics with the history of euthanasia[17]. If it seems "dodgy" for an user is not a relevant criteria to take out the paragraphs. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that eugenetics use euthanesia as a methode to reach their goal, does not make it part of euthanasia. Eugenetics is in fact not more then a breeding-program, like those used in farm-practices. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I am not arguing but I'm just citing the sources, for example the Nursing History Review, which cites historic studies pointing a "longstanding connection between eugenics and euthanasia"[18]. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Great, an incomplete book review. Very reliable (NOT!!) Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Your opinion is not the criteria of reliability. It is a reliable and verifiable source under the criteria of wikipedia. All the book from Ian Robert Dowbiggin is a long study dealing with connections between eugenics and euthanasia and the review of thta book made by the NHS can not be dispatched as "incomplete book review" just because you say that. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

True, it is not only my opinion that counts. But neither is your opinion. What counts is the opinion of "the community". The two of us plus all the others working on this article. Shall we put up a little vote? Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with opinions. I provided reliable sources, actually a whole book from Ian Dowbiggin dealing with the history of euthanasia relating it with eugenics, and a review on this book at nursing History Review journal, that confirms that this author links euthanasia with eugenics history. You are providing nothing else but your own opinion. Reliability of the sources is not decided by voting. The authors and publishers of the sources provided are well known and reputable, those authors are also well known as experts on euthanasia and eugenics history and they are being cited by other scholars. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It is all about opinion, this matter. It is the opinion of the community that is decisive if, and if so, in what form, it will be put in this article. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

This is very much undue weight, making an overly strong connection. Historically, the most that is being said is that some eugenics campaigners saw euthanasia as a means to achieve their ends, along with sterilization, and therefore supported it. That's worth a mention in the context of the debate and where some of the early support in the US came from. However, euthanasia is only related to eugenics by having some supporters in common - the amount that was included provided far too much weight on a connection that is not, in any way, fundamental to the concept. - Bilby (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

It can not be discussed if you do not provide any sources supporting your claims. And instead of delete you should improve. It seems you are deleting just because you do not like that connection to be shown, abut you kept a whole quote differentiating euthanasia and aktion t4 in a section that is not dealing with that but about history and there is not represented the authors who claim the similarities. What is a "overly strong connection" stated? In the section by now is just shown what some experts consider to be the relation between eugenics and euthanasia from the historic point of view. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

You already provided the sources - they mention that some eugenics supporters also supported euthanasia. I'm not denying this at all. What I am denying is that it is worth two large quotes and multiple lines, when, as thing stands, the entire thing can be summarised accurately as "During the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century, some leading US eugenics supporters also argued for euthanasia, and were active in the Euthanasia Society of America". That's the connection you are pointing to. The relationship is that they either saw euthanasia as an excuse to achieve their own ends, or that they saw severe disabilities as cause for euthanasia. But that doesn't mean that the connection is any stronger than that. In terms of today's debate, eugenics is, of course, absolutely irrelevant. It warrants the equivalent of a historical footnote in the article, especially once the history section is developed, but little more. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I do not think it is right to exclude information as it does not suite modern campaign aims by some. Opinion is not the issue, the facts are the facts, and euthanasia has connections to Nazi Germany, whether we like it or not see: Preparations for euthanasia in Nazi Germany 1938-1939, Michael Tregenza --Hemshaw (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Ehm, we are talking about the need for a paragraph about eugenetics in relation to euthanasia. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Jesanj (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

You have not contributed with nothing in the discuss page but just came here to delete.

Come on, Claudio, this is not a reason to start an editwar. Everybody can contribute on this article, participating or not participating on the talkpage. By know I have enough of it. The next time you add some of your POV or remove something that is inconvinient for you, I am gonna report you to get a topic ban for you! Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Oops, was ment for his talkpage. But I leave it here, because he will undoubtedly remove it from his talkpage. So let it be siad, and let ClaudioSantos be warned! Night of the Big Wind _talk 15:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

• The Aktion T4 material is not at all appropriate for this article. References to euthanasia were deleted with consensus from the Action T4 page because it was even inappropriate there, so why has it come here? There are no experts in the field who consider what happened in Nazi Germany to be akin to actual euthanasia. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for Aktion T4 in the lede

Old text:

“ The origins of euthanasia in Nazi Germany commenced before the Second World War. The parents of a disabled child campaigned to euthanize him, the case was put before Hitler who agreed with the parents, this killing went ahead 25th July 1939

During World War II, Nazis the "Euthanasia Programme" codenamed Action T4, which was supposed to grant "mercy deaths" to incurable patients. In practice it was used to exterminate "lives unworthy of life" as part of their "racial hygiene" concept and, as a result, at least 200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people were killed by medication, starvation, or in the gas chambers between 1939 and 1945. Tony Hope, Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Oxford has claimed that applying the term "euthanasia" in description of Action T4 is problematic as that "implies that the death is for the person's benefit. What the Nazis did was to kill people without any consideration of benefit to the person killed."

”

New text 1 (shortest):

“ The origins of euthanasia in Nazi Germany commenced before the Second World War. During World War II, Nazis ran the "Euthanasia Programme" codenamed Aktion T4, which was supposed to grant "mercy deaths" to incurable patients. In practice it was used to exterminate "lives unworthy of life" as part of their "racial hygiene" concept. ”

New text 2 (longer):

“ The origins of euthanasia in Nazi Germany commenced before the Second World War. During World War II, Nazis ran the "Euthanasia Programme" codenamed Aktion T4, which was supposed to grant "mercy deaths" to incurable patients. In practice it was used to exterminate "lives unworthy of life" as part of their "racial hygiene" concept. Tony Hope, Professor of Medical Ethics at the University of Oxford has claimed that applying the term "euthanasia" in description of Action T4 is problematic as that "implies that the death is for the person's benefit. What the Nazis did was to kill people without any consideration of benefit to the person killed." ”

I prefer "New text 1" as it is the shortest and most to the point version, without hiding the horrible facts. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But WHY should the "origins of the use of the word in Nazi Germany" be elevated to the lede? Think what you are suggesting. Why should the lede carry details about the misuse of terminology during this short period of brutal fascist history; what relevance does it have to the actual topic of real euthanasia? Jabbsworth (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

The origins of euthanasia in Nazi Germany commenced before the Second World War. The parents of a disabled child campaigned to euthanize him, the case was put before Hitler who agreed with the parents, this killing went ahead 25th July 1939

Above should be retained, its a specific 'test case' that led the fascists down the road to the euthanasia of the disabled. In this case the parents campaigned for the euthanisia of their own son,it was a turning point and also a key case in the history of euthanasia. It could perhaps then state that the Nazi government later used the euthanasia campaign to justify the killing of millions.

As the topic prior to this has a number 'Keep' votes the German campaign should remain as it is, it is an example of state approved euthanasia, its part of the history whether we like it or not.

A line of thought is to be found in modern society is from young people who express the view that the elderly and disabled, should be euthanised, the cost of sustaining and prolonging life is cited. There are also factions who feel that those with long term illness, or health issues where costs are higher than the tax returned should also be euthanised. We may not like to hear such support for those measures - the debates are current. I feel it is important that article remains neutral.--Hemshaw (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any proof that it were indeed the parents who freely and voluntary initiated this legal challenge? Or were they pushed/threatened by Nazi's? In the last case it can be a legal cover up of an already planned mass murder... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The nazi's were more often creative with the truth!

Some sources claim expressively that it was a sort of trial balloon used by the nazis to mesaure the public opinion reaction. It seems those involved in the nazi euthanasia program took advantage of that chance. And surely there were not lack of other appropriate chances as actually the sources accounts many similar petitions of euthanasia, before and after the euthanasia of that little boy. Surely the eutha-nazis just chose the best one chance which fitted the best for their interests. It also can not be understodd without considering the propaganda campaign pro-euthanasia happening at early 20th century in Germany, but also in the United States, in England and in other countries around. As Ian Dowbiggin and other authors have showed, bills and propaganda pro-euthanasia were similar around the world and appealed to similar arguments and emotions; Germany was not an exception. Certainly it is also a documented fact, that initially the nazi children euthanasia required the consent of the parents, which was in some cases voluntarily achieved but certainly other times it was ignored or coercively achieved. Then, perhaps we have to extend the question enunciated by NotBW, namely to extend his question in time, space and scope. It seems life alway wants to live. So perhaps we have to suspect if every so called "voluntary" "decision" to die, is indeed the result of certain concomitant external pressures, therefore nothing to do with a true decision but with a real alien-control: real alienation. At least, a NotBW compatriot, the philosopher Baruch Spinoza justly enunciated that suffering is opposite than acting. Then perhaps that is the true question: to turn suffering into action instead of turning suffering into death. But for the particular case related to this article, let me find and provide the source I have mentioned for the the "trial ballon". -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. This creates a whole new problem. For sure the trial has his place in Aktion T4. But I can not immediately say that is should be used for euthanasia. And if we use it, where to use it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Think I'm gonna sleep over it.

If I did not read bad, the thing is already described in the Aktion_T4 article. Here some of the promised sources referring on the euthanazist murder of the little boy Knauer:

"...trial balloon rather than an impetus...": The Routledge History of the Holocaust , by Jonathan C. Friedman, page 146 note 12].

"...perfect test case...": Culture of Death: The Assault on Medical Ethics in America, by Wesley J. Smith, page 60].

"...test case...":The Nazi doctors: medical killing and the psychology of genocide, by Lifton, page 51

"...pretext...": The Origins of Nazi Genocide: From Euthanasia to the Final Solution, by Henry Friedlander, page 39.

"...pretext...": Social outsiders in Nazi Germany, by Robert Gellately and Nathan Stoltzfus, page 151

"...[for eutha-nazis] the time was ripe to launch euthanasia...": A Concise History of Euthanasia: Life, Death, God, and Medicine, by Ian Dowbiggin, page 93

"...[by eutha-nazis presented as] compassionate response to frantic pleas...fabricated...coercion...": When Doctors Kill, by Stephen J. Cina,Joshua A. Perper, pages 58,59

-- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As the debate above is still live, this proposal is surely premature. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Indeed. Jesanj (talk) 17:38, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

POV

The early euthanasia movement in the United States section on the page is peppered with observations and qualifications from a non-medical anti-euthanasia activist, Ian Dowbiggin. If this is not changed by someone, I'll have to tag the section as unbalanced. And glancing further down the page, I see that he is quoted all over the place. This is completely undue weight. There are a lot of expert medical opinions that feature nowhere in the article. Bilby has started to roll it back, and I encourage him to continue. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Bilby, who (I believe) edits from a Christian perspective (correct me if I am wrong; your user page does mention an extensive interest in Christian science fiction), has now inserted further references to Dowbiggin [19], and this, combined with ClaudioSantos's efforts to equate all euthanasia with murder, makes the page badly biased in one direction. The page is becoming a real mess again; not enough editors at work here, and too many pushing barrows. I see that euthanasia is now linked, mostly via conservative anti-euthanasia activist Dowbiggin, to Darwinism. This is one of Dowbiggin's pet theories and it's now presented as fact here. Moreover, there are now sentences containing anti-euthanasia editorialising, such as "(Dowbiggin noted, however, that Ingersoll did not adequately distinguish between a right to die and the "notion that in certain circumstances it might be right for some individuals to die")."

I'll have to tag the article as POV until there are extensive revisions. Please note that tags are not to be removed until there is consensus. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

You're wrong - I'm certainly not Christian, although that's somewhat irrelevant. Please don't try to guess where I'm coming from by my broad edit history - it won't work. :) Actually, the point of that edit was to reduce the dependency on Dowbiggin by providing broader context from Pappas and Emanuel. Dowbiggin ties everything to Drwinism, which Emmanuel seems to accept, but Emmanuel also notes the individualism and depressions, which can be relevant, so I wanted them there rather than just pointing to Dowbiggin. The use of Pappas is to add the rise of the modern hospital system, which coincided with the rise in the euthanasia debate, and that is pointed to as a possible factor by Pappas. I didn't expand the Dowbiggin coverage, but instead left what was there and added the others.

More generally, I'd also like to remove the dependency on Dowbiggin, but he is one of the better sources on the 1870s - 1940's, so long as you are aware of his eugenics bias. I've been using other authors where they cover specific areas better, especially as regards the Ohio and Iowa legislation, which I think Dowbiggin is rather poor on, and I'd like to see Dowbiggin downplayed as it develops. - Bilby (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Well, some of that is reassuring, but let's leave the tag there until the rewrite is more advanced. An easy task to start with would be to remove or scrutinize all "howevers", "althoughs", "buts" etc, which is all just subtle editorializing. See wp:EDITORIAL. Plus, there are many authors in this area, some of whom are medical experts, so more than one or two cites to a right wing activist like Dowbiggin is surely undue weight. Go to it, Bilby, mate. I'll stand back here because a few other editors get hives when I edit.Jabbsworth (talk) 03:13, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've removed the line you mentioned above, as I think it probably wasn't necessary. The main focus now is the 1930's, although I'll probably clean up the 1870's first, as it makes a significant error. The 1930's reads really POV as the rest of the content isn't there. We haven't even got the House of Lords in. :) The plus side is that this period is much better handled by Kemp. - Bilby (talk) 03:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have not added to the article my position but contents referenced on reliable sources. Dowbiggin is not the only source I used, I cited at least 6 more authors we can use. Of course euthanasia supporters would like to quote just Lifton or even themselves or simply nothing. Bilby, I do not read that Dowbiggin tie everything to Darwinism and certainly he shows the facts which lead him to state that eugenics and euthansia are intertwined. Dowbiggin studied also the effect of certain social-economic-political contexts like the economic crisis or depression of 30's in the euthanasia movement. And certainly other historians add more elements to the soup but certainly the relationship between eugencis and euthansia and its relevancy is not only stated by Dowbiggin but for others reputable experts on the euthanasia history and on eugenics history. Medical experts are not experts on history. The rest argued by Jabbswroth is just no sense WP:PA. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:41, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Beg pardon, but where have I PAed you? I said you equated euth. with murder, and that's true. Or are you now denying that you defaced the Action T4 talk page over and over with the sentence, and I quote: "PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA, THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA, therefore CRIME APOLOGY"? Do you think it is unfair that I have inferred from your words a certain bias? I think this was even taken to ANI once! Jabbsworth (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

beliefs

I shall infere that you believe that euthanasia is not murder. I have infered that you believe or at least claim that euthanasia is something good and humanitarian, and such things. And I have infered that you also believe that such beliefs or claims on euthanasia are not biased. But, certainly your beliefs does not matter much to me. And certainly you are also confused, because I really do not feel that you are personal attacking me because you were remembering and republishing that "PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCIVELY KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA, THE CURRENT WIKIPEDIA VERSION IS PROPAGANDA PRO EUTHANASIA, therefore CRIME APOLOGY". I wonder if you are considering to publish those words at the article to emphasis the NPOV-tag you added. Whatever, if you want to discuss your (anti)positions and (anit)bias and such things, you are invited to edit my talk page, perhaps I would answer there, perhaps I do not. The other users would feel this is a sort of off-topic twaddle between you and me, then I collpased my response. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 07:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC) The second paper you cite [5] is about the Dutch Groningen Protocol, a strict protocol that allows doctors to euthanise a tiny number of births because the infants have a hopeless prognosis. The "22 cases" you keep talking about all involved very severe forms of spina bifida. I wonder how much you know about spina bifida? Below I show a wiki picture of an embryo with anencephalic spina bifida (no brain). So I have absolutely no ethical problem with that either. And it's nothing new — the North American Indians had an even harsher method; they would take a deformed infant and swing its head against a rock, and this was long before the western man with his terrible concept of "euthanasia" happened upon the scene. Sub sole nihil novi est. Bye -- Jabbsworth

RfC: removal (or gross reduction) of Aktion T4 from the euthanasia article

Numerous experts have agreed that the word "euthanasia" was appropriated dishonestly by the Nazis in WW2 (in the Action T4 program) to hide the wholesale murder of unwanted citizens. To therefore have a (large) amount of text on this page only promulgates that injustice, and acts to further the argument of anti-euthanasia activists, who want the equating of murder and euthanasia to persist in the public mind. Should we remove or vastly scale back this material? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

---

• Strong remove — This material was even removed as POV twaddle from the article on Action T4 diff, and was brought to this article by a tendentious editor who cannot bear to see it disappear from WP. As Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors has written: "[The Nazi] concept [of euthanasia] is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, [the Nazi] Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill...". Jabbsworth (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep, but scale back A short paragraph explaining how the Germans have misused the term as a euphemism for murder and a link to the full article are enough in my opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 11:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove. I agree with Jabbsworth's reasoning. If kept it should be trimmed to a sentence or two, and removed entirely from the lede, to avoid giving it undue weight. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep Known experts in the field, such as Ian Dowbiggin, point that can not be denied any comparisson between other versions of euthanasia and the nazi version. Dowbiggin have pointed strong similarities and dedicated a lot of paragraphs (chapters) to analize such similarities and differences. Robert Lay Lifton was above quoted in order to deny any comparisson between nazi euthanasia and other euthanasias. Certainly Lifton has done an historic investigation centered on the Nazi euthanasia programm but not on euthanasia itself, his comments on other versions of euthanasia are marginal and based on his personal non-academic opinion on euthanasia. For a change Ian Dowbiggin has made historic investigations on modern euthanasia movement (for instance in the United States and in England), where Dowbiggin has investigated exahustively the different conceptions around this term and its characteristics over time. He analizes historic and social contexts around euthanasia movement, its connections with eugenics movement, as well as the evolution of euthanasia definition, and so on, including there the analysis of the relationship between the euthanasia movement at Germany and the euthanasia movement at other countries. Also other authors in the field, like Neil M. Gorsuch and Shai Joshua Lavi, who also exahustively investigated the history of modern euthansia movement, they also dedicate long chapters to analyze the similarities and differences with the nazi euthanasia version, including the perception about nazi euthanasia program that has had the own euthanasia movement over time, which goes from hold up and silence until gradual distinguish due the adverse public opinion. These authors also mark the strong effect that nazi euthanasia program had in the evolution of the definition of euthanasia given by its supporters who, mainly due adverse public opinion, had to abandon explicit support to eugenics arguments and to non-voluntary forms of euthanasia, precisely because of its undeniable similarities with the nazi euthanasia version. So, experts in the field testify the very relevant role that nazi euthanasia programm has played in the modern euthanasia movement history whose effects extend to the current time. So, it will be undue lack of weight to erase any reference to AktionT4-nazi-euthanasia or to dispatch it as solely an "euphemism", in order to whitewash the propagandistic definition currently announced by its supporters. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment. Just because a reliably published source or three compares and contrasts euthanasia with something, that doesn't mean we have to cover it in this encyclopedic article. Jesanj (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Authors including nazi euthanasia on their works on euthanasia history, they are not solely 3. Certainly above I cited 3, in the article are cited even 2 or 3 more. But certainly they are not 1,2,3, nor even solely 5 or 6 authors. But for a change, could you |Jesanj provide one reliable historian dealing on euthanasia history who leaves aside the nazi euthanasia program in his/her work? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep No history of euthanasia is complete without adequate coverage of the Nazi use of this technique, however much we might wish it had never happened. Whilst it is true they used it to excess and that modern proponents of euthanasia distance themselves from it, these are not good reasons to hide or water down the facts. It is important for posterity to understand what the Nazis did under the name and (by dictionary definition) practice of euthanasia, not least to help ensure it does not happen again. It's needed for balance. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Nazis did not use a euthanasia "technique", as you put it. You seem to miss the point that they used the word as a wikt:euphemism to cover up state murder. If paedophiles misuse use the word "love" to cover pederasty, should we therefore have a large section on pedophilia on the page on love? You are just playing into the Nazi's (and people who would like to see the false link between surreptitious state murder and euthanasia promulgated alive) hands. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bermicourt I agree with you, I have detailed and referenced my position. You also marginally mentioned the topic of definitions and dictionaries in relation with euthanasia. Then I would like to add some words about. Surely you are aware that using "euphemisms" is a practice used by the euthanasia supporters and movement, and not only by the nazis. For example, the promotion of euphemisms as a tactic, is something that you can read openly confessed by the well known euthanasia supporter Derek Humphry. By the way, actually in the respective history section we will have to deal with this topic. Historians have pointed out that words and definitions were a big concern and a characteristic of the euthanasia movement, mainly after the WWII, and specially in the 60s and 70s, but still today. As the historians have also stated, this concern is also part of the strategies and tactics the euthanasia movement have used to dissolve the public ressitance against euthanasia (see Ian Dowbiggin, Wesley J. Smith., Shay Joshua Lavy, etc.). And surely Bermicourt, you are also aware, as some authors also have pointed out, that it can not be assumed a definition of euthanasia as it was a fact, because definitions and words are at any rate controversial and represent points of view. An Dutch euthanasia practioner and promoter openly admitted: "The definitions build the road to euthanasia ... definitions are not neutral." (Dr. MAM Watcher cited by Wesley Jay Smith). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with the comment above, 'No history of euthanasia is complete without adequate coverage of the Nazi use of this technique,' and 'are not good reasons to hide or water down the facts'. It is difficult to escape the facts, euthanasia has a history, where I can disagree with the above is 'modern proponents of euthanasia distance themselves from it' - I know some who support euthanasia for the same reasons as it was used by the Nazi's, they also support the use of it on the same schale, the article cannot decide who reads it, however we can ensure the truth is tbere, even when it is a four letter word. --Hemshaw (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep While it still suffers from weight problems, that will be improved as the history section is expanded - we haven't even hit the 1903's yet, much less the 1960's - and it is an important part of euthanasia history. (I agree it was not euthanasia, but it still heavily influenced the euthanasia debate, and should't be ignored). That said, it currently takes up almost half of the lead, and there it is a case of undue weight given that it is a lot less of that in the article, and of very limited value to the modern debate. We will need to rewrite the lead to better balance things, as Action T4 has far too much prominence there. - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• DumpIf anyone really needs to prove that anything the Nazis did was invert all known reason, this isn't the place to do it. A conversation with a doctor about the long road ahead isn't the same thing as eugenics. Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove. T4 was "mass murder", not euthanasia, as I showed[20] by including the quotation of the BBC source. This is not the genocide page. Jesanj (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is just one source and is just an article on a Newspaper. The most relevant scholar historic works on euthanasia dedicate chapters to the nazi euthanasia program (read my comment above) and they does not dispatch the thing saying it was solely a genocide, but actually they also highlight strong similarities with the euthanasia as it was defined by the euthanasia movement of the time. In my comment I cited three scholar works and its respective arguments to support my position (keep). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And please stop arbitrarily deleting the content passing over the efforts of numerous editors in reaching a collective consensus here. And notice that the majority have expressed strong arguments to keep the contents. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue is inherently straightforward, but hugely emotive and unless we can find a way forward between the various factions it will get in the way of a decent article. Let me try and summarise the key points if I can:

The Nazi regime supported the concept of "lives not worth living" i.e. incurable mentally- and physically-handicapped patients.

They also supported the elimination of groups they deemed undesirable on race (e.g. Jews, gypsies) or other grounds.

They introduced a "Euthanasia Programme" for the former which deliberately used euthanasia (they also called it "mercy killing").

Euthanasia was carried out legally, but note: a) there was no patient consent, b) controls were poor and c) death certificates were falsified so relatives were unaware of the true cause of death

The programme widened until euthanasia was being practised, illegally, on the second group (Jews, etc.)

The programme was officially halted due to protests led by the Catholic Church, but continued illegally and massively expanded

The use of euthanasia ceased at the end of the war and remained illegal in the west

Today, one or two European countries have introduced euthanasia legally, but this time with patient and family consent and careful legal controls. It is only used for patients with incurable diseases

Because actual practice is so different today, some proponents of euthanasia are uncomfortable with the Nazi connexion and wish to break the link. But there are different views: some say that the Nazis did not practise euthanasia; others have said that today's "mercy killings" are not euthanasia and that another term should be found.

The job of Wikipedia is surely to present the known facts including the Nazi practice of euthanasia in history and how it expanded way beyond its original remit as well as the facts about today's practice of euthanasia in certain countries and how they differ. All major points of view should also be discussed, including the differing views on the Nazi programme and on the current programmes. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bermicourt, the only possible connection between the policies of Nazi Germany in '39-45 and euthanasia would be the aspect of non-voluntary euthanasia. The ? of whether T4 = or ╪ euthanasia should go there, if anywhere. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Aktion T4 would be closer to involuntary euthanasia, rather than non-voluntary. However, in terms of today's debate, it wouldn't be classified as either. Hence the focus on historical significance. - Bilby (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was a mix of non-voluntary euthanasia (NVE) (in the case of babies and young kids) and involuntary (IVE). But basically, it was neither, because both NVE and IVE are aimed at alleviating suffering and done in the interests of the patient, whereas T4 was simple, outright extermination, or murder, or genocide (even though the much quoted case of the first little boy and his parents is used to link it to NVE). I ask again, just because the Nazis tarted up their murdering with a nice word, does it mean that their ploy has earned them a place on this page, and if so, how much of a place? Jabbsworth (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have cited historic works that investigate deeper the similarities and differences within nazi euthanasia version and other historical euthanasia versions. And here the nazi euthanasia program is mostly included in the historic section, due also the most prominent historical studies on euthanasia do include the thing there. But as you mentioned some claimed differences within nazi euthanasia and current euthanasia practices, then here it deserves some words about it. It can not be assumed as a fact a priori that current euthanasia is being solely voluntarily practiced, it can not be a priori assumed that the medical-legal controls are protecting the patients from abuses, it can not be assumed as a fact that euthanasia is solely practiced legally, it can not be a priori asummed that all the euthanasia movement is only interested in non-voluntary forms of euthanasia or based in the same interests, as well as it can not be a priori assumed that euthanasia is not being used or promoted for other interests than the claimed patients's benefit. Those things deserve a more serious investigation. But summarizing, we can not a priori assume and post that euthanasia is that "good thing" that some dictionaries and supporters claim to be. The rpoactice of euthanasia needs and deserves more investigation to be objectively represented here. But as I mentioned, the current section on nazi euthanasia-aktiont4 does deal mainly with an historical approximation more than with comparing it to current euthanasia practices. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making "wall of text" comments. Thanks. To answer your point: if you have experts authors to support the view that there is some sort of link between modern day concepts of euthanasia and T4, then produce them. So far, you haven't. Dowbiggin et al only supply very tenuous links. As for the historical links between what we understand to be euthanasia (good death) and the mass murder of unwanted people, you are drawing a long bow there, and, I suggest, pushing a personal barrow, such as when you carpet bombed the Action T4 talk page with the statement, in bold: PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCITIVE KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA [21] [22] Jabbsworth (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant historical scholar works on euthanasia dedicate chapters to the nazi euthanasia program, whatever if they think or they do not think that current definition of euthanasia is comparable to the nazi version. That is your point as a supporter of euthanasia but not the criteria of inclusion of the sources. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Rotzoll M, Fuchs P, Richter P, Hohendorf G (2010). "Nazi action T4 euthanasia programme: Historical research, individual life stories and the culture of remembrance". Nervenarzt. 81 (11): 1326–32. doi:10.1007/s00115-010-3054-0. PMID 20859734.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) The english abstract says T4 was disguised as euthanasia. I hesitate to incorporate it into the article though, because the few sentences I've plugged into google translate don't exactly match. Jesanj (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I think it is undue to be so focused on a few historians. This topic falls under WP:MED so we should also give attention to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) like medicine-related journals. Here's a quote: "...there was also a group of children who were betrayed when they were killed by nurses and doctors to whom they had been entrusted for care, in the so-called euthanasia programs. A confluence of two phenomena condemned thousands of children with disabilities to death in Nazi Germany: the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and the pseudoscience of eugenics." Benedict S, Shields L, O'Donnell AJ (2009). "Children's "euthanasia" in Nazi Germany". J Pediatr Nurs. 24 (6): 506–16. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2008.07.012. PMID 19931148.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Those authors like Lifton, are dealing on AktionT4, those are not works on euthanasia history. They do not investigate the euthanasia movement but they are solely centered on AktionT4. Dowbiggin, Neil M. Gorsuch, Shai Joshua Lavi and other author's books are scholar works on euthanasia history made by historians investigating not solely Aktiont4 but also the euthanasia movement at other countries: similarities, differences, common grounds, political and social contexts, etc. They are well known historians dealing with euthanasia history, and this is about the historic section of euthanasia article, not a section dealing with current euthanasia "debate" comparing or not comparing current-euthanasias with nazi-euthanasia. Reliable sources on medicine hisatory are not medical doctors but historians. Could you provide an historian dealing on euthanasia history leaving aside nazi euthanasia-AktionT4 in his/her work? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:05, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep The article is incomplete if we omit this part of its history. The Nazi's appropriation of the word "euthanasia" damaged the public reputation and acceptance of the practice, and set back the legislation for decades. The movement is still affected today. It is covered in history of euthanasia books like Merciful release: the history of the British euthanasia movement, The Modern Art of Dying: A History of Euthanasia in the United States, A Concise History of Euthanasia, Euthanasia: a reference handbook. The long-term repercussions in the modern movement are covered in books like Dying justice: a case for decriminalizing euthanasia and assisted suicide in Canada, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia, Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: killing or caring?, The Future of Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia --Enric Naval (talk) 06:39, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

P.D.: The "slippery slope" is an often-used argument against euthanasia, and it almost aways cites Nazi's actions. You can't explain the flaw in this argument without explaining Nazi's actions. For example Voluntary Euthanasia and the Common Law, Practical Ethics. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:51, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Definitions

While we have a section that discusses various historical definitions/debate, I think the article could be improved if we had a reference section on current definitions, as is done at abortion:[23] Any thoughts? Jesanj (talk) 18:22, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

That seems like a really good idea to me - abortion is a similarly controversial issue about which people have strong points of view - taking cues from the abortion article makes sense. --Dawn Bard (talk) 23:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

The abortion article does't seem to have a prose section on definitions, using the list form instead. This one has a prose section - is there any particular advantage to adding a list section as well? - Bilby (talk) 01:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

The other option, of course, is to expand tend definition section here, which would be great. - Bilby (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I like what I see on the abortion page. This article would benefit from that. It will help to stop all the warring too. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't know if it is the solution, but we can always give it a try. Better half an egg then an empty shell. Night of the Big Wind _talk 12:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think we have a good definition for the term. The first sentence has no source. Because euthanasia is controversial, we should have a solid, sourced, definition in my opinion. I think our definition section currently answers the question "What has euthanasia been?" I am much more interested in the answer to the question "What is euthanasia?". Jesanj (talk) 17:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Just on this point, there is no such thing as a single definition of euthanasia. The current definition section is to discuss the range of definitions available - they aren't historical, but current. As there is no single definition available, the aim of the section is to discuss the aspects employed in current definitions of euthanasia, because your question "what is euthanasia" cannot be answered. - Bilby (talk) 22:51, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Without getting philosophical, we do answer this question with the first sentence. Jesanj (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

We do, but without any of the refinement that is where the debate exists. It is a definition that gets discussion started, and is good for a lead. - 23:20, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That sounds to me like a proposal to split the article. Article 1: Euthanasia after WW2. Article 2: History of Euthanasia. Article 3: Definitions of euthanasia over time. (Article 4: Euthanasia in Nazi-Germany. ?????) Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:31, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

That's not what I was thinking. Jesanj (talk) 19:14, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Nor me. The idea has worked well at Abortion, which is much more controversial that euth., so why not here? Jabbsworth (talk) 22:41, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Could it be a worthy idea to look into or would it only create more battlegrounds? The idea of having a big definitions section is not to my liking. Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:34, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

First sentence

The first sentence currently reads that euthanasia "refers to the practice of ending a life in a manner which relieves pain, suffering or a life considered less than worth living." I italicized the part I have a problem with. When I read through the definitions section, I don't see this as a component of any proposed definition. In contrast, intentionality is a distinguishing feature (as it separates euthanasia from palliative sedation.) That's why I plan to change the first sentence. Jesanj (talk) 00:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. :) - Bilby (talk) 00:52, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

You have indeed a problem with the part that is most controversial. Partly because this is grossly misused by the nazi's, partly because it is a very difficult personal choice. The personal choice is closely related to the question of "unbearable suffering", what can differ from person to person. Night of the Big Wind _talk 10:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Picture caption and NPOV

In the disputed T4 section, there is a picture caption that says "Nazi poster promotes euthanasia". The picture shows a disabled person, and according to the file,[24] is translated to read "60000 RM: This is what this person suffering from hereditary defects costs the Community of Germans during his lifetime Fellow Citizen, that is your money, too". However, read the quote from this reliable source: Benedict S, Shields L, O'Donnell AJ (2009). "Children's "euthanasia" in Nazi Germany". J Pediatr Nurs. 24 (6): 506–16. doi:10.1016/j.pedn.2008.07.012. PMID 19931148. ...there was also a group of children who were betrayed when they were killed by nurses and doctors to whom they had been entrusted for care, in the so-called euthanasia programs. A confluence of two phenomena condemned thousands of children with disabilities to death in Nazi Germany: the rise to power of Adolf Hitler and the pseudoscience of eugenics{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) (And note the quotation marks over euthanasia in the title.) Over at Nazi eugenics, T4 is currently a chief example. Therefore, even if the picture caption belongs here—which I remain unconvinced—it is not NPOV. It advances POV that T4 was a classic example of euthanasia, despite reliable sources saying otherwise. I plan on changing it. Jesanj (talk) 17:52, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It seems you are missing the point again and repating an argument that was extensively answered above at the RfC. This is the historic section. As two users have showed (see this comment and this one), each reliable historic work here provided, includes nazi euthanasia program in it and states its indeed relvancy in the euthanasia history. Each historic work on euthanasia here cited, also mention the relation between eugenics movement and the euthanasia movement. Not only in Germany but also at the U.S. and England eugenics and euthanasia were intertwined then. If nazi euthanasia is really so different than current euthanasia practice, that is a questionable topic, but that is not the topic in the historic section. The picture represents the way euthanasia was understood then and there and how it was promoted then and there. It fits well.-- ClaudioSantos¿? 18:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Difficult one. In my opinion the poster is a blatant lie to the German people. It puts the whole T4-action down as an economic problem, while it was blatant murder. The scope of the murders was far wider then people with hereditary diseases. Als severly handicapped WW1-veterans were murdered under this scheme. In fact T4 has nothing to do with euthanasia, except that it was used as coverup. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:56, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Please allow me to change gears a bit. Might the existence of this picture (with its current caption of Nazi poster promoting euthanasia on economic grounds) be original research? How isn't it analyzing a primary source? In the translation, I don't see any mention of euthanasia or killing the patient. This diff removed a mention of eugenics in the caption on the basis that "poster doesn't refer to eugenics". How do we know the poster refers to euthanasia? Jesanj (talk) 20:19, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

[[:Image:EnthanasiePropaganda.jpg|thumb|left|150px|The poster reads: "60,000 Reichsmarks is what this patient with a hereditary disease costs the community during his lifetime. Comrade, that is your money too."]] thumb|150px|Nazi poster promotes euthanasia. I did not see the change in caption. And this change makes the caption a personal interpretation and POV. The picture left just plain describes the poster and translates the text, the right one claims that it promotes euthanasia. To me, that looks like original research and the caption should be reverted to the one on the left hand side, the most neutral version (as far that is possible with propaganda). Night of the Big Wind _talk 20:44, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It is not WP:OR. Let read how the DEUTSCHES HISTORISCHES MUSEUM captioned it:"...Nationalsozialistisches Propagandaplakat zur Akzeptanzbereitung für Eugenik und Euthanasie..." -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:49, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but the DHM gives the meaning and an interpretation of the poster. Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:01, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adding a source to the picture caption from that museum's website, CS. Google translate says it says "The visual statement is the phrase "60 000 RM of genetically defective, the national community costs for life" and the words "member of the race, that's your money" makes clear: the disabled and terminally ill people should be made of the national community - like the Jews, Sinti and Roma and other groups - marginalized, her death would be a savings for every healthy "national comrades". We've made progress, but still, the source doesn't say it promotes euthanasia. The source says it implies their death would save money. I think it's obvious the Nazi's were promoting this in order for the German public to have apathy towards the disabled. Can we get a good source or two to nail this down? Jesanj (talk) 21:00, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Jesanj, please. I have quoted the caption from the DEUTSCHES HISTORISCHES MUSEUM. The title of the caption, the first sentence says: "Nationalsozialistisches Propagandaplakat zur Akzeptanzbereitung für Eugenik und Euthanasie" which means: National Socialist promotional poster to prepare the acceptance of eugenics and euthanasia. So, again, it is not a WP:OR but a caption used by a reliable and verifiable source. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:24, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

You're right, my apologies. I only did google translate on the paragraph description and not what was the title and other details. Thank you for providing the source. I notice this picture is used on a variety of pages on Wikipedia. Perhaps others could use a citation in the caption to avoid OR or the appearance of OR. Jesanj (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

We also need to be careful not to put a modern worldview on history. My sense is that in those days the argument would have been more readily accepted than it is today, so it was not falling on deaf ears. A book on Belsen I read recently has a personal account by a German schoolboy at the time that says in effect they were taught that the Russians etc were sub-human (Untermensch) and so that's what they believed. That's hard for us to comprehend today. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:46, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

New article in the news today

See here: (in Dutch) [25]

For those who don't speak Dutch (99.5% of all I guess), the (edited) Google Translate version:

AMSTERDAM - A Dutch study of 800 GPs showed that more than one third of them over the last five 
years a request to perform euthanasia refused.
Nearly 75 percent of respondents said not prepared to participate in the euthanasia of a patient who 
has fears for future agony.
Also assisting in the deaths of patients who are weary of life, many respondents are not to poke: 
only 20 percent willing to say.
Of respondents have less than 70 percent over the last five years active euthanasia applied to a 
patient.
The study was conducted by EénVandaag (TV-news program) in cooperation with "Huisarts Vandaag" (GP 
Today)and was brought out Thursday.

Maybe usefull somewhere. Night of the Big Wind _talk 18:47, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

POV-tag

Is it still necessary to keep the POV-tag on top of the article or is the matter still unresolved? Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:29, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

I believe the issues are still a matter of contention. But since the last edit here about this was almost two months ago, the discussion seems to be rather dormant, so therefore the tag should be removed. The tags are meant to highlight active debates, not a badge of shame. Gabbe (talk) 06:08, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

The topic-ban is definitely working to restore rest and peace. Ihope to keep it that way, but fear the end of the topic ban. Night of the Big Wind _talk 08:15, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 27 October 2011

In the "Definition" section, fifth paragraph which starts "Draper..." the word "casual" should read "causal"

That's all

24.205.254.126 (talk) 16:06, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 17:00, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

rephrase

The first line which defines Euthanasia should read 'the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering, as this is more grammatically correct. The word relieve would also be better replaced with 'end' as relieve implies some form of palliative care.

My definition would therefore read 'the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to end a person’s pain and suffering'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacknunn (talk • contribs) 12:26, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! I've made the change. :) - Bilby (talk) 12:37, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations are a mess

A non-standard citation method has been used in this article. I've tried to fix some of it using the Template:Rp, but it's a big job. It also emerges that the article is reliant, maybe too reliant, on a handful of authors, some of whom have distinct axes to grind. We need to work harder to make author biases clear, when they exist. I'll try to come back and work on rationalising the source again soon, unless someone else feels energetic in the meantime.  Jabbsworth  05:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Bias

Can someone help me tabulate the handful of authors on whose writings the majority of this article is based and their stance with respect to euthanasia? It seems apparent that many of the voices in the article are anti-euthanasia, and we ought to strive either to point that out, or endeavour to include more balanced sources.

Author	Pro, Con or Neutral	Comments
Ian Dowbiggin	Con	An anti-euth. activist
Ezekiel Emanuel	Con
Michael Wreen	Neutral?	--
Tom Beauchamp	Neutral	A good source that could and should be used much more extensively
Jacob M. Appel	Pro	--
Michael Stolberg	Neutral	See PMID 18605325 and PMID 17874750 — could be used more in article. Current use of his work seems selective and cherry-picked.

Thanks. This could get to the heart of the problems with the article.  Jabbsworth  10:00, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to attack the views of individual editors or credit/discredit their work based on those views. We are simply supposed to represent in a balanced way, the authoritative sources. This is a dangerous road to travel. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:29, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Neutrality

Is that ugly neutrality tag still necessary or can it be removed? Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

While the issues raised in July might still be unresolved, there's currently no active discussion on this talk page. Therefore the template should be removed. Gabbe (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Since no one objected here, I have removed the template. Gabbe (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Euthanasia Programme

I have POV-tagged the section on the Nazi Euthanasia Programme because it contains one sentence of history and ten arguing entirely that the programme was not really euthanasia. This is entirely unbalanced and POV. The bulk of the section should be historical fact, with maybe a sentence or two explaining the 2 different points of view i.e. it was or wasn't euthanasia. The rest of the argument should be presented, in a balanced way of course, on the main Nazi euthanasia article. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You are free to write a draft for discussion here! Most editors here argue that the euthanasie program of the Nazis has nothing to do with a "dignified death" to end "endless suffering" but is an euphemism for mass killing on undesirables. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think it wouldn't be unreasonable to remove the whole section, based on NPOV and undue weight. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I made that case before, but not to much success. Action T4 remains part of the broad Euthanasia debate, but the discussion today moved in very different directions. A mention due to its historical significance is worthwhile, but I am uncomfortable wih relating it too much to the modern discussion. - Bilby (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to remove this per WP:UNDUE and was reverted. In reviewing the source, it also appears the quote is taken out of context in a manner that violates WP:NPOV...

...snip... pg. 64-65

Numerous German physicians, psychiatrists, nurses, civilians, soldiers, and bureaucrats participated in this program of medical murder, fust code-named "Aktion T-4" after the street address of its office headquarters, Tiergartenstraße 4. In August 1941 the Aktion T-4 program was closed down in Germany, but the killing continued informally as T-4 personnel were transferred to Nazi death camps such as Bełżec, Sobibor, and Treblinka where they helped to build gas chambers. The full enormity of those crimes did not become public knowledge until 1946-1947, when twenty-three defendants (all but three of them physicians) were put on trial in Nuremberg in the so-called Doctors' Trial. To more than one historian, Aktion T-4 was the first Nazi mass-murder program to target specific groups of people, and thus was a "first chapter" to the "Final Solution"—the genocide of European Jews.

This brutal chapter in German history warrants attention because not only has it tainted the word "euthanasia" ever since, it also shows that—the arguments of American euthanasia proponents not withstanding—there were enough disturbing similarities between the two national versions of euthanasia to provide ESA critics with valuable propaganda. As later events would demonstrate, euthanasia opponents have sometimes used the arg umentum ad Hitlerum irresponsibly, but some euthanasia supporters have been equally guilty of denying any comparisons between themselves and the Nazis.

The origins of Nazi euthanasia, like those of the American euthanasia movement, predate the Third Reich and were intertwined with the history of eugenics and social Darwinism, and with efforts to discredit traditional morality and ethics. Nazi euthanasia "policies did not materialize out of thin air in response to unforeseeable wartime circumstances; they were entertained long in advance, by people who were very conscious of past precedents and of what they were doing." Beginning in the late nineteenth century, German physicians and scientists increasingly used the language of eugenics and social Darwinism to characterize their approaches to public health. The result was "racial hygiene," roughly equivalent to what Anglo-Americans called eugenics. Racial hygiene was a form of preventive medicine that, by drawing heavily on Darwinist notions, attempted to balance the health needs of the individual and those of society. Racial hygienists argued that such policies as health and disability insurance, the end of child labor, and the expansion of hospitals and clinics interfered with the process of natural selection that normally strengthened the species by eliminating its weaker members. Modern, civilized society needed a new science of public health that continued to protect the less fit with social security measures, while humanely doing the work of natural selection through eugenic programs designed to prevent the reproduction of inferior individuals.

...snip... pg.70

There was certainly nothing inevitable about the way early defenses of euthanasia culminated in the horrors of 1939-1945. Then, as now, it was perfectly possible for an individual to defend the voluntary right to die while opposing coercive euthanasia. The critical turning point in the German descent into medicalized brutality was the 1933 advent of the Nazi regime, more so than any spirited, pre-Third Reich endorsement of euthanasia. Nazification plunged the country into a social revolution and a world war that desensitized Germans in ways barely imaginable before 1933. In extreme times, toleration of extreme measures is apt to rise, and some ordinary people will become extraordinary criminals.

—Dowbiggin, Ian (2003). A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195154436.

So I agree with the POV tag...just for other reasons. The section should probably go. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No the section should stay as it is an important part of the history of euthanasia. It just needs to be more factual and balanced. Surely that's not beyond us? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it has a place in the history section...with proper use of the sources...but it does not have sufficient weight for more than a few sentences. It currently terminates entire history section and is rather POV. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand why it should be removed: there is no consistent legal definition of the term 'euthenasia' across europe, let alone worldwide. It is terribly important it is retained: many of the arguments used to justify non voluntary euthenasia are still being employed in Amsterdam to terminate lives without proper informed consent. The cost of keeping someone alive in a (potentially) disabled state is used to withold intensive care admissions across the NHS, despite the fact there are no predictive algorithms in existence, and despite the fact that APACHE instructions are that they are NEVER to be used to form a prognosis of recovery. Having seen the appalling standard of 'evidence' presented to the Select Committee on Assisted Dying by the highly biased government 'think tank' Demos (wild extrapolations, miscalculated stats and totally unjustifiable extrapolations) it is essential that data from the historical context (previous mass euthenasia projects) remains widely available. Please leave it in.79.75.219.137 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.75.219.137 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you rambling about Amsterdam? Do you have any proof of this comment: It is terribly important it is retained: many of the arguments used to justify non voluntary euthenasia are still being employed in Amsterdam to terminate lives without proper informed consent.?? Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'evidence' taken into consideration by the Demos 'Commission on Assisted Dying' is available at <http://www.commissiononassisteddying.co.uk/read-evidence> . None of the the researchers for this 'think tank' has a degree in a scientific subject, one has a degree in Geography! 79.75.219.137 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.75.219.137 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I am cautious with this unknown think tank, I must admit that the commisioners and (as far as I looked into it) people who submitted evidence look reliable. I do not understand your concern about the researchers. It looks that they are there to research and support the commision, not to make the decisions. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)