Talk:Euthanasia/Archive 4

Edit request on 22 February 2012

Please remove the part in the introduction stating: "However, in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions when non-voluntary euthanasia is performed on infants.[3]"

Everybody knows this is complete crap and should not be in a public encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The source isn't accessible for the public to check whether this is true. For more information about the strictness of euthanasia in the Netherlands, please google translate this page http://www.euthanasiecommissie.nl/zorgvuldigheidseisen/

Best to you, Dennis 145.94.184.76 (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. Physicians have to follow the Groningen Protocol. That are strict and well described conditions. You are referring to a list of conditions related to voluntary euthanasia on adults. (En nee, daar vergis ik mij echt niet in.) Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Early euthanasia movement in the United States

I like to discuss an addition made by ClausioSantos. To my opinion the following addition is complete POV and should be removed ASAP.

“ However, by breaking down prior moral objections to euthanasia and suicide, they also made it possible for the definition of euthanasia to be stretched beyond these initial constraints. ”

Unfortunately, I don't have the book of Mr. Dowbiggin, so I hope somebody who has, could look up what Dowbigging is saying at page 13 about Ingersoll and Adler. Night of the Big Wind _talk 19:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I did use the wording firtsly introduced by Bilby[1] if I do remember well and I was wondering why the complete phrase dealing with Adler and Ingersoll was chopped months later with this "reason":"remove grotesque over-reliance on one conservative Catholic euthanasia opponent for fringe opinions linking euthanasia to Darwinism and eugenics", which I found unfounded and unreasonable, so I did just restore Bilby's version. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi! Just to clarify, Dowbiggin's full quote is:

"To Adler and his followers, who were sympathetic to the notion of suicide when death beckoned, there was no absolute value assigned to life. If life was not sacred, Adler, like Ingersoll, believed that some lives were less worth living than others. Both insisted that individuals should enjoy the freedom to do with their lives what they wished, even if it meant killing themselves. However, by rejecting the old taboos against suicide and euthanasia, they left the door open for many of their followers in the twentieth century to stretch their definitions of mercy killing to include individuals other than competent, consenting adults."

I'm not too concerned about the statement one way or the other, but it is in keeping with Dowbiggin, and it does seem logically consistent, although Dowbiggin may be overstating things.

It should be emphasized that Alder and Ingersoll didn't argue for general voluntary, involuntary or non-voluntary euthanasia, just for euthanasia or suicide to voluntarily end intense suffering (and that is covered in the pages immediately preceding this quote). Alder and Ingersoll were pretty much in keeping with modern pro-euthansaia arguments. Dowbiggin is arguing that followers took things further than what either was arguing for at the time. This turns around again post WWII, and, of course, others both influenced the more extreme ends of the debate or took more moderate lines. It should also be noted that this does not mean that Adler and Ingrsoll could be stretched to include eugenics or the most extreme practices - just that the usual "grey areas" arguments coudl be used to move the goalposts. - Bilby (talk) 01:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hmmmm, so a slight rewording would be enough to bring it in line with the quote of Dowbiggin. A text like However, by breaking down prior moral objections to euthanasia and suicide, they also made it possible for others to stretch the definition of euthanasia. would be sufficient, in my opinion. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:06, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

If you feel it necessary. However, I don't see any significant difference between the two. - Bilby (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-voluntary euthanasia text regarding NL is incorrect

The text regarding Non-voluntary euthanasia at the top of the article is incorrect, I quote: Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. However, in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions. These conditions include patient request, taking into consideration the amount of suffering the patient is experiencing, alternative courses of action must be discussed and pursued, all available information must be presented to the patient. It seems that, maybe due to a number of edits, two things are being mixed. There's:

• The Groningen Protocol, which defines a set of rules for euthanasia on infants specifically. Since this is non-voluntary, it is illegal, but physicians are not prosecuted when they follow a specific set of rules.
• The Voluntary euthanasia law in The Netherlands, which indeed refers to the patient request, the amount of suffering, and more.

So we're mixing voluntary and non-voluntary here. Since the sentence Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries and U.S. states. already deals with voluntary euthanasia, I don't think it's worth mentioning the Netherlands there.

Therefore my suggestion would be to rewrite the Non-voluntary euthanasia sentence to: Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. However, in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions when euthanasia is performed on infants. With or without a reference to the Groningen Protocol. Alternatively, if you find this too detailed for an introduction text, then remove the entire reference to The Netherlands, since it's also mentioned later in the article and more well explained.

Note that the Non-voluntary euthanasia text later on in the article is in fact correct. And so is the Non-voluntary euthanasia article itself. Szop (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, never noticed that! But the Groningen Protocol is indeed only for the cases of children 12 years and younger. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch - thanks. I think the intent was to refer to both non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, but that wasn't the right spot to refer to both. I've changed it as suggested. - Bilby (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This line still doesn't seem right, for several reasons. Firstly, the listed source isn't a source for this at all. (see http://hcc.haifa.ac.il/~rca/articles/Culture%20of%20Death%20in%20the%20Netherlands-%20Dutch%20Perspectives%20.pdf for a full version). Secondly, the term "infant" is ambiguous considering both wikipedia and dictionary definitions. Thirdly, without a reference to the Groningen Protocol this provides little real information. Finally, it's inconsistent with the lines introducing voluntary and involuntary euthanasia (brief, single sentence)

As introduction of such an important article, it should not delve into specifics. Since both "Infant" and "de-criminalized" are ambiguous terms I suggest removing the sentence "However, in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions when non-voluntary euthanasia is performed on infants." from this paragraph. Not because it's factually untrue, but because of the place of the sentence in the article. This doesn't remove any information and no bias is introduced, as condoning happens elsewhere (consider passive non-voluntary euthanasia).

If anyone feels this situation is special enough to reference in the opening paragraph, then I suggest "Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries but condoned in the Netherlands via the Groningen Protocol." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.114.12 (talk) 07:27, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

No, sorry, but your version is highly inaccurate. You suggest that the Groningen Protocol applies to all people, while is in fact only refers to children under 12 years of age, who are suffering unbearable pain without a prospect of improvement. (Children of 12 years of age and older are considered capable of speaking for themselves, so making it voluntary euthanasia instead of non-voluntary euthanasia.) Secondly, the way you worded it, suggests that non-voluntary euthanasia is legal in the Netherlands. It is not legal! Non-voluntary euthanasia on young children is not legal, but by acting conform strict procedures, physicians can avoid prosecution. Non-voluntary euthanasia on adults is always illegal. See: [2]. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:42, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you misread. Condoned does not imply legality. Thus, I don't see how my line implies legality. Yes, my 2nd suggestion was highly inaccurate because it could imply applicability to adults. Then again, the current line uses infant (could imply the wrong age group as well) and the listed source does not contain any direct description or reliable reference to this practice. I don't want "my version" online, I want a coherent and well sourced, well worded article. Aside from the replacement line, I stand by the points about source (remove this, pretty please?), use of "infant", lack of proper reference to the Groningen protocol and the inconsistency with the lines describing voluntary and involuntary euthanasia. Your source does not provide new information on any of this, correct? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.117.114.12 (talk) 05:09, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Suggested body for improvement under "Euthanasia debate"

Header: Background for the Intellectual Defence.

The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is: to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? Let's see!

I also like to remind the contributors of the serious issue at stake here and that giving this article the necessary attention and efforts may relieve a lot of people, at least mentally. I hope you care!

Additionally, I have one list here: http://philosophyblog777.blogspot.no/2012/06/assisted-suicide-final-argument-pro.html

Cheers! 62.16.191.48 (talk) 20:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

This article is a neutral reflection of facts. It is not a WP:SOAPBOX Night of the Big Wind _talk 21:59, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

The fact here is that the debate actually holds the above sentiments on the pro-side and thus DOES NOT at all represent a WP:SOAPBOX as referred to below by "Night of the Big Wind". Mind still the seriousness of the article, please.

This discussion is also a subject to political discussion and the article needs to reflect this by exactly holding these sentiments of the pro-side or else the article merely becomes an idiot listing of "moving objects", without the foundation for reasoning.

62.16.186.124 (talk) 02:28, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

It is not the task of an encyclopedia to offer the arguments on an discussion. As said before: we give facts, not opinions or arguments. Besides that, a blog is not considered to be a reliable source. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:50, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

"avoid prosecution by"

I just made an edit where I removed "avoid prosecution by" from the statement in the lead about the Netherlands. Specifically, I changed

" in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions when non-voluntary euthanasia is performed on infants."

to

" in the Netherlands, non-voluntary euthanasia can be performed on infants under well-described and strict conditions "

The edit summary of the editor who reverted me was "avoiding prosecution" is not POV, but the reality. You get prosecuted when you don't abey [sic] the guidelines" - it is POV because it unduly emphasizes that the physician would be prosecuted unless the guidelines were followed. Thus it implies that the physician is doing something reprehensible, but is "avoiding" being held to account. Whether or not it is reprehensible is not something that Wikipedia should be taking a stand on. For example, take the more general statement, "physicians can avoid prosecution by not breaking the law" - we just say "The law is X" and leave it at that.

I also changed the sentence to the passive voice, since I thought it would be kind of obvious that only physicians could do it, but I would also be fine with something like "in the Netherlands, physicians can perform non-voluntary euthanasia on infants under well-described and strict conditions." Arc de Ciel (talk) 01:49, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

For example, if it is reprehensible to kill somebody or not, the matter is that if you are a doctor and abey some "guidelines" then you may kill and you are not prosecuted in the Netherlands, exactly as also a henchmen is not prosecuted when performs a capital punishment following strict guidelines despite you or me consider reprehensible such sort of punishment or not. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't really understand you. I'm not saying the statement is inaccurate, only that it is POV. Arc de Ciel (talk) 08:31, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

The point is that euthanasia on infants in th Netherlands is not legal. Physicians do get prosecuted (and jailed) over it when they act contrary to the guidelines. So, obeying (excuse my earlier typo) the guidelines makes you avoid prosecution. ClaudioSantos is right that it is officially murder. I have no idea (and I hope never to know) how much pain and suffering a child much have before its parents decide that their biggest act of love towards their child, is to let it die. And how much pain and endless suffering a child must have, to convince two (sometimes three) physicians, the medical social work team, hospital lawyers and the rest of the involved medical team, to decide unanimously that keeping the child alive is plain torture and that teh best option is to let it die. Even with the Guidelines, it is a horrible and difficult decision for everyone involved. The Banner _talk 11:56, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Arco celeste: It is not NPOV due it is still considered murder in The Netherland. Said that, let me do an "off topic". Most of the children killed in The Netherlands (see Groeningen Protocol) are those stigmatized to be "suffering" of "spina bifida", "anencephaly" or "encephalocele". Of course, a lot of terrorizing propaganda spread by doctors attempts to suggest these children are to be suffering a lot of pain or to be simply monsters or vegetables with no dignity at all or even without any humanity or any life; that in order to justify that doctors may kill these children without punishment, even claiming these doctors are not killing at all. That is the reason people seems to understand it would be NPOV to call it a murder, although legally it is a murder even in The Netherlands. I should question why to let doctors to suscribe and emit sanitary permissions which allow everybody to eat and breath radioctivity, dust, chemical poisons and such dangerous and noxious crap and then let doctors to kill the affected people. But I also should ask why everybody eat without complaint such crap propaganda spreaded by doctors claiming that children with spina bifida or anencephalic or encephalocelics are allegedely "incompatible with life" and "suffering pain", that is a demonstrated lie even disputed so practically[3] and most of those children would not suffer more pain than any other children, for not to mention that claiming those children have no humanity at all is a sort of iatro-racism for not to say a sort of iatro-NAZIsm, with just one purpose: i.e. to keeep those children as raw material for the medical millionaire bussines of organ extraction, and indeed it is the brazenly debate around it[4], nothing less nothing else. Who benefits? that was the Lenin's question I have to endorse here. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Without any sources your claims are WP:OR and WP:POV. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Artiflex:¿? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Claudio, physicians can not start the procedure as described in the Groningen Protocol. Only the parents can start the procedure and even then, several others have to agree with them that the child is suffering without any chance on improvement. A severely handicapped child that is not suffering (= not having pain) can not be euthanized, like you the boy without brain in your first link. The Banner _talk 20:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Arc de Ciel that something like "in the Netherlands, physicians can perform non-voluntary euthanasia on infants under well-described and strict conditions." would better align with WP:NPOV —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:46, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Artiflex: this concern has been raised more than once before and brought to this talk-page, and every time the conclusion is: the article should appropriately represent the facts, and the facts are: in The Netherlands killing infants under the motto of euthanasia is still considered and punished as murder, while doctors may not be prosecuted under certain circumstances. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:23, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

And the facts here are being presented with an unnecessary level of WP:POV that is misleading. Following the protocol renders the action legal i.e. Not murder. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not being prosecuted does not mean that it has become legal. Following the guidelines means really nothing more then avoiding prosecution. Sorry. The Banner _talk 23:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

No, not being prosecuted means you've not done anything illegal...

As opposed to England and most of the United States, which have not enacted legislation allowing euthanasia, the Netherlands enacted the Termination of Life Act in 2001 (“the Act”), which became effective the following year. Under the Act, both active voluntary euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are criminal offenses. Although the Act does not specifically address involuntary euthanasia or terminal sedation, it is likely that both acts remain illegal. There is, however, a statutory exception for physicians. If a physician satisfies the requirement of due care and also subsequently notifies the municipal pathologist of the actions taken, then the physician is excluded from the Act’s coverage.

...snip...

Active euthanasia was the only action the doctors could take that would eliminate the infant's pain. The infant's death was reported to the proper authorities, who determined that the termination of life was "carried out in a careful way and was justifiable." Therefore, the doctor was not prosecuted in the case, and the euthanasia was deemed to be legal.

Emphasis mine. Internal footnotes omitted.

There is a difference. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Artiflex, you are citing a reflexion on one single case. But at any rate the context of the sentence in this wikipedia article is the legallity of non-voluntary euthanasia as a whole. Euthanasia on infants has not been legalized in The Netherlands but so far decriminalized, in the paragraph it is relevant to keep this difference. Actually Groningen Protocol is in a different legal level than the Act which also decriminalized voluntary euthanasia by Law in The Netherlands, and while this protocol has been accepted by the Prosecutor it is not a law produced by the legislator as the Act, but it is a sort of agreement between doctors and prosecutors indeed designed and written by doctors. In a paragraph dealing with the legality of the thing it is relevant to mention this differences. Nevertheless, I still believe that all this has to do with tricks to allow doctors kill without punishment whatever the name and legal procedures are being used. And considering, The Lancet, Volume 371, Issue 9616, Pages 892 – 893, 15 March, it would be NPOV not to call killing of newborns under Groningen protocol as infanticide. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

"Nevertheless, I still believe that all this has to do with tricks to allow doctors kill without punishment..." That's the point. It's your belief, and Wikipedia should not be saying that in the editorial voice. It's not stated directly, but the implication is there.

For that matter, another example: "infanticide" is also a loaded term. It's just a word; if you use the basic definition "the killing of infants" then of course it is infanticide by definition, but defining something doesn't actually answer any questions. Saying that it should be considered infanticide is just another way of saying you think that it is bad (by analogy, "Martin Luther King was a criminal." By the usual definition, yes he was, because he was arrested and jailed - but someone who is making that statement is probably trying to make you believe he did reprehensible things.)

I have gone through the archives of the talk page, and while I see some discussion about the sentence I do not see discussion of this issue. Also, I don't see any difference between "legalized" and "decriminalized" - if something is not criminal it is legal, and vice versa. Arc de Ciel (talk) 03:41, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

It is not a point of view, it is a fact. The Groningen Protocol does not make the killing of children legal. But under certain circumstances (endless suffering without any chance on improvement) and by following certain guidelines (written down in the Groningen Protocol) the Public Prosecution Service will not bring a physician to court. The Public Prosecution Service decides on prosecution on a case-by-case basis, it is not a blank coverage. Every case of child euthanasia is brough before a local Medical Ethics Committee, who will put an advice to the file before forwarding it to the Public Prosecution Service for decision. And it applies only to physicians, every other who commits child euthanasia is prosecuted. The Banner _talk 10:23, 28 August 2012 (UTC) I'm Dutch, and lived in Groningen while the debate was raging in Holland...

None of those facts are in dispute. It's it wording that's POV, not the facts. —ArtifexMayhem (talk) 10:36, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

The present wording is completely in line with the facts, so why should it be POV? Your version suggests that it is legal to commit child euthanasia, while it is not. The Banner _talk 11:09, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Artiflex: Neither my belief nor the word infanticide is being used in the paragraph at all, and calling it infanticide is not my single "opinion", due I have cited a Lancet article referring to the thing as infanticide. . Of course if one thinks it is not reprehensible to kill those children then one rejects to call it "killing" and one prefers the wording "perform euthanasia" and of course one would find that wording so "neutral". Nevertheless, that is not the case being discussed as I said, so you may stick to the reasons given to keep the current version despite those other arguments. It is a paragraph dealing about legal status of euthanasia and it is relevant to put it clear the actual and precise status of non-voluntary euthanasia on infants in The Netherlands. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:07, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Arc de Ciel: There is a legal and juridical and even political difference between legalizing and decrimilizing. Solely to point a single but not irrelevant difference here: the Groningen Protocol, is not a law produced by the Cogress but a guideline produced by some doctors endorsed by some doctors associations and endorsed by prosecutor as a sort of agreement. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:12, 28 August 2012 (UTC) PD: Just to mention an example of an off topic difference between "legal" and "decriminalized": an illegal immigrant in U.S. is not commiting a crime while he is acting illegal, thus against immigrant laws but not against the penal laws. Nevertheless, I find reprehensible to estigmatize and expulse immigrants and even worst to kill children under the motto of euthanasia and using the pretext of illness.

Apparently the Dutch government is of a different opinion...

Euthanasia and newborn infants

Children are occasionally born with such serious disorders that termination of life is regarded as the best option.

The law permits physicians to terminate the lives of newborn infants and to perform late-term abortion only on condition that they fulfil the following due care criteria:

• In the light of prevailing medical opinion, the child’s suffering must be unbearable and with no prospect of improvement. This means that the decision to discontinue treatment is justified. There must be no doubt about the diagnosis and prognosis;
• Both the physician and the parents must be convinced that there is no reasonable alternative solution given the child’s situation;
• The parents must have given their consent for the termination of life;
• The parents must have been fully informed of the diagnosis and prognosis;
• At least one other, independent physician must have examined the child and given a written opinion on compliance with the due care criteria listed above
• The termination must be performed with all due care.

Source: "Euthanasia and newborn infants". Euthanasia. Government of the Netherlands. Archived from the original on August 28, 2012. Retrieved August 28, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Sans other sources; the defense rests. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:13, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

You should have added the rest too...

Euthanasia and newborn infants

Physician notification procedure

Following a late-term abortion or termination of the life of a newborn infant, the physician has an immediate duty to observe the following procedure He must notify the municipal pathologist, who will then contact the Public Prosecution Office.

If it sees no particular reason for delay, the Public Prosecution Service will issue consent for the funeral. Thereafter, the pathologist will send the details of the case to the Central Committee of Experts on late-term abortion and termination of infants.

The pathologist assesses whether the physician has acted with due care. The Committee reports its findings to the Public Prosecution Service. Finally, the Public Prosecution Service decides whether any action should be taken against the physician concerned.

This makes clear that the Public Prosecution Service is involved in every case. Still, not being prosecuted does not mean that it is legal.

I suggest that we let the wording " in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions when non-voluntary euthanasia is performed on infants." unchanged, as it reflects the present facts. The Banner _talk 03:27, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Your logic eludes me and is very close to WP:OR. Can you supply any sources that might clarify things? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments:

• I'm not an American, but I would think the crime committed by an illegal immigrant is when they break the immigration laws (i.e. the point at which they become illegal.) Can you give a source that shows that the English-speaking governments officially distinguish between "decriminalize" and "legalize"? Or the government of the Netherlands, for that matter, but we are writing in English.

• When I said "your" I didn't mean to say that only you hold the opinion; I was making the point that it is an opinion.

• "The present wording is completely in line with the facts, so why should it be POV?" Are you suggesting that it is not possible for a factual statement to be POV? For example, most of the categories at WP:W2W contain words that insert POV, yet that does not prevent them from being used with denotative factual accuracy.

• I don't see the relevance of the prosecution service investigating every case individually. It sounds like a good idea, in fact. Unless you're suggesting that being investigated by a prosecutor is the same thing as having broken the law? One can break the law and not be prosecuted, but in the absence of a plea bargain, that implies that at the least, the prosecutor thinks they can't get a conviction - which would be very strange if it were illegal. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:11, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

A comment to Artifex, which might clarify what I think they are trying to say, after reading a similar statement at Child euthanasia. I think they're saying that it is "technically illegal but not prosecuted," which I suppose might put it in a kind of legal gray area. But that would make it at the least de facto legal; plus it seems like the sources 1 2 are being used for WP:SYNTH. Only the first seems to make a direct statement about it (if it is reliable, since it seems poorly written), and I would think the sources we already have (which are definitely reliable and specifically call it legal) are stronger. Arc de Ciel (talk) 04:40, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? The Banner _talk 05:05, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to respond to that. Do you mean me? Can you be more specific? Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Arc de ciel: you are wrong if you assume that breaking any law is to be a crime. Actually a crime is defined precisely as an act that break some specific laws which in some countries is called the penal code or penal laws, and the consequence for breaking those specific laws is usually a punishment. Every crime is prosecuted by a prosecutor representing the state aginst the accused before a jury and a crime can only be commited by persons. The last characteristics is appropiate to introduce another example: a hospital may break the law and could be sued and even forced to indemnize but can not be judged as a criminal nor sent to prison, its illegal action is not a crime. Said that I still endorse the current version due the new sources brought do not denie the issue but precisely confirms the specific details here mentioned. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I will repeat Artifex's (and my) request for sources - or, if you think the sources we have are sufficient, to point to the specific quotes that you're referring to (as I just stated, the quote about prosecution does not seem sufficient). Also, as far as I can tell, you still seem to think that we're saying the statement is factually incorrect. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, please supply reliable sources for your claims.

• decriminalization, n. The legislative act or process of legalizing an illegal act "many doctors seek the decriminalization of euthanasia".
• criminalize, vb. To make illegal; to outlaw.
• illegal, adj. Forbidden by law; unlawful "illegal dumping" "an illegal drug".
• legally, adv. In a lawful way; in a manner that accords with the law.
• legal act. 1. Any act not condemned as illegal.  • For example, a surgeon's incision is a legal act, while stabbing is an illegal one. 2. An action or undertaking that creates a legally recognized obligation; an act that binds a person in some way.

Source: Garner, Bryan A. (2009). Black's Law Dictionary (9th ed.). Thomson West. ISBN 9780314199492. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)

More from the Dutch authorities...

Euthanasia is not permitted in the case of minors under the age of 12. All reports of euthanasia in this age group are referred to the Public Prosecution Service. One exception is the termination of the life of newborn infants whose suffering is severe. Reports of such cases are initially reviewed by the Central Committee on Termination of Life (Neonates) and Late-term Abortions.

Source: "Euthanasia Q and A : The Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act in practice" (PDF). Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Netherlands). July 19, 2012. Retrieved August 29, 2012. {{cite web}}: External link in |publisher= (help)

Regardless of it being technically true, I'm not seeing much support in the sources for "technically illegal but not prosecuted". — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 06:17, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

What a BS and POV-pushing. But okay, a few sources: [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]. Yes, all these sources are in Dutch. But you run that risk when discussing the Dutch situation and policies. Have fun with them. The Banner _talk 11:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Please stay civil. Since I don't speak Dutch, could you please quote from the sources? Google Translate works reasonably well, but I wouldn't want to miss anything. I also think you should focus on the governmental sources in this discussion since we already have governmental sources that appear to specifically state that it's legal. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

When you want to critize a specific Dutch stand in a specificly Dutch context and with a specific Dutch history, it is rather strange to attack the thing with American sources. You are trying to steamroll a standing consensus. To make it clear: the sources are provided that you are wrong. When you can't read them, sorry, your problem. I am unwillig to help you anymore as you don't listen to our arguments anyway. And for WP:CIVIL: kettle & black. The Banner _talk 18:46, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Who said anything about criticizing a specific Dutch stand? I must have missed something. Let me be clear; I find the current wording violates WP:NPOV because it is criticizing a specific Dutch stand by insinuating Dutch physicians can commit murder and get away with it. This is obviously not the case and we should be clear on that. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that is exactly what is happening. Not a point of view, but a reality. Under no circumstances is child euthanasia (children of 12 years of age and younger) legal. According to the law, they commit murder. But given the mitigating circumstances (endless suffering without prospect of improvement) and only when they follow the guidelines, the Public Prosecutor may decide not to prosecute. Nothing more, nothing less. Screw up, and you will get hammered. Euthanasia for people above 12 years of age is legal, with the restriction that people have to ask for it themselves, personally or in writing. No doctor can decide to euthanise someone when there is no prove of prior consent. Euthanasia without proof of consent = murder. And you will get prosecuted without exception. The Banner _talk 19:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you're calling the sources provided by the Dutch government "American sources."

I'm also not sure where I was uncivil. :-) And of course, if I was, it wasn't intended - so if you could specify which statements you're referring to, that would help me out in the future. I should say (even though I shouldn't have to?) that I have no ulterior motives and I would have removed this kind of language from the article no matter what article it was. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Arc de ciel: one may thing that is a crime any cause of divorce which is against the civil laws related to matrimony but that is not true, while infidelity is against the civil laws then you may be sued and "condemned" to divorce, due you broke the matrimony contract, but you are not prosecuted nor jailed for that, at least not under most of juridictions, fortunately. and let you read some dissertation about differences between legalisation and decriminalization, etc. around the prostitution here. But let stick to the topic: Perhaps it could be said that in The Netherlands euthanasia on infants is a sort of legal crime , but at any rate, the last source you brought from minbuza.nl is not saying that euthanasia on infants has been legalized but that certain cases are not referred directly to the public prosecutor service but to a sort of medical-euthanasia comittee. Evenmore, according to the dictionary definition you brought, euthanasia on infants in The Netherlands has not been decriminalized nor legalized, due there is not any legislative act or process involved, due Groningen Protocol is not a law nor was the product of a legislative act, so the current version is precise still. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:51, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're trying to say about divorce. Don't forget that we have a language barrier (at least, that's what it seems like) - for example, you might want to specifically describe what the difference is.

With regards to the statement you wrote in bold text, are you saying that it has not been "specifically legalized" therefore it is not legal? I'll also point out that (at least in America) a law does not have to enumerate every specific case in order to legislate on those cases, and if there is a dispute it's taken to a court and that is sufficient.

I suppose we could call a RfC, even though this seems like a rather trivial thing to be arguing. Arc de Ciel (talk) 05:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, your recalling of a "language barrier" plus your struggle to change this specific wording do remember me someone. I do understand if one has a very low level of legal understanding but if one was not able to understand the issue about the divorce, at any rate it was said enough clear the argument in bold: you (ArcDC) brought a dictionary definition of decriminalize which states that: decriminalizing is a legislative act but Groningen Protocol is not a legislative act. Instead of that, in The Netherlands killing infants remains prima facie illegal and is considered specifically a crime by law. At any rate, the sources brought endorse the current wording as these sources precisely state that euthanasia on infants is still illegal and crime in T.N., while doctors may not be prosecuted when killing infants. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 12:12, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

If you think I'm a sockpuppet, please call a SPI.

I think it's reasonably clear that there is a language barrier, and in fact I think it's likely that for at least part of your edits you're using a translator (cf. your original misspelling of my name as "arco celeste"). I didn't say that the reason I didn't understand you was that I don't understand any legal matters - it's that I don't understand the grammar. That doesn't mean I think you're not WP:COMPETENT, only that there is an additional consideration while we discuss.

I will repeat that I don't see a discussion of this issue in the archives (and a search for the word "language" doesn't give any results either). Are you talking about discussion on another language's wiki (probably Dutch)? I don't know if consensus can work across wikis, but I can't find any mention of it in the policies. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems you need some help in looking for the things, due precisely some threads above it has emerged the same discussion here and it is not the first time. If you recall me a very obstinate guy although I have not accused you of sockpuppetry, at any rate one should refrain from light assumptions and exert oneself on understand despite of and against any grammar and language barriers. Some comments above I have provided an excerpt of a book which may be used for those interested in understand differences between illegal, unlawfull, criminal, not punished, legalize, decriminalize, etc. It goes about a different topic than euthanasia but still I would have read it instead of rising futil reproaches about other's spelling and/or grammar. Finally, it last to mention that "Arco celeste" is not a mispelling neither less a proof of such annoying remark of my alleged use of a machine-translator, but it is a deliberate translation made by myself from french to spanish. Both of which I like and strive to understand, but also I don't care if one lacks or abounds of understanding of Spanish, French, Dutch and/or of subtle details like those differences between el arco celeste y el arcoiris. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 12:44, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Proposal

However, in the Netherlands, a physician may be justified in deliberately ending a newborn's life and may, under certain circumstances, avoid criminal prosecution by following well described and strict protocols.

Notes

Does this work for anybody? Even a little? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:11, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Comments

• No, not at all. You use a lot of words and notes, to say exactly the same as the present text. The Banner _talk 11:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Any policy concerns (WP:RS,WP:NPOV, etc)? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 02:50, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

POV-pushing enough? Otherwise we have WP:BATTLEFIELD, tandem-editing and WP:Consensus The Banner _talk 13:24, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure why the addition of a note containing more information can be bad. Anyways, I think it's an improvement, so I would support its inclusion. Although I'd point out that it still contains the problematic words "avoid" and "prosecution," so I would at least write "will not be criminally prosecuted" rather than "avoid criminal prosecution." Denotationally identical, but removing the connotation. :-)

Anyways, I'm going to stop commenting on this; I don't want to discuss in this environment. I still don't find the arguments for not changing the sentence convincing - in fact I must say I'm still not exactly sure what they are (as opposed to "failing to listen" as was stated) - and we seem to be repeating ourselves in any case. I'll respond if I can make a reasonably quick interjection, or (of course) if there's an escalation, which I recommend if this continues. Arc de Ciel (talk) 07:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Since my edit summary was apparently not clear enough: The idea that following the law can be described as "avoiding prosecution" and still be somehow not POV, inflammatory, and biased in the extreme is absolute nonsense, sorry. Those of you who are attempting to frame it that way should cease your bizarre campaign to do so. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:17, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

KillerChihuahua, I have suggested this on your talk page: "It seems you were unaware of the current and very long discussion[13], due you made a revert[14] ignoring absolutely that discussion which precsisely goes on the content you have restored. I encourage you to revert your last edit and go to discuss to the talk page, in order to work for consensus instead of inciting edit wars. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)"

For which you, Killerchihuahua answered: "Nope, read the whole darn thing. The idea that following the law can be described as "avoiding prosecution" and still be somehow not POV, inflammatory, and biased in the extreme is absolute nonsense, sorry. Please cease your bizarre campaign to frame it that way. KillerChihuahua 16:13, 31 August 2012 (UTC)"

Well, Killerchihuahua: I have not made any edit to the article at all but your lack of attitude to work for consensus is so clear. The edit you restored was rejected by two editors (so it is not "my" "campaign"), and let consider that even the original editor -whom you have restored- is now proposing another wording. For a change, you first reverted the edit and absolutely ignored this long discussion which involved 4 editors. That does not help at all. Let read first the discussion to clarify your self your concerns. Just to summarize: Doctors in The Netherland who kill infants under the motto of euthanasia, they are not following any law, there is not any law permitting euthanasia on infants but absolutely the opposite: prima facie in The Netherlands it is not permitted to perform euthanasia on people younger than 12yo. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:31, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

My dear KillerChihuahua, I have reverted your edit as being complete nonsense. When committing child euthanasia, a physician willingly and knowingly breaks the law in the best interest of the child. According to the letter of the law, he commits a plain murder. But due to the mitigating circumstances AND when the physician followed the guidelines, the Public Prosecutor can decide not to prosecuted. Don't follow the guidelines, and you are screwed and heading for jail. So by following the guidelines, in effect you avoid prosecution and jail, while still breaking the law. The Banner _talk 20:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for a clear concise comment. In reading the sources, it appears that if you follow the guidelines, rather than it being a choice not to prosecute, prosecution is in fact simply not done. What am I missing here? KillerChihuahua^?!? 20:46, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

What you miss is the fact that in the Netherlands, prosecution is not mandatory. It is up to the Public Prosecution Service to decide when to prosecute, so they decide when to send a case to court and when not to send a case to court. But it is their decision. Okay, involved parties can appeal decision not to prosecute but you must then make clear that you are an involved party. No parent or physician will do that and other are unlikely to be recognized as involved party. The Banner _talk 20:52, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Banner, the current verbiage reads as though this is an attempt to evade prosecution. This is patently unfair to the physicians who do this; it is clear they have the best interests of the infant in mind. I still don't see clarity on where and when prosecution happens or does not; surely we can manage a) better, clearer sourcing and b) better verbiage than this. "Avoid prosecution" is assigning motive, and we have zero sourcing for that motive but rather sourcing for quite different motivations. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:08, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It will be a blatant non-neutral POV pushing and a clear WP:OR to change the current factual wording based on an editor assumption that doctors "have the best interests of the infant in mind" so it would allegedely be "unfair" for them to keep the current wording. Actually here was cited a reliable source from The Lancet, which invites to civil desobidience and resistence against the institucionalitation of medical infanticide, so there is also no lack of sources against editor's biased point of view. But at any rate, although me and others do oppose Groningen Protocol and surely other perople support it, the fact is: in The Netherlands doctors "may avoid prosecution" when performs euthanasia on newborns (exactly as the current version says), so doctors may kill with impunity newborns (the current version does not go so far), nothing else but also unfortunately nothing less. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:18, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This happens due, it should not be forgotten, Groningen Protocol is not a law produced by the legislator nor even a judicial sentence made by any court, but a sort of guideline produced by some doctors and endorsed by some prosecutors as a sort of agreement. In a paragraph dealing with the legal status of euthanasia it is relevant to point these details. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:01, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This is misleading and factually inaccurate WP:SYNTH with a dash of WP:OR. Please source your claims. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 01:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Before accusing anybody of misleading and other things one should read first the sources which are provided even here in wikipedia. Groningen Protocol is not a law produced by the legislator but it is a protocol produced by some doctors and endorsed by prosecutors and doctors' associations. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:52, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Artifex, can you provide proof of your accusations? Can you proof that the Groningen Protocol is a law, as you claim with your comments? Now it looks like you are making a a story to back up your personal POV. The Banner _talk 03:48, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

While I'm working on a response to ClaudioSantos, could you point out:

1. where I stated that the Groningen Protocol is a law,
2. where I suggested that we add such to the article and
3. exactly what "personal POV" I'm pushing? You've now leveled that accusation three times[15][16][17] and I'd like to know why.

Thanks. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 05:09, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Your own words here, my friend. The Banner _talk 12:27, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I was pretty sure I'd never said "Groningen Protocol is a law" and now I positive I didn't. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos: In their report to the House of Representatives(starts on page 148) the Minister of Justice and the State Secretary for Health, Welfare and Sport tell it differently...

In the position paper on the report entitled "Medical decisions at the end of life"(Parliamentary Papers, House of Representatives 2003/2004, 29 200 XVI, no. 268) we undertook to inform the House on the subject of unrequested termination of life in the case of neonates. Please see our findings below.

They explained the need....

Terminating the life of a patient in great suffering without a request to that end results in an unnatural death. It must therefore be reported to the Public Prosecution Service, which investigates the way in which termination took place and decides whether or not to prosecute the doctor in question.
Doctors find this procedure very stressful, since despite their conviction that they acted with due care, they are under suspicion of murder. For this reason, the then Ministers of Justice and of Health, Welfare & Sport set up a consultative group charged with formulating proposals (based on the due care criteria governing medical procedures relating to newborn infants with serious disorders) for a procedure for reporting and reviewing cases in which such procedures had led to intentional termination of life.

...and the work done at Groningen University Medical Centre...

The Dutch Paediatrics Association was also active in this field. In June 2005, it accepted the protocol on actively terminating the life of neonates with a serious disorder (drawn up by Groningen University Medical Centre (UMCG) and thus known as the Groningen protocol) as the national guideline. The Public Prosecution Service was involved as a source of information in drawing up the protocol: the Public Prosecutor's Office in Groningen gave the UMCG the "Medical decisions at the end of life" report, indicating that it seemed to be compatible with existing case law in this field. It emphasised that neither the report nor the protocol should give rise to expectations on how the Public Prosecution Service would deal with any specific case. According to the Public Prosecution Service, the protocol provides sufficient practical information to enable it to assess whether a doctor has exercised due care in terminating the life of a newborn infant.

...and the policy that they (the government) where proposing...

Terminating the life of neonates who are in great suffering and termination of late-term pregnancies falling in category 2 call for the highest possible standards of care. The criteria against which such actions will be assessed have been taken from case law and the reports referred to above. The Public Prosecution Service will take these criteria into account when deciding whether or not to prosecute. The committee of experts will take them into account when deciding whether doctors have acted with due care.

In terminating the life of a neonate, the physician has acted with due care if:

a. according to prevailing medical opinion, the child’s suffering was unbearable and without prospect of improvement, which means that the decision to withhold treatment was justified. There was therefore no doubt about the diagnosis and prognosis, in the light of prevailing medical opinion;

b. the child’s parents gave their consent;

c. the physician fully informed the child’s parents of the diagnosis and prognosis. This means that together with the parents the physician came to the firm conclusion that there was no reasonable alternative in the light of the child’s situation;

d. the physician consulted at least one other, independent physician who saw the child and gave a written opinion on compliance with these due care criteria. Alternatively, the physician could have asked for the views of the medical team attending the child;

e. the termination was performed with due medical care and attention.

You can find the report here: "Kamerstukken II (Parliamentary Papers) 2005–2006, 30300 XVI, nr. 90" (PDF). Appendix to Papers 30800-V No. 90. p. 148..

I would also suggest you read up on the structure of Dutch government and its legal system: Tak, P. J. P. (2003). "The Dutch Criminal Justice System: Organization And Operation" (PDF). Volume 205 of Onderzoek En Beleid (2 ed.). The Hague: Boom Juridische Uitgevers. ISBN 9789054543039.

So, other than the obvious fact the "Groningen Protocol" is not "a law", the statement: "Groningen Protocol is not a law produced by the legislator nor even a judicial sentence made by any court, but a sort of guideline produced by some doctors and endorsed by some prosecutors as a sort of agreement. In a paragraph dealing with the legal status of euthanasia it is relevant to point these details." is misleading and factually inaccurate. In other words it does not align with WP:POV or WP:RS. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 11:36, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

In some sense you are right. Indeed, the Groningen Protocol is far more then "a sort of guideline" made up by "some doctors" and endorsed by "some prosecutors". It is declared mandatory by the "Nederlandse Vereniging voor Kindergeneeskunde" (Dutch Society for Pediatrics). The whole Dutch Public Prosecution Service uses the Groningen Protocol to evaluate the cases of child euthanasia brought to het attention. And the Groningen Protocol has the de facto backing of Government and Parliament ((in Dutch) [18]) without being signed into law.

Indien de inschattingen omtrent diagnose en prognose te onzeker zijn, zal een arts niet tot de overweging komen om het leven van de pasgeborene te beëindigen en is de betreffende richtlijn niet van toepassing.

In English (by Google Translate and me): If the estimates regarding diagnosis and prognosis are uncertain, a doctor will not come to the consideration for the life of the newborn to be terminated and the relevant directive does not apply.

But at the end of the day, physicians know that they can only avoid prosecution by adhering to the guidelines. If they don't, they get hammered. The Banner _talk 12:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we disagree on any of the facts. I simply don't think "avoid prosecution" is an adequate summary of those facts. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Your proposal precisely says "avoid prosecution", then I do not understand what are we discussing at all? You should not waste everybody's time. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:50, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I made the proposal in a good faith attempt at compromise. However, based on the comments and sources received, I support the removal of "avoid prosecution" per WP:NPOV and WP:RS. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:46, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

"Avoid prosecution" is a fact not a point of view. Even the sources do not say it is justified to but that physicians may claim impunity. But I am begining to share The Banner's opinion: you are POV pushing your point of view despite of the sources and the facts. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Artifex: None sources, including those you brought, deny the facts I have mentioned: Groningen Protocol was produced by some doctors and was endorsed by prosecutors and medical associations, and at any rate it is not a law produced by the legislator nor a judicial sentence of any court. Are sources claiming it is a law produced by the legislator? No. Are sources claiming it is a judicial sentence of any court? No. Are sources claiming it was not produced by doctors? No. At any rate, we are not discussing the inclution of those, my words about the authors of the Groningen Protocol neither the inclution of other details about it into the article; actually there is an article in wikipedia dealing on Gronigen Protocol and dealing with those details, so there is no need to go around with the same issue here. My opinion about your proposal, is below since some days ago and actually this entire disscution about the authors does not change your proposal nor the current version at all. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 12:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

• Artifex: It (your proposal) seems most similar to the current this wording than your first edit. So, at least you have really considered this very long discussion and sources here provided, thanks for that. Nevertheless, in a paragraph dealing on legal issues, it should be used adequately and carefully words such as "justified" which have a precise meaning in the law, i.e. in the criminal law. At any rate, for me after it has been brought reliable sources that refer to the topic with expressions such as "ifanticide", and reliable sources which strongly oppose to euthanasia on infants and Groningen Protocol, then it seems non-neutral POV to insinuate that to kill infants is justified as a matter of fact, which at any rate is a matter of opinion. And given those mentioned sources and critics, it also seems a pushing of non-neutral POV, the use of terms such as "deliberately ending life", which is a strongly biased wording such as would be the term "killing", but in the opposite sense. Calling it "ending life" which is a term mainly used for those who are pro-euthanasia and who developed the Groningen Protocol, is not a "neutral" wording at any rate. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

ClaudioSantos: Your use of facts amounts to nothing more than a prima facie case that omits and obfuscates useful and clarifying details. Your demonstated lack of understanding of legal sense of "prima facie" tends to discount your claimed concern for proper use of legal terms. Editing in this manner is misleading and disruptive. Please stop. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Artifex: I am not editing the article at all, and I am not proposing any change to the article, you are the one insisting in changing it to a proposal which says the same that the article is already saying. Your porposal is being rejected as superfluous and unnecesary. Other editor already say that. I do not really know why do you insist in this discussion. This article is about euthanasia, there is an article about Groningen Protocol, per WP:WEIGHT there is no need to include here anything else, neither less that big wall of cites. We do not need to waste our time in this discussion anymore and I am not inviting you to qualify my knwoledge but I do receive your comments about it as being superfluous and annoying, you had to refrain from that and focus on the topic. Then let me say it quickly: Like the other editor, I do also not endorse your proposal, it is superfluos and unnecesary, it does not improve nothing and it is WP:UNDUE, thats all. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:32, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

After several ECs:

1. "It seems most similar to the current wording than your first edit" - translate, please, I have no idea what you're trying to say.
2. The rest of your arguments hinge upon the concept that killing children is universally considered wrong. It is not; we can see from the law being discussed that it is not. It may be by you, and it may be by me, but in certain specific circumstances it is perfectly legal elsewhere, and saying so, neutrally, is not approving of nor agreeing with that fact. It is legal to marry a child of 9 in Yemen, but we don't say that they "avoid prosecution for statutory rape by marrying the victim" - we say " the onset of puberty, interpreted by conservatives to be at the age of nine, was set as a requirement for consummation of marriage." (From Child_marriage#Middle_East. We may find it objectionable, but it is quite legal, and we must be as neutral as possible. The facts are sufficient. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:36, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

1. Of course, it has not sense to say the "current" wording since you Killerchihuahua, ignoring this whole discussion, reverted it. But, just read all the comments in this long discussion and you will see that everybody involved, all the 4 editors call "current version" that version you undid abusively and without any consensus and disrespecting those 4 editos who were here discussing instead of reverting the article. Nevertheless, I have added some diffs in my last comment, to clarify the mess you have provoked. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

2. It is a waste of time to discuss with you, if you do not read the entire discussion, so let do it first. And let notice that you may avoid to personalize this discussion due there are another 3 editors involved. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• Claudio, please do NOT change your comments after they've been replied to, as you did here. It is against TPG and leads to confusion. Instead, post a new comment. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:43, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It was an edit conflict, so I again encourage you to take your time to read the entire discussion and let me write instead of react so quickly and superficially. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:51, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

I've read it, Claudios. Let me explain something: we've had a lot more than 2 or 4 editors who wanted to change the verbiage in the Abortion article to use the word "murder". Now, you may think it is murder. I may think it is murder. But NPOV dictates that we do not call it murder. We give the facts; where it is legal, under what conditions it is legal, etc. But we don't call it "murder" and we don't say the pregnant females who have abortions are "avoiding prosecution" by having a perfectly legal medical procedure. That would be violating NPOV, just as using those terms here on this article would be violating NPOV. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:58, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

This version you recently undid, does not use the word murder. And if you read the entire discussion then you missed that the editors have now clear that the fact is that euthanasia on infants under 12yo is not permitted by law in The Netherlands but precisely doctors "may avoid prosecution under certain circumstances", ((edit conflict -->)) which is the accurate info that should be presented in a paragraph which is precisely dealing about the legal status of euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm telling you that "murder" is inflammatory and POV, just like "avoid prosecution" is inflammatory and POV. Last time you started this kind of nonsense you ended up with a 6 month topic ban, do you remember? I am trying very hard to help you. Instead of misreading my examples and explanations, you could learn from this and improve your understanding of policy. I've tried to help, but you are not willing to listen and learn. Be done, already, before you get another topic ban or (as nearly happened last time) an indef topic ban. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:12, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

You are still ignoring that the version with "avoid prosecution" is a version introduced by User:The Banner and is also now included in the proposal here discussed made by User:ArtifexMayhem. You are insisting in personalizing the thing. Then no need to involve in a discussion with you, but I will consider to report your unnecessary remarks to those past topic bans as WP:PA-- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

((edit conflict))Then no need to involve in a discussion with you, but I will report your unnecessary remarks to those past topic bans as WP:PA-- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:16, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Feel free if you feel you must, but no personal attack was intended. I am trying to remind you where this kind of obstinate POV pushing got you in the past, and counseling you to avoid such bull-headed behavior in order to avoid such sanctions in the future. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:19, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Stop changing your posts after I reply to them. Post below here, or strike thru and add a new post below yours, but don't make it appear I replied to something I did not reply to. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Striking down, done. Let notice that including me, 3 editors have reached the consensus to include the term "avoiding prosecution"[19][20] which was not my proposal[21], and despite of our differences none of us were reverting each other but discussing, why dont you let do the same?. And you are still wrong thinking it is legal, due: euthanasia on infants in the Netherlands is prima facie a criminal offence.( let read the sources and also the other editors[22]). Groningen Protocol is not a law as you affirmed above[23]. Thanks for your intention to help, but you are not helping at all. --ClaudioSantos¿? 17:26, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

And let me copy paste -- ClaudioSantos¿? : My dear KillerChihuahua, I have reverted your edit as being complete nonsense. When committing child euthanasia, a physician willingly and knowingly breaks the law in the best interest of the child. According to the letter of the law, he commits a plain murder. But due to the mitigating circumstances AND when the physician followed the guidelines, the Public Prosecutor can decide not to prosecuted. Don't follow the guidelines, and you are screwed and heading for jail. So by following the guidelines, in effect you avoid prosecution and jail, while still breaking the law. The Banner _talk 20:39, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit Break

"Avoid prosecution" is a fact not a point of view. Even the sources do not say it is justified to but that physicians may claim impunity. But I am begining to share The Banner's opinion: you are POV pushing your point of view despite of the sources and the facts.
— User:ClaudioSantos 01:20, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Here is a a bit more from the source...

...the physician who deliberately ends a newborn’s life can claim impunity, ie, the defense of necessity....skip one sentence...If the physician then exercises due care and reports the case to the juridical authorities, deliberate ending of life may be justified."

With three of the authors holding law degrees it is important to note the use of "defense of necessity" and "justified" as these words do have specific meanings: (three of the authors hold law degrees)

5.11 Justification defenses

The Criminal Code does not distinguish between justification and excuse. In both cases, according to the Criminal Code, the offender is not criminally liable. The distinction between justification and excuse is made in criminal law doctrine. At present, the prevailing view is that justifications concern the lawfulness of the act whereas excuses concern the blameworthiness. If grounds for justification are present, the violation of the law does not constitute a criminal offense.

...snip...

The statutory grounds for justification are:

– necessity (sect. 40 Criminal Code);

– self-defense (sect. 41 Criminal Code);

– public duty (sect. 42 Criminal Code); and

– obeying the official order of competent authority (sect. 43 Criminal Code).

...snip...

5.11 Justification defenses

– Necessity (noodtoestand)

Section 40 Criminal Code reads: "Anyone who commits an offense as a result of a force he could not be expected to resist is not criminally liable."

On the basis of the history of the Code, the Supreme Court ruled that this section includes necessity.

Necessity is a situation in which a person has to choose between conflicting duties. "If the person in such a situation obeys the most important one and violates by doing so the criminal law his act is justified" according to the Supreme Court. In this formulation, the principles of subsidiarity and proportionality are expressed.

Emphasis mine

Any questions? — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 03:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

No, it still says that one can avoid prosecution by adhering to the Guidelines. The Banner _talk 03:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Artifex: also you should not have any questions. "May avoid prosecution" and even "may claim for impunity" are according to the source, even given the fact they are the doctors who wrote the protocol and are an interesed part, and even if we do not consider the harsh criticism which have received the protocol and its grounds. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 12:40, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And so is justified.If you actually read the soureces. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 13:57, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

But per consensus you should at least keep the wording with "avoid prosecution". But as you recently reverted and you neither included your proposal with "justified" nor with "avoid prosecution" but your first edit which drove to this long discussion that you are now absolutely ignoring, then it is another proof that you are not looking for any consensus but you are pushing your POV. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

And let me cite some other sources:

"Further consultations were held to this end, for example in spring 2005 with representatives of the Ministries of Health, Welfare & Sport and Justice, and with the national office of the Public Prosecution Service. Issues discussed included the due care criteria a doctor would need to meet to avoid prosecution for terminating the life of a seriously ill newborn child. - From Netherlands Report for the UN World Summit for Children

"Drs. Verhagen and Sauer reported in the March 10, 2005, issue of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) about the Groningen Protocol. This algorithm is used to avoid prosecution in the Netherlands when performing euthanasia on infants." - FromThe Groningen Protocol: Making Infanticide Legal Does Not Make It Moral

-- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:13, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war looming?

I have reverted the unhelpful POV edit of ArtifexMayhem. There is no consensus, so what you are doing is plain POV-pushing, ArtifexMayhem. Stop that. The Banner _talk 17:34, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Can you please explain your view of the POV I'm pushing? I cannot address your concerns without knowing what they are. You might find we can work together. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 20:22, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

To be true, I am rather sick of your WPIDONTLIKEIT-attitude combined with ignoring of the facts and trying to break a long standing consensus. You even admitted that the facts described in the present text were true, but still you want a watered down version. And you don't care about the standing consensus or ongoing discussion, you just start changing the text to your desired version. And you can try to do innocent, but I don't buy that. I would be nice when you start engaging seriously in the discussion, start listening to the arguments and stop flooding this page with useless and superfluous cherrypicked sources.

And because I am sick of your uncooperative attitude, I have asked a few others to take a look at things here. The Banner _talk 20:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 21:28, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

A proposal

I have followed the debate and disagreement about statements in the lede about the legal position in Holland. I have a couple of thoughts:

• This is a controversial area with strong views both for and against. We are never going to get agreement on the rights and wrongs but we can:
  • Present the facts in as neutral a way as possible
  • Present both sides of the debate in as balanced a way as possible (okay, those "for" can work on the words describing that position and those "against" on the opposite position - that's fine)
  • Use authoritative sources where possible, so these are not "our own views" but those of respected sources

With that in mind my feeling is that we should:

• First remove the country-specific stuff from the lede entirely.
• Focus the lede on authoritative definition(s) of euthanasia, and its sub-types, that reflect the position accurately. As a starter for ten, how about this one from the internationally-compiled Oxford Dictionary of English: "euthanasia: the painless killing of a patient suffering from an incurable and painful disease or in an irreversible coma"?. It's not the only definition, but it's neutral and from a respect source. Others could follow.
• Create a separate section or sections on the law in different countries. State what the law says and how it is interpreted in practice without using words that imply it is good or bad. This could be an expansion of the existing "Legal status" section.
• Take the opportunity to rewrite the history sub-section on the Nazi Euthanasia Programme in terms of the key facts/timelines and then a sentence or so on the two opposing viewpoints - those who see this as euthanasia and how it can go wrong in the wrong hands and those who see it as not really euthanasia - making sure we pick respectable sources in each case. (Or just cover the facts and put the differing POVs into the "Euthanasia debate" section)

Finally I would suggest we wordsmith the changes on this talk page - section by section - before porting them to the article, so we can reach a broad consensus first and avoid edit warring.

Hope this helps. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:19, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree that much of the lead needs trimming; certainly nothing which is not sourced in the article should be there under any circumstances. I think your suggestion of removing all country specific data from the lead is an excellent one, it will serve the dual purpose of trimming a long lead and removing contested content from the lead. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Admin, I wasn't willing to compromize? The Banner _talk 23:36, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. Better nothing, then submitting to POV-pushing. Although it is a clear fact that you just avoid prosecution by adhering to the Groningen Protocol, those facts are probably to painful to accepts. So I prefer total removal over a USA-politically-correct watered down version. The Banner _talk 23:26, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Removed. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I won't discuss the removal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:46, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Active euthanasia in young children

Actieve levensbeëindiging op jonge kinderen
Het ziekenhuis kwam in september 2004 internationaal in het nieuws naar aanleiding van het controversiële Groningen-protocol dat door het OM in Groningen werd goedgekeurd. Dit protocol regelt de voorwaarden en gedragsregels waaronder een groep artsen over kan gaan tot actieve levensbeëindiging bij jonge kinderen en pasgeborenen zonder dat zij hiervoor vervolging door het Openbaar Ministerie hoeven te vrezen. Source: [24]

In translation: Active euthanasia in young children
In September 2004, the hospital was in the international news following the approval of the controversial Groningen protocol by the Public Presecution Service Groningen. This protocol regulates the conditions and rules of conduct under which a group of doctors can commit to active termination of life in young children and neonates without having to fear prosecution by the public prosecutor. Translation by me and Google Translate.

Still, it is not legal. It is also not a trick to evade prosecution. Just Guidelines to avoid prosecution. The Banner _talk 13:32, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

A good read, although in Dutch and just a (well sourced) thesis: De WGBO. WGBO = Wet op de geneeskundige behandelingsovereenkomst = Law on Medical Treatment Agreement The Banner _talk 13:42, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Also usefull (and in Dutch): Actieve Levensbeëindiging bij Pasgeborenen: een humane keuze?. Especially the graph on page 41 about the procedure about reporting late abortion and euthanasia in newborns in the Netherlands. In Dutch text: Procedures. This commission advices the Public Prosecutor in cases of (amongst others) euthanasia on children younger then 12 years of age. The Banner _talk 13:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

• Comment: We need to find phrasing which does not have the loaded words "avoid prosecution" which implies motive. The doctors are living people; BLP applies. We must find neutral wording which does not paint them as fugitives from justice. Banner, regardless of your opinion of the doctors' acts, the phrasing is simply too loaded. Please cease edit warring to keep this attack in the lead, and join the discussion and I'm certain we can find phrasing which is both accurate and not an attack. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:31, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

That you think "avoiding prosecution" was a motive for the physicians to adhere to the Groningen Protocol, shows how little you understand of the emotions and conflicts that play a role in the taking of a decision about child euthanasia. I sincerely hope that nobody, nobody around here, gets in such a horrific situation. The Banner _talk 00:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't think that - in fact, I think precisely the opposite of that. You could not possibly be more incredibly, horrifically wrong about what I think. I do think the wording used in the article "avoid prosecution" gives that impression, and I think that is something which should be avoided. That has been the entire thrust of my arguments and editing here, and that you have managed to so completely misunderstand my thinking is astonishing to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Although the content was finally removed which I will not oppose, at any rate I have to finally comment that "avoid prosecution" is not a loaded term but it is used by the own netherland authorities in their report to the UN, which was cited above, and this report is far form being an attack against doctors. Actually there is not one sinlge source disputing or complaining about this term, so indeed there is not any BLP concern at all. Not to mention at all that for a change some cited reliable scholar sources refer to this protocol as the institutionalization of medical "infanticide", and those sources are not represented at all in that alleged "loaded" term. Well, once said this, I do not have to repeat that I am not starting any discussion again due the content was finally removed from the lead and I am not going to discuss that removal. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 00:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I'm concerned with ensuring this article is neutrally worded. KillerChihuahua^?!? 00:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

I really believe in the effectiveness of the acts against the faith on claimed motivations. It also specially counts for doctors and their words and their doings, given the fact that some people are so ready to prima facie sanctify doctors' motivations based on their claims but despite their factual effects. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Another proposal

With the removal of the detail about the Netherlands out of the lede, it will be strange to leave other extensice section about countries in the article. So I propose the replacement of the section "Early euthanasia movement in the United States" by just a few lines of text to point to the separate articles about this subject. The section "Legal status" is already tagged as not having a worldwide view, so that part should be rewritten as wel. The Banner _talk 23:35, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I would support efforts to balance the article better, and think trimming the US view would be a good step in that direction. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:02, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

Suggested body for improvement under "Euthanasia debate"

By request of a user (MrADHD(?)), because I think both this user deserves it and the young in general, I renew the problem of not having the two sides (pros and cons) of discussion properly presented:
Header: Background for the Intellectual Defence.
The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is: to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? Let's see!
I also like to remind the contributors of the serious issue at stake here and that giving this article the necessary attention and efforts may relieve a lot of people, at least mentally. I hope you care!
Because of accusations of "promotion/soapbox", I've had one list "that's elsewhere on the Internet now".
The fact here is that the debate actually holds (by duty toward balanced debate) the above sentiments on the pro-side and thus DOES NOT at all represent a WP:SOAPBOX. Mind still the seriousness of the article, please. This discussion is also a subject to political discussion and the article needs to reflect this by exactly holding these sentiments of the pro-side or else the article merely becomes an idiot listing of "moving objects", without the foundation for reasoning. Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean. Please state, as concisely as you can, which specific changes you would like to make to this article, and which reliable sources you would use as attribution. Gabbe (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Because of limited time, I can't do this! You will have to get it from other people or be VERY patient! I've seen as duty to supply defence for the pro-side here because of the seriousness, but I'm also "well into matters" and that time isn't abundant like that. I hope for your understanding. Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea 11:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

To be true, it is a complete mystery to me what you want. I suggest that you take your time for it and create the addition that you want on a draft page in your own workspace. When finished, you can post a link here to that page. Then we can have a discussion about it. Is that okay to you? The Banner _talk 17:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Psychologically vulnerable patients

Psychologically vulnerable patients and the elderly have to rely on others to live functional lives. They have been almost programmed by society to feel as though they are “useless burdens on younger, more vital generations.”(Quill) The reason that this issue can result in a long argument is, because if society allowed the option of “self-deliverance” then these patients who already feel helpless would wonder why not take advantage of it. They are being given the choice to remain completely dependent on someone else or to relieve this person and at the same time ultimately comfort themselves. Resisting this choice may even be seen to others as selfish (Kluge). It is society that it making them feel as though they are burdens and if in addition to this, they also allow assisted suicide then they are basically saying that these certain patients can “live if they wish but the rest of us have no strong interest in their survival”(Quill). --72.175.184.239 (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This talkpage is not a discussion forum, so what changes to the text of the article do you suggest? The Banner _talk 12:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia as euphemism for murder

Appears to have been normal practice in the third reich. Euthanasia still appears to have a very negative meaning in many countries including UK and Germany - any special reason why it is not mentioned in the overview? Richiez (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

See the discussion here: Talk:Euthanasia/Archive 3. But in fact, what happened in the Third Reich had nothing to do with euthanasia. The Banner _talk 00:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Richiez: What changes are you proposing to the article? To mention Aktion T4 in the lead? Gabbe (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I came across this when looking at the Liverpool care pathway article. From the media coverage it would seem that Euthanasia in this context is used as synonym for voluntary manslaughter. Richiez (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

While you're obviously entitled to it, that's just your opinion. The word manslaughter occurs in neither article. Both are simply talking about one form of euthanasia that they expect their readers to understand as such. To call it manslaughter is original research, POV and unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Euthanasia is a procedure which may, or may not, be legal. In other words, depending on the law, it may or not equate to manslaughter or murder. The use of euthanasia in Nazi Germany was actually legal for a period of time, although it continued to be carried out illegally after Hitler revoked the law. And however abhorrent the Nazi use of euthanasia was, both in scale and breadth, as well as the fact it was abused to eliminate people for non-medical reasons, it is still part of euthanasia history and should be properly covered in this article. Currently it receives a mention, but instead of focussing on the facts, most of that section is POV material arguing that "it was not really euthanasia". That is only one of several views in the literature. The section needs a balanced re-write and, IMHO, the subject should be mentioned in the lede because of the scale and notability of it. But in view of the sensitivity of this subject, we probably need to agree a better form of words here first. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

That section is certainly POV. It should be removed after being edit warred in. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The history of the section is unimportant. What is needed is better factual coverage and balance. That's clearly not going to be easy, but removing it entirely is not the answer. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

As discussed previously, what occurred in Germany was not euthanasia in the sense of what the article is discussing. Covering it is important, as it heavily influenced the euthanasia debate that followed. But portraying it as euthanasia is also an error. The article on Action T4 is the correct place to cover the history of what happened. Here is the correct place to cover it in relation to euthanasia in general. - Bilby (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Akton T4 is generally counted as involuntary. According to most definitions of euthansaia, and certainly all approches currently in use now, that is murder. However,

I think: a) voluntary euthanasia is suicide; b) both non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are murder. In these 3 cases, the only difference is that euthanasia is supposely committed to relieve suffering. During the 3^rd Reich, there was a period, acordding to what I read, on which there was a phenomena of mass non-voluntary euthanasia (murder), which should be indeed mentioned in the article. It was kind of a part of one of the darkest periods in history. By the way, what is "POV"? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * ^{Wanna talk?} _{See my} efforts? 23:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Just what you describe above! POV = Point Of View or the way you look at things. The Banner _talk 23:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

To distinguish between euthanasia and murder, the fundamental difference today is based on intent. If the intent is to relieve the patient's suffering, then according to the currently available definitions, it can potentially be regarded as euthanasia. However, you are correct in saying that most definitions also regard involuntary euthanasia as akin to murder, and that is well established in the literature. But while some (although not all) will argue that all instances of involuntary euthanasia are murder, this doesn't mean that all instances of murder are involuntary euthanasia.

In regard to Action T4, it is not generally regarded as having been conducted in order to end suffering but instead for reasons of eugenics. Eugenics is tied up with the early euthanasia movement, but post WWII the two went in very different directions. Accordingly, sources regard Action T4 as murder, not as involuntary euthanasia, as the intent didn't match the definition of euthanasia, and instead it is believed that the euthanasia term was used to hide the reality of what went on with Action T4. - Bilby (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

The difference between euthanasia and murder is not intent. The same euthanasia procedure may be murder in one country and legal killing in another because the former bans it and the latter has legalised it. The fact that some people regard all euthanasia as murder is POV. Aktion T4 was legal - and thus not technically murder - whilst Hitler's law was in force. To say it was not euthanasia is POV - there are at least 2 opposing views: a) it was euthanasia, and so is the procedure legalised in countries today, and b) it was euthanasia, but what we do today is not - a view held by pro-euthanasia authors who want to distance today's practice from the Nazis. However, if we look at most definitions, what the Nazis did under Aktion T4 was initially euthanasia. It was only when they started to kill people for non-medical reasons - i.e. being gypsies and Jews - that they strayed outside the normal definition of euthanasia today. We need to capture that because it is probably the source of confusion and hence disagreement here. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

You're discussing whether or not the act is legal, which is also relevant, but euthanasia isn't simply defined as killing another person. If that was all the definition was, then all forms of killing someone would be euthanasia. The important part in the definition of euthanasia is why someone killed another, and that is where the intent comes in. It has to be done in the interests of the person being killed, ideally to end chronic suffering, and arguably with their consent (or at least not against their wishes).

In terms of the major literature, there are not two opposing views in regard to Action T4. The literature argues that Action T4 used the term "euthanasia" to justify killing for the state as part of a eugenics program, with only very fringe arguments, from extreme anti-euthanasia viewpoints, arguing differently. It is clearly connected to the early euthanasia movement, and is an important part of the historical discussion of euthanasia, but it is an error to regard it as the same thing as what is discussed today when we talk about euthanasia, and it would be a serious error to present it as the same thing. I've got no hassles with seeing that part of the article developed, but it needs to be kept in the context of the euthanasia debate. - Bilby (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all opinions, I will try to formulate my original point more precisely. My main concern is that the definition of Euthanasia given in the overview of this article does not correspond to actual usage of this term in this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html and similar newspaper articles given as source in the Liverpool care pathway article.

I am not British so I was hoping to get some opinions from UK to see if they think this covers normal British usage of the term Euthanasia. Its interesting that the overview has a quote of the British House of Lords which seems to be so far away from usage of the word in newspapers.

Something completely different, Euthanasia is also frequently used to describe the killing of unclaimed animals in shelters. In many cases (differs by country) the animals are perfectly vital and killed simply because nobody wants them or there are laws that such animals must be killed. I do not think that this is covered by the definition given in the overview.

In summary, I think the overview should be formulated so that it covers most uses of the term. Richiez (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

@Bilby. Yes, I get that motive is part of the definition of euthanasia. I was trying to explain to others that euthanasia is not automatically murder because it depends on the applicable law. Moving on, I suspect there is a debate over Nazi euthanasia programme partly because they muddied the official intent to legally end the lives of those suffering from incurable conditions by [illegally] sending other categories of perfectly healthy people to their deaths. So they committed both legal (and later illegal) euthanasia as well as murder in the same institutions. Those are the facts based on a) German law at the time and b) the definition of euthanasia here. As well as explaining that, it is also entirely reasonable to mention at least 3 "points of view" in the sources that have arisen over whether the Nazi programme was or wasn't euthanasia. I don't think we can dismiss the view that what the Nazis did was euthanasia as a "fringe argument" much as we may not like them or what they did. They themselves called it euthanasia, they authorised it pretty much along the same lines as the modern definitions. It was only in scale, scope and associated abuse that it differed from today's legal euthanasia. Hence, there is this 3rd argument from pro-euthanasia authors that what the Nazis did was euthanasia and that we should not call the modern approach euthanasia, because the word's become tainted. We should expose, not hide, these facts and viewpoints in as balanced a way as we can, however much we (including myself) don't like aspects of them. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fundamentally, Action T4 and euthanasia have some of the same principles underlying them. In particular, the belief that there is such a thing as a life not worth living. I have no problem with the article covering that, and it does at the moment. I'm interested in seeing how you would change it, but it needs to be clear that the major modern literature does not view Action T4 as euthanasia, even though it can point to similarities with aspects of the pre-war euthanasia movement.

Similarly, the "euthanasia as euphanism for murder" line is a difficult one to take. Euthanasia can be viewed as murder, but in regard to the LCP issue, if people are being killed in order to free up beds, then it is murder, not euthanasia. If people are being killed in order to end their suffering, then it is euthanasia, but some might still regard it as murder. The LCP seems to be a possible good example of a slippery slope, and probably needs coverage. But I'm not sure how the "euphanism for murder" can be spelled out.

We do currently have an article on animal euthanasia that explores those issues. In the past, this article has been focused on human euthanasia, with the animal euthanasia issues treated independently, in part because it does seem that the animal ethics field uses a different understanding of euthanasia than that which is applied for humans. I think bringing animal euthanasia here would complicate things, so I'd be inclined just to leave the existing hatnote. - Bilby (talk) 13:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

To start with the simple one: Animal euthanasia, as is stated in the hatnote on the very top of the article.

The German practices in and before WW2 are a nasty load stacked upon the term euthanasia. But as I said before, it is a plain misuse of the term. The Germans, and I guess everybody agrees with that, used the term as a disguise for plain massmurder, not for mercy killings. You cannot blame the term euthanasia for that misuse.

As Aktion T4 is not (except for the stolen euphemism) related to euthanasia, it would give undue weight when added to the lede. The present section is, in my opinion, sufficient. The Banner _talk 13:21, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

My bad, did not notice the hatnote. Richiez (talk) 13:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

"Hence, there is this 3rd argument from pro-euthanasia authors that what the Nazis did was euthanasia and that we should not call the modern approach euthanasia, because the word's become tainted." Really? They agree that is was euthanasia. Please provide a source for this claim. — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if one reads the files of the Nuremberg Doctors' Trials then one finds that so called "Aktion T4" was judged and condemned taken into account that euthanasia was not legal under the German Law. Of course, euthanasia is an euphemism to cover murder, actually NAZIs used also another euphemism: Gnaden Tod, it means mercy killing, which is also an euphemism. It was also a fact that some NAZI doctors claimed, for example during the mentioned trials, and they seemed to be convinced they were acting rightfully, that they were indeed releasing people from a non-worthy living. Euthanasia in Germany like in other places was defended based on diverse reasons, indeed also economic (burden) reasons, but it is still a reason given today. If we now, given the facts can judge and notice that euthanasia was a term used as an euphemism during the NAZI Euthanasia Program, then we can NOT assume that eutahansia now is defined solely by the claimed intentions of those who support euthanasia, as it surely may be used still today in the same way it was used under the Third Reich. To claim that NAZI doctors' intentions and their euthanasia were by definition evil but current doctors' intentions and current euthanasia is by definition to "release from suffering" is naive but not a matter of fact. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:58, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Euthanazia

Euthanasia is misspelled in the Gay Marriage section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.48.38.232 (talk) 06:06, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! I've corrected it now. :) - Bilby (talk) 06:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

The Geneva Declaration - Not the Hippocrates Oath

Who are the suicide researchers really? Why are they researching so much, but never uttering a word of sentiment? Where are they? Who are they? What are their "respects"? What are their definite current affiliation? Are they fit to do suicide research? Is their integrity in place for the research to be conducted properly? This may also be added as aspect of suicide and the relevant research!!!
As the psychologists have something similar (to the Geneva Declaration for med. doctors, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva , The Declaration of Geneva), all that it now takes is the question: "are you conducting your research and other work concerning suicide issues according to your professional ethics?" under one or more lie detectors as they have duties to answer it truthfully! Even if you get suspicions that they are relating to a "weird" interpretation of their prof. ethics, you can "narrow" your question and be more specific toward the ethics concerned! Good? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi! This talk page is for discussing specific ways of improving the article. It is not a discussion forum on the wider topic of euthanasia. I'm not sure what, precisely, you are asking regarding the article. Could you please clarify your question? Gabbe (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Hi to you as well! I want to highlight the strict requirements on these "researchers", whoever they may be in entering a sensitive question like this and to issue demands as to their professional ethics and their explicit duties toward humanity with the people they are supposed to help! You can't plausibly help a person into life ("saving a person") only for this person to enter torture! If they are suffering and they don't ask for help and certainly not from a self-declared Jesus Christ, then they are to be left alone, to their own private person! They have nothing to do with these (suicidal) people! You understand what I'm saying? Well, this is my message for now and that I demand this to enter the article as well, as much as "these hard research concerns" (of... ohhh... getting to know/must get to know, as by compulsion toward hate, maim and sanity-assassination). I think we'll meet in understanding in some time, at least! Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

‎3 days before Christmas (Christian ethics now redefined?) and as the medical ethics for this should be very strict (fx. 3-year qual.-therapy, avoiding "hot-headed suicides") and honest:

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

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

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

And these notions over tech-eyes and tech-ears, both having "snailhouses" by bio-cords, don't make this any better! Careful-Merry Christmas! 109.189.87.224 (talk) 14:11, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

This talkpage is not a discussion forum, so what changes to the text of the article do you suggest? The Banner _talk 14:39, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

It's rather the addition of a section that I'm implying here. Exactly the one that deals with how the researchers view themselves and what their angle is in doing a type of work. In learning about this, we may get a better idea of what a possible heuristic/ethical future people can expect in ushering through constructive changes... Cheers! 46.9.42.58 (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Unrelated link?

In the debate section, there is a link to self determination. However, that is an article concerning the international law, not directly related to the topic in context here. I did not find better links or ways to word this, however, so I'm just putting this out there for discussion. Thanks. Command Conquerer Logs 08:42, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Euthanasia is not allowed in any state of U.S.A

Only animal euthanasia is allowed in the United States of America, euthanasia is not allowed in any state of U.S.A. I do not know why the wrong information shows up in the first paragraph of "Euthanasia". It is totally wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.161.162.12 (talk) 04:00, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

The first paragraph doesn't even mention the US. I don't understand your concerns. Can you try to explain them better? HiLo48 (talk) 04:05, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Inactive Link

The Reference Link for #2 (Euthanasia and assisted suicide BBC. Last reviewed June 2011. Accessed 25 July 2011) is inactive. The BBC no longer supports a health section or something like that. I did not take it out because I'm sure there is another article out there that can take its place, I just didn't have the time to look it up. 74.117.171.207 (talk) 05:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for warning. I have added a link to an internet archive to this and another reference. The original link is dead but you can read the info in the archive. The Banner talk 07:38, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Conflicting Nazi death figures?

The first paragraph under "Nazi Euthanasia Program (Action T4)" mentions "a secret Nazi decree that led to 'mercy killings' of almost 300,000 mentally and physically handicapped people" and "5,000 to 8,000 children killed". The following paragraph, however, speaks of "the deaths of 70,000 adult Germans". That would make a total of roughly 75,000 to 78,000, which is inconsistent with the 300,000 figure and thus seems confusing. Can this be cleared up? Also, Action T4 is mentioned in the subhead and once in the text, but at no point presented or explained otherwise. Something about it seems to be missing, then. Roy McCoy (talk) 18:54, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

No this can not be cleared up. The killings took place over the years the Nazi's were in power. When the Nazi doctor's killed people they gave other reasons for the patients death, so there is no way to know how many people they killed. Counting how many people still lived after the war ended is one method to guess how many were killed.--Mark v1.0 (talk) 18:13, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Factual error about the legal status in Belgium

There is a factual error in the lemma about the legal status of euthanasia in Belgium. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthanasia Legal status

Present text: In the Netherlands and Belgium, where euthanasia has been legalized, it still remains homicide although it is not prosecuted and not punishable if the perpetrator (the doctor) meets certain legal exceptions.

Proposed text (the difference with the Netherlands is that in Belgium it is not considered homicide; and add references).

In the Netherlands, where euthanasia has been legalized, it still remains homicide although it is not prosecuted and not punishable if the perpetrator (the doctor) meets certain legal exceptions.

In Belgium, euthanasia has been legalized in 2002, under strict conditions.

78.29.225.154 (talk) 21:45, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

78.29.225.154 (talk) 22:23, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

To my opinion, you have a much larger text saying exactly the same as the present text. The Banner talk 01:32, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

78.29.225.154 (talk) 17:17, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

connecting pages

Hi. I am talking to the author of this page, euthanaisa,

I wrote it in turkmen, I wrote about euthanaisa in turkmen at turkmen wiki, I wanted to link this with same info of other wikis but when I linked it to this, english version it says:

The external client site did not provide page information.

can we link the pages? here, in turkmen: https://tk.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ewtanazi%C3%BDa — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sir artur (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Fixed already. The Banner talk 14:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Links

>> Belgium child-euthanasia bill likely to pass (Lihaas (talk) 15:37, 13 February 2014 (UTC)).

A Philosophical View

In my opinion, while it is an important to discuss the religious views, laws, and other such topics about Euthanasia, it is also important to take a look at the idea from a philosophical view. To begin, the discussion about whether or not Euthanasia is "right or wrong" there needs to be a discussion about how past philosophers view this pressing issue. There are many different moral theories in which one can view the idea of Euthanasia by. Three major views would be that of Utilitarianism, Kant's theory, and the theory of natural law.

First, Utilitarian’s have two different views on Euthanasia with itself. Utilitarian’s believe the morally correct action is the one that fabricates the most happiness and good over evil for all parties. There are also two sub categories of utilitarian’s, act-utilitarianism and rule-utilitarianism. Act-utilitarianism declares that correct actions are ones that directly create overall good, and Rule-utilitarianism says that morally correct actions are covered by a rule that if followed will create overall good.. Therefore, Act-utilitarian’s would tend to focus more on exactly how much happiness would come out of the decisions being made. The decision to kill a patient would depend of their current health status. If one is greatly suffering then it would be in the patients best interest to end their life, thus creating happiness for not only the patient that was suffering but also their family that had to watch them suffer. However, the idea of killing someone also contradicts the ideas of act-utilitarian’s because while taking the patient out of suffering thus creating happiness, killing that person would no longer allow for that person to receive the feeling of happiness. When it comes the rule-utilitarian views, they tend to be against the idea of euthanasia. They believe that allowing euthanasia to be a law would cause problems. Allowing such a law to pass would eventually become an issue due to the fact that it would become abused. It would essentially down play the idea of killing. It would also defeat the general purpose of a doctor. Overall a doctor is suppose to make one health, however, with physician-assisted suicide a doctor would be basically doing the exact opposite.

Second, Kantian theorists focus more one what is morally right when it come to the categorical imperative. The categorical imperative is an important view that we should follow despite our own views. Kantians could have different theories on euthanasia as well. Once of Kant’s views of euthanasia would be that it should not be permitted due to the fact that it would suggest that humans could be considered disposable in a sense. If a consenting active human being knowingly requests to be killed it is in direct violation with the idea that everyone should always strive to greatness and not dwell on personal desires or views. However, Kantian theorists could argue that if a patient is no longer responsive and is in a vegetative state or coma and can no longer make decision for themselves that euthanasia would be okay. This is because Kant believes that humans have natural significance and poise and once a human has transferred into the vegetated state they no longer have any significance.

Lastly, the theory of natural law depicts that in general, everything about euthanasia is wrong. Natural law theory states that the morally right act is the one that most closely follows the path of nature.. Natural law theorists believe that the natural world already has a natural order, place, and purpose for every aspect of life. To natural law theorists performing any type of procedure that disrupts the natural flow of the world in morally wrong. Euthanasia to them is the direct opposite of preserving life, which is precisely what natural law believes in. Overall euthanasia would not be permitted if it were up to someone that practices natural law because it is in now way natural.

I strongly believe there should be a section in which these topics are discussed. Rather than focusing strictly on laws that we have today, we can see how past important philosophers viewed what is morally correct and incorrect about euthanasia. Feel free to comment on anything!

Much as I can see some sense in this, the philosophical analyses could be very extensive. On balance, I would favour including them (I've at least added a link to a good article from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). However, we also have to remember that the word has other uses not limited to philosophy. I recently drew attention to the fact that the very word "euthanasia" and its subdivisions as listed in the Wiki article, which derive broadly from mainstream bioethics, have no place in the legislative framework the practice of the country most associated with euthanasia: the Netherlands. There, both the medical and legal establishments have different ways of categorising what they do and can be done in practice.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 20:11, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 November 2014

Estonia must be removed from the article for Estonia has not legalised euthanasia nor assisted suicide. 90.191.201.98 (talk) 23:08, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence of that? Present sources seem to indicate that it is legal. The Banner talk 23:39, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 02:14, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2014

In the section describing involuntary euthanasia (A) below,

Involuntary euthanasia Main article: Involuntary euthanasia Euthanasia conducted against the will of the patient is termed involuntary euthanasia.

please change the definition to "Involuntary euthanasia occurs when euthanasia is performed on a person who is able to provide informed consent, but does not, either because they do not choose to die, or because they were not asked." because the current wording is misleading and my suggestion is taken directly from the main page for involuntary euthanasia. The source would be: Jackson, Jennifer (2006). Ethics in medicine. Polity. p. 137. ISBN 0-7456-2569-X.

Thank you!

24.189.16.181 (talk) 14:26, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia cannot use text lifted directly from other sources. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:00, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi User:G S Palmer. I wasn't the anon who requested this. But a short quote, as requested, would be acceptable. See: Wikipedia:Non-free content#Text. Thanks. HG | Talk 15:11, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Edit request of 24 August 2015

Please add Action T4 to the "See also" list. The use of euthenasia by the Nazis is a well known example of a government-run program 155.213.224.59 (talk) 13:55, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Oppose — this is a possible 'See also' on Involuntary euthanasia, not here. Ratel (talk) 21:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Non-human

While it makes sense for the Voluntary euthanasia article to deal exlusively with human euthanasia, it doesn't make sense to exclude animals from an article simply called "Euthansia". This article should discuss all forms of euthanasia since the definition "the practice of intentionally ending a life in order to relieve pain and suffering" clearly applies to both. This dishonest omission also leads to false statements like "Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries" when it should read "Non-voluntary euthanasia of humans" to be precise. 122.105.134.22 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Non-human euthanasia is covered at animal euthanasia. The ethical concerns tend to be different, and it is such a big issue breaking it up seems to make sense. - Bilby (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Why? Why are the ethical concerns different? The way I see it, it's MORE moral to euthanise a human since a human has the ability to give consent. As far as I'm concerned, that's the ONLY moral difference. Unless you can explain some reason why morality applies differently to non-human animals, I'm calling your claim a case of pure bias.68.42.32.128 (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 October 2015

Euthanasia is now legal in California, USA. Please add this fact to the article. Sources:

http://www.dw.com/en/california-governor-jerry-brown-signs-assisted-suicide-bill/a-18763052 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/us/California-becomes-5th-US-state-to-allow-euthanasia/articleshow/49235816.cms http://news.yahoo.com/california-becomes-fifth-us-state-allow-euthanasia-213823323.html

40.138.102.18 (talk) 19:39, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

• Done Thank you. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:31, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

We probably need to clarify the list of states in the article, as the California bill doesn't permit euthanasia, only physician-assisted suicide, and that seems to be the case in most (if not all) of the other states listed. I'll see what I can do later today. - Bilby (talk) 00:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

But isn't physician assisted suicide like euthanasia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.154.89.30 (talk) 15:16, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not in an ethical sense. The outcome is the same, in that a person dies, but in one case they take their own life, and in the other someone else takes their life. The difference in ethics between you taking your own life, and you taking someone else's life, is significant, even if the outcomes are similar. - Bilby (talk) 13:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Euthanasia Debate — slippery slope

The slippery slope is a common argument against euthanasia, where the convenience of killing off a patient that did not request death would outweigh the otherwise requested assisted suicides. However, annual death certificate studies in the Netherlands showed a trend of the opposite circumstance occurring. Table 1 (from Rietjens, J., van der Maas, P., Onwuteaka-Philipsen, B., van Delden, J., & van der Heide, A. (2009). Two Decades of Research on Euthanasia from the Netherlands. What Have We Learnt and What Questions Remain?. Journal Of Bioethical Inquiry, 6(3), 271-283. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11673-009-9172-3 ). This Bioethical inquiry conducted between the years 1990 and 2005 by Springer, displays a sloping trend of euthanasia, a plateau of assisted suicide, and a decline in lives ended without explicit patient request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tjoxlol (talk • contribs)

You may wish to add that to this article: Euthanasia and the slippery slope Ratel (talk) 00:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2016

This link is outdated: Physician assisted death from The Hastings Center http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/BriefingBook/Detail.aspx?id=2202

Please update to this link: http://www.thehastingscenter.org/briefingbook/chapter-30-physician-assisted-death/

Thank you!

Jamesdonegan (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Already done Seems like you've performed the edit yourself. st170e^talk 15:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

In California beginning uno 2016, California enacted legislation to allow physician assisted euthanasia. See below for the form. (H&SC is the Health and Safety Code).

H.&S.C. §443.11. (a) A request for an aid-in-dying drug as authorized by this part shall be in the following form:

Request for an Aid-In-Dying Drug to End My Life in a Humane and Dignified Manner

I, ._____________, am an adult of sound mind and a resident of the State of California.

I am suffering from __________, which my attending physician has determined is in its terminal phase and which has been medically confirmed.

I have been fully informed of my diagnosis and prognosis, the nature of the aid-in-dying drug to be prescribed and potential associated risks, the expected result, and the feasible alternatives or additional treatment options, including comfort care, hospice care, palliative care, and pain control.

I request that my attending physician prescribe an aid-in-dying drug that will end my life in a humane and dignified manner if I choose to take it, and I authorize my attending physician to contact any pharmacist about my request.

INITIAL ONE: _____ I have informed one or more members of my family of my decision and taken their opinions into consideration. ____ I have decided not to inform my family of my decision. _____ I have no family to inform of my decision.

I understand that I have the right to withdraw or rescind this request at any time.

I understand the full import of this request and I expect to die if I take the aid-in-dying drug to be prescribed. My attending physician has counseled me about the possibility that my death may not be immediately upon the consumption of the drug.

I make this request voluntarily, without reservation, and without being coerced.

Dated: _____________ Signed: ___________________________

Declaration of Witnesses

We declare that the person signing this request: (a) is personally known to us or has provided proof of identity; (b) voluntarily signed this request in our presence; (c) is an individual whom we believe to be of sound mind and not under duress, fraud, or undue influence; and (d) is not an individual for whom either of us is the attending physician, consulting physician, or mental health specialist.

Dated: _____________ Signed (Witness #1): _______________________ Dated: _____________ Signed (Witness #2): _______________________

NOTE: Only one of the two witnesses may be a relative (by blood, marriage, registered domestic partnership, or adoption) of the person signing this request or be entitled to a portion of the person’s estate upon death. Only one of the two witnesses may own, operate, or be employed at a health care facility where the person is a patient or resident.

172.8.234.98 (talk) 05:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)Ted Gordon July 23, 2016

Euthanasia debate

In a recent psychological study in Belgium, it was found that people's disapproval of adult euthanasia is predicted, beyond religiosity, by endorsement of collectivistic values (loyalty and purity) and low flexibility in existential issues, but not by prosocial, empathetic inclinations and care-oriented values.--184.152.68.50 (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

Header: The 1949 New York State Petition for Euthanasia and Catholic Opposition

Line: Catholic religious leaders criticized the petition, saying that such a bill would "legalize a suicide-murder pact" and a "rationalization of the fifth commandment of God, 'Though Shalt Not Kill'.

Minor Edit/Typo: Change "Though" to "Thou" Linda Schoenmann (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Activism

Unfortunately User:ClaudioSantos has decided to but some personal POV in the lead. I guess he never ever read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. And now he is editwarring too. The lead is not the place for activism, as it should be a summery of the article. But istead of adhering to a neutral article, he accuses me of bad faith... The Banner talk 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring aside, what is the issue (content-wise) with what was added? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Besides potential WP:NPOV issues. See MOS:LEAD. Content in the lead should not be "stand alone". Rather, it should summarize material that is extensively covered in the body of an article, usually to the point where the lead itself would not require citation, in all but a few situations. GMG^talk 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it shouldn't go in the lead. But the current sentence: "Those who are against euthanasia may argue for the sanctity of life, while proponents of euthanasia rights emphasize alleviating suffering, and preserving bodily integrity, self-determination, and personal autonomy" seems unbalanced towards pro-euthanasia. While the wording on his edit could be better, I believe there is a problem there. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've simplified things a bit, since A) the article seems to be broader than simply killing to prevent suffering, and B) the summary of the debate did seem gravely over simplistic. It would probably suffice to simply state that the debate is ongoing, and direct readers to the body. GMG^talk 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes the paragraph should not extend on the arguments supporting euthanasia as it was doing. Truncating the arguments against euthanasia to "sanctity of life" is oversimplisic and does not cover what is even said about in the main article. There is an undue POV if the arguments supporting euthanasia in the LEAD are more extensively described and summarized -yet oversimplistic as well- while arguments against euthanasia are reduced to a couple of words not refleccting the nature of those arguments. So I do agree on taking both of them out of the lead. ClaudioSantos¿? 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Just... you know... usually it's best to have this discussion before reverting a few times, and not after. GMG^talk 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I was quite willing to give you a new chance after your extended break here. But you are showing the same behaviour now that gave you blocks and a topic ban in the past. Removing all the warnings does not help at all. The Banner talk 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You, The Banner, were warned a lot of times to disengage of me as your conduct has crossed the line of harrasment, so you were explicity invited to leave to other people worry about if there were really something wrong with my edits or "behaviour". But don't worry, I don't really matter of cleaning my talk page of your royal merciful chances. Now I will enjoy my lentils. ClaudioSantos¿? 16:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You know GMG, if there was a war and if I could agree and also disagree with nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans then at any rate certainly here the casus belli was not other foolness but the very euthanasia. ClaudioSantos¿? 16:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

...I... am a comparatively simple fellow from the country. But I do know that immediately taking things to the talk page and trying to reach a middle ground (rather than trying to have a conversation via edit summary) is usually the best solution, and meeting accusations of bad faith with more accusations of bad faith usually just wastes time at best. GMG^talk 16:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the lede is much better now that it limits the polemical nature of euthanasia to a brief neutral statement and that the lede now avoids hand picking or omitting the many motivations for support/opposition. Shabidoo | Talk 18:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

De facto vs legal

As an user is reverting then I had to ask myself: do we really need a discussion on basic terminology? Ok, let's start the abc lesson then: please go to the very article in wikipedia De_facto: "Latin for "in fact", describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally authorized". So I think it is pretty clear that de facto and legal are opposite terms. So saying something like de facto legal has no sense unless you would like to say it is illegally legal. I wonder if the user just wants to claim that euthanasia in some places is de facto practiced by doctors although beyond and thus against the law, like in a sort of doctatorship. I would agree if they just put that in the article in that clear way but surely it will rain a hurricane of complains and appeals to POV, etc. So I just erased the de facto legal sentence. ClaudioSantos¿? 01:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding "de facto" in its context here. The phrase "de facto legal" isn't especially elegant, but neither is it oxymoronic, as you suggest. Consider something that is technically illegal but generally tolerated by authorities, i.e., something that rarely leads to prosecution. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Illegal is illegal. As you confirmed de facto is meant as illegal, be it technically or untechnically tolerated or simply impossed by the force, be it by the force of everyday bad habits, but still illegal. De facto is a well known latin term commonly used in the legal context as ilegal in opposition to de jure which means preciselly legal. At best one could argue that every legal act is de facto as it is a fact but not every de facto act is legal. So at best de facto legal would be equivalent to a simply legal. Insisting to keep the sentence de facto legal -which is contradictory in its own terms or at best a redundant way to say legal- is certainly stubborn and ludicrous. At least it is a laughable term and not only by some of my jurist collegues. But should I plead for wikipedia against being pointed out as the clown of the town once again? At any rate, I can even laugh better as obstinacy is tying euthanasia to a latin term habitually tied to dictatorship as already noticed. ClaudioSantos¿? 03:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

But what is false and misleading is to say that euthanasia is legal in Japan, where it is not legal and I do not see any source claiming it is legal de facto or such ridiculous statements so I will take that out. ClaudioSantos¿? 03:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The situation in Japan is that it is de facto legal, as long as you stick to the rules. When you don't stick to the rules, you will get prosecuted. The same in the Netherlands: stick to the rules or get prosecuted. In both countries it is not fully legal but because of the lack of prosecution it is in fact legal (= de facto legal). The Banner talk 07:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

See also: Legality of euthanasia The Banner talk 07:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your WP:OR interpretations of the law, misuse of legal terminology and misreading of WP article are not reliable sources. wP article on legality of euthanasia in Japan says: "The Japanese government has no official laws on the status of euthanasia and the Supreme Court of Japan has never ruled on the matter". In The Netherland there are laws ruling euthanasia, that is quiete different and even quite sad.ClaudioSantos¿? 13:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please, stop cherry picking and read the whole section. Clear enough that euthanasia is de facto legal, as you will not get prosecuted as long as you stick to the rules. Reading a full section of an article is not WP:OR but your dubious reading again raises the issue of WP:CIR. The Banner talk 18:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)}

The term de facto legal is never used in that article, it is a WP:OR -and very dubious- interpretation you do of the article. You must provide a source calling the legal situation of euthanasia in Japan as de facto legal or simply claiming it is legal. I will not discuss your evident lack of knowledge and expertise on the legal subject because I have exahusted and stressed all my guffaws for today. Of course, those with the minimum competence on the legal topics, do know that lack of prosecution does not imply legality, and I can quote a single evident example: impunity. Or as mentioned before: de facto government is an usual way to refer to an illegal dictatorship. Yes, illegal though. I would agree if you say that euathanasia is de facto practiced with impunity and it looks as a dOctatorship in some places. But you might start to yell. At any rate, and summarizing: not any reliable source is claiming euthanasia is legal in Japan. And of course I will not refer about your rabid insinuation of my overall competence, that is presumed by law, leaving aside my different diplomas and my scholar career. And about your "advices" to me, demanding from me to do this or not to do that, we already know my laugh that I can also address to my own diplomas whenever I want, as I prefer my lentils. For the rest, Goethe in my personal way: The dog that in the doctors’ stable dwells ... ClaudioSantos¿? 20:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please translate this edit in English? The Banner talk 20:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, that was a little snarky. What I was about to say before I got the edit conflict notice was this:

There's absolutely no reason to personalize this content dispute. I'm sure the implication about your competence was intended as an observation, not an attack. I share The Banner's concerns. With every comment you post to this page, you make abundantly clear that you are far from fluent in English. That is no reflection on your character or intelligence, but it does mean that you need to take extra care when editing the English Wikipedia and that you should be more willing to listen when multiple editors are telling you that you're incorrect. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:37, 22 September

I have presented scholar thesis, scholar articles and also legal resources -also before high international courts- in english: all passed and praised, what a shame!. I do teach at university level for english speakers at a native english country. Nevertheless I do agree my english does not fit your very computerized and robotic style, though. Despite I am also proficient and expert in other languages like math and programming. Instead I prefer to answer and think, as comrade Lenin did when he was asked about how many languages he spoke: "only one, just dialectics". And certainly dialectics versus binary logic, coming from the ruling logic of the market, that is the common and ruling denominator in all languages including english. And, it seems you Rivertorch ignore that a claim about the competence of a person is a very serious issue despite you are probably used to the bad habit -surely learned from wikipedia standards- of thinking that it is just an irrelevant or a "gently" observation (even if followed by snarky yells). Actually since competence is presumed by law, then a challenge to it must be proved with evidence before a judge, therefore it is an attack (otherwise why to involve a judge?). But as you said, that all is irrelevant here, and I am not interested on deal with ludicrous comments, etc. Another user decided to take Japan away from the lede, so I am not the only one claiming this. Euthanasia is NOT legal in Japan. You provide counter-evidence based on reliable sources, claiming that euthanasia is "de facto legal" in Japan and that is all. Of course, I can also save some of my lentils for you as well, if you like or prefer so.ClaudioSantos¿? 20:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, euthanasia is not legal in Japan. But they have rules in place that prevent you of being prosecuted in cases of euthanasia. When you do not get prosecuted over euthanasia while it is still illegal, it is in common practise not illegal or de facto legal, as long as you stick to the rules. If it was fully illegal, there would not have been any rules or regulations, just jail. The Banner talk 07:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"De Facto: This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs that must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. [...] In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional." (From: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. 2008). Example: doctors are willing to impose euthanasia de facto and depict their own rules as if they were actual legitime laws that people must obbey. ClaudioSantos¿? 11:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my edit above which stated exactly the same... The Banner talk 17:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. I am glad to confirm de facto legal is oxymoronic and euthanasia is not legal in Japan. I am glad you agree. Now...back to my lentils. ClaudioSantos¿? 18:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, no. In fact, you just approved the wording "de facto legal" with your quote... The Banner talk 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, no. In fact, de facto refers to something illegal as clearly the definition says. Do you need it to be highlighted? I would understand if you needed such an aid to read. Don't hesitate nor feel ashamed to ask for assistance. De facto legal is like saying "illegal legal". Oxymoronic. Of course, I understand all this is troubling you a lot. Keep the efforts on understand basic legal terminology!ClaudioSantos¿? 19:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

But when you look at the facts, you can see that although it is illegal it is allowed (and you will not get prosecuted over it) when you stick to certain rules. That is indeed oxymoronic, but the truth in real life. The Banner talk 21:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm... just going to note here that there has been probably entirely too much talk about editors and not about content. If everyone has reached a pretty steady impasse, then it may be time for the standard remedy. GMG^talk 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  I do agree. As I agree that Japan (as an example of a country were euthanasia was allegedely legal) was took out of the lede by the very same editor who included it at first. ClaudioSantos¿? 21:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I really can't stress this enough: comment on contributions not contributors. That applies to basically everyone basically everywhere, and the reason it does is that only one of the two actually ends up improving the encyclopedia. GMG^talk 21:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• From Families and End–of–Life Treatment Decisions: An International Perspective [25] : In Japan, euthanasia is not authorised under law, but is recognized under strict conditions by case-law. In cases where euthanasia is allowed, the family has the option to ask the doctor to turn off life support. Ratel (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can say that in cases where specific wording is an issue, it's usually just better to use the wording the sources use. GMG^talk 00:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. So we can say that in Japan euthanasia is generally illegal, but in specific cases it is legal. That would make it "de facto legal", IOW when you need euthanasia, you apply for it, and it is granted under certain conditions. (DE FACTO means "in deed", A term used to denote a thing actually done). Ratel (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Do the sources say that? Or does the source say something we're interpreting to mean that? I'm not totally paying attention here, so I'm not entirely sure what source in particular is being discussed, maybe you can clarify, but it seems like if the source used the words "de facto" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the source didn't, and instead said something more legally nuanced, then we may need to say something more nuanced as well. GMG^talk 23:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Source implies that, does not state that. Another source (Japan Times, 2017): Japanese law is vague on euthanasia. It neither permits it nor forbids it. Where is the fine line that separates it from murder? The 1962 Nagoya ruling laid down guidelines. The patient’s condition must be incurable. The suffering must be unendurable. Most pertinently ... the patient’s will must be known. Ratel (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hopefullly this large quote from a scholar source is not too large:

"There are reasons, however, why it may be legally problematic to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. In Article 202 of the Criminal Code, participation in another's suicide is prohibited (see1). Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, even with a patient's request may fulfill the criteria for a criminal act of omission as defined by this article. One possible interpretation is that Japanese law does not clearly guarantee relief from criminal responsibility for shortening a patient's life by an act of omission (Rothenberg et al., 1996). Some readers may feel that in Japan active euthanasia has been legal since 1962, when the Nagoya High Court established six conditions of justified euthanasia followed by Yokohama District Court’s four conditions in 1995 (Hoshino, 1993, 1996; Appendix C). This view is somewhat misleading. According to the Japanese statute, the constitution, the criminal and the civil codes do not mention euthanasia explicitly. In the Japanese legal system, each court judgment has binding power on future judgments in similar cases to some degree. However, even if the two judgments have set conditions under which active euthanasia is not illegal, it does not mean that these represent Japan's legal position in its entirety. In fact, they are not judgments from the Supreme Court. All we can say is that since there are precedent judgments that set conditions under which active euthanasia is not illegal, if a physician performs active euthanasia following the conditions laid down precisely, then the physician will very likely not be found guilty. However, such a verdict is not guaranteed and these conditions are almost impossible to fulfill. Moreover, the fact that no clinical or legal cases of active euthanasia have been performed so far strongly indicates that euthanasia is not “publicly permitted” in Japan. As described before, no current policy affirms active euthanasia and it has never been morally sanctioned by the majority of lay people or professionals in Japan. The characteristics of Japanese current law about end of life care have been briefly discussed. Active euthanasia is not permitted in practice. As well, the cessation of life support remains a controversial issue." (Akira Akabayashi. Euthanasia, assisted suicide, and cessation of life support: Japan's policy, law, and an analysis of whistle blowing in two recent mercy killing cases. Social Science & Medicine. Volume 55, Issue 4, August 2002, Pages 517-527)

As far as I am concerned, according to the source, which is a review on the legal and ethical status of euthanasia in Japan, euthanasia is far away from being a legally allowed practice. And it seems that not even doctors dare to claim euthanasia as it was a de facto practice since -according to the quoted source- euthanasia is not "publicly permitted" in Japan. ClaudioSantos¿? 01:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Then why don't we say something like: Active euthanasia however is legal in only a handful of countries (ex. Belgium, Canada, Switzerland) and is limited to specific circumstances and with the approval councilors, doctors or other specialists. In some countries such as Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, support for active euthanasia is almost non-existent. In others, such as Japan, the legal status of euthanasia is unclear. Since it sounds like the real issue is that... there is no clear answer other than it's complicated. GMG^talk 14:43, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

That's fine but use "e.g." not "ex." as per MOS:ABBR.Ratel (talk) 00:24, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree with the above version for the lede, but Japan should only be mentioned as suggested in the lede once Japan is properly covered in the actual article. Shabidoo | Talk 00:49, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'll make you a deal. You guys incorporate accurate coverage of Japan in the article, and I'll be the sacrificial cow that changes the lead. GMG^talk 00:53, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

"most of the 5,000 to 8,000 children killed afterwards were forcibly taken from their parents.[47]["

This entry in the article is historically inaccurate, so it is no surprise that the "reference" that is linked to it goes only to a BBC video with a title (accusation) of "genocide," showing no author or credible scholarship behind it. The mercy euthanasia program in Germany was simply not run this way. The procedure involving the parents, family, and 3 doctors, on official records, is well documented, by such authors as David Irving, from the original medical records in German. In most or even all cases -- I have never yet seen even one credibly documented exception -- the parents themselves REQUESTED the mercy help and euthanasia. Just as with the Katyn Massacre, it is time to end these hysterical, politically-motivated claims in honest academic writing.Starhistory22 (talk) 18:47, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

David Irving is a disgraced scholar and a holocaust denier. Enough said. Shabidoo | Talk 22:33, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2018

 Not done for now: @Mmg023: Not exactly sure what you want to add to the article. Dolotta (talk) 06:32, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

California Euthanasia Laws

The California Euthanasia Laws, allows for an individuals who has a six month or less life expectancy to be assisted by medical staff to end their life.2 Euthanasia is the act of a painless death towards an individual who usually suffers from an incurable or painful disease or in an irreversible coma. There are a three types of euthanasia with different descriptions such as voluntary active euthanasia, voluntary passive euthanasia, and physician assisted suicide which will be the main focus. The distinction between active and passive euthanasia is thought to be crucial for medical ethics.1 The difference between active euthanasia and passive euthanasia is letting someone die or causing their death. For that reason we cannot accept the use of euthanasia, the patient will suffer more before ending; medical staff continues with conflicting morals. As a doctor, take the oath of ‘first do no harm,’ they are in a contradiction if they are here to save and increase health but help do the opposite.

In the state of California, this issue is of great controversy and will continue to be especially with the death penalty, but as long as the the oath of ‘first do, no harm’ exist the use of euthanasia is morally and medically wrong. The few states allowing physician assisted suicide such as Washington DC, Colorado, and California currently have long lines of people who should receive it, but will not unless they are okay with the removal of their license. Although it is allowed in few states we can see a large division between the other states who partake in the majority, for that reason the help of physician assisted suicide is also morally controversy. Even though the law has been passed, but not practiced growing the list of those who want to participate or have it in use for delinquents it is not cost efficient in the long-run and should not even be an options. With other developed countries such as Canada, and European countries who allow physician assisted suicide it does not mean it is the correct decision. Why? Perhaps all the requirements needed for a successful assisted suicide when the four-step argument is an examination to determine the if the use of euthanasia is allow. </ref>[26]</ref>3 The slippery slope of euthanasia rises as it becomes an options without being asked to be one. Patients feel like they need to move towards euthanasia because they are afraid of financial cost as it may be a faster and cheaper option, when in reality it can be more damaging for their family or themselves as they can be pushed to “less painful method.” </ref> [27]4 Mmg023 (talk) 08:00, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

References

Sorry, what is the text change that you want? The Banner talk 09:38, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

You are going to have to be more specific Mmg023. I don't know which text you want to edit or replace, or if you want your entire text to be placed in a new section. If that is the case, I don't think it's possible because your text should to be placed in three different sections: the definition in the intro, the status of euthanasia law in California in the section on law in different countries, and arguments against euthanasia for your slippery slope. Also, I'm not sure if you are advocating that the slippery slope argument is a VALID reason to oppose euthanasia or if you are pointing out the argument against euthanasia is a slipery slope FALACY. Could your clarify this and then we can talk about incorportating your text into the article. Shabidoo | Talk 21:04, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 8c goals

Our goals include:

• Updating the "legal status" section to be more up-to-date on new laws that are in the works of being passed and those that have been passed.
• Expand "euthanasia debate" section to include more viewpoints since it is currently short and heavily focused on Emmanuel.
• Condense "physician sentiment" and "religious views" as subsections of "euthanasia debate".
• Create a section on "process of euthanasia" to inform readers which options would be presented to a patient who has elected for passive or active euthanasia and which patients are eligible for euthanasia.
• Update history section with current events of the euthanasia movement, such as Brittany Maynard, and its presentation in popular literature, such as "Of Mice and Men" by John Steinbeck.

Vivianle17 (talk) 22:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Vivianle17, I noticed your comment "Expand "euthanasia debate" section to include more viewpoints since it is currently short and heavily focused on Emmanuel." I recently did this by exploring the intersectionality of Angel of mercy (criminology) and euthanasia. I clarified the difference between the two and explained a concern that the latter could be misrepresented by the former. My edits were immediately reverted stating "Revert, this is irrelevant for this article." However, a search on Google scholar for "angel of mercy" + euthanasia gives 127 results. More results can be found by searching "nurses who kill" + euthanasia. This is not only a theoretical concern, there have been documented instances in criminology where the murderer claims that the murder was committed with euthanasia as a motive, but this is not true. The distinction and connection between the two is an existing topic in the scholarly literature. I am open to creating a separate section (perhaps on the browder topic of social or cultural iatrogenesis related to euthanasia, as crime by health care professionals and euthanasia are discussed as forms of this outside wikipedia) for this intersectionality, or incorporating it into the debate section.

Distinctions between the two concepts are discussed in other literature I have not included in this article:

• Reconceptualizing the notion of victim selection, risk, and offender behavior in healthcare serial murders CK Lubaszka, PC Shon - Journal of Criminal Psychology, 2013 - emeraldinsight.com (link to abstract)
• Caring to death: The murder of patients by nurses J Field, A Pearson - International journal of nursing practice, 2010 - Wiley Online Library (link to abstract)
• Inside the Minds of Healthcare Serial Killers: Why They Kill, By Katherine M. Ramsland, page 8

This one discusses a murderer who claimed the motive was euthanasia:

• A regulatory response to healthcare serial killing E Tilley, C Devion, AL Coghlan, K McCarthy - Journal of Nursing …, 2019 - Elsevier

In addition there are three sources used in my reverted edit, which are

• Field, John (October 2007). "Chapter 5". Caring to Death: a discursive analysis of nurses who murder patients (PDF) (Ph.D. thesis). University of Adelaide. Retrieved September 18, 2019.
• Fox, James Allen; Levin, Jack A.; Quinet, Kenna (March 22, 2018). Will to Kill, The: Making Sense of Senseless Murder, 5th Edition. Newbury Park, California: SAGE Publications. p. 308. ISBN 1506365965.
• Cohen, Lewis; Ganzini, Linda; Mitchell, Christine; Arons, Stephen; Goy, Elizabeth; Cleary, James (December 13, 2005). "Accusations of Murder and Euthanasia in End-of-Life Care" (PDF). Journal of Palliative Medicine. 8 (6): 1096–1104. doi:10.1089/jpm.2005.8.1096. Retrieved September 18, 2019.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 13:00, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

This is a similar situation to what happened with the lengthy inclusion of the Nazi "euthanasia" program on this page. It did not belong here. Criminals can call murdering "euthanasia" all they want, but it's still not euthanasia. Editors who try to force material linking murder to euthanasia into the article are usually pushing a religious or political barrow. Ratel (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

But isn't it important to distinguish between the two? Perhaps this topic belongs (in short form) in the categories discussion instead. The reason this comes up under debate is that this particular type of murder is already rather hard to detect, (this comes up multiple times of the literature), and legalized euthanasia makes it even harder to detect. Maybe an analogy could be that in most places it is illegal to pick up roadkill to eat or skin, and this is especially because the prohibition on this makes the game warden's job easier. The barrow that is pushed here is the criminology scholarship barrow, but as the goal stated above "Expand "euthanasia debate" section to include more viewpoints," and this viewpoint is not discussed anywhere yet. This is not slippery slope fallacy, it is concern about cultural and social iatrogenesis.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:10, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Dutch use of Euthanasia

In the article it is claimed that the Dutch do not use the word Euthanasia, however in more recent development this term does start to appear making a difference between itself and assisted suicide Thomas Westerlaken (talk) 11:24, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

The article only states that "Dutch law" does not use the term. Of you have proof that the law now makes that difference explicitly, then please add it with sources. (Note: a judgement of the High Court is not a law.) The Banner talk 12:30, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Mmg023.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vivianle17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 March 2022

https://sternreality.blogspot.com/2022/03/euthanasia.html 223.224.1.68 (talk) 21:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 22:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

"Mercy killing" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Mercy killing and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 12#Mercy killing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. gnu57 02:00, 12 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2023

In the third paragraph of the debate section there is the word legalizing and it is spelled incorrectly as legalising 213.55.221.197 (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: This article uses British English. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 May 2023

"In the United States in 2013, 47% nationwide supported doctor-assisted suicide. This included 32% of Latinos, 29% of African-Americans, and almost nobody with disabilities.[53]"

The source for this, an article and not the original poll, doesn't actually say that almost nobody with disabilities supports assisted suicide. The poll didn't ask whether participants were disabled, and the article doesn't claim it does. The article does say that "disability communities overwhelmingly reject it," but its source for that is another article focusing only on the reasoning disability rights organizations that do oppose assisted suicide offer for their opposition. As the source never asserts that almost no disabled people support assisted suicide and fails to support even its more limited assertion that "disability communities" generally oppose it, I think the following would be more accurate:

"In the United States in 2013, 47% nationwide supported doctor-assisted suicide. This included 32% of Latinos and 29% of African-Americans. Some U.S. disability rights organizations have also opposed bills legalizing assisted suicide.[53]" Starry Void (talk) 00:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

 Done I also added the Atlantic article as the source for the second sentence. --Pinchme123 (talk) 03:20, 28 May 2023 (UTC)