Talk:Euthanasia in India

A news item involving Euthanasia in India was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 9 March 2011.

Wikipedia

India Mid‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Death Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

merge discussion[edit]

Resolved

– there is a degree of support towards oppose a merge, and not now from active contributors, so I am closing as no merge but without prejudice to anyone opening another merge discussion at any point they wish. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1973 attempted murder and robbery of Aruna Shanbaug - there have been suggestions that this article is a one event issue and this appears to be a good place to merge as this article is also largely about that issue. Off2riorob (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

the article already has a small section describing Shanbaug's case. any missing relevant information can be added to that section and 1973 attempted murder and robbery of Aruna Shanbaug can be redirected to Euthanasia in India. --CarTick (talk) 18:26, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article instead of being about the attempted murder, should rather about the "Aruna Shanbaug case" that lead to the recent SC ruling, an important historic case, needs separate attention, and main article will have more stuff in the coming years. --Ekabhishek^talk 07:54, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it can also be titled Aruna Shanbaug vs Union of India as mentioned here. --CarTick (talk) 15:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea, I was looking for the exact term used in case. --Ekabhishek^talk 17:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The article Aruna Shanbaug Case isn't about Euthansia. That part wasn't even added until well into the article's history, it proven notable for other reasons already. Also CarTick created Euthanasia in India on March 8th 2011. If this article isn't about Euthansia in India, but instead about just one case, then it should be merged to Aruna Shanbaug Case. Dream Focus 12:23, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am also leaning to not merge, and the article is being improved and focused more on the legal case, one template has been removed and if there are no objections I suggest weleave it and close the discussion unless there are objections. Off2riorob (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
agree. let us not merge it. at least not yet. --CarTick (talk) 22:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, CarTick as you were the only editor that seemed by doing it to support it, thinks have moved on since then though. I will just remove it now you have commented, thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling of Skeptical/Sceptical[edit]

I just wondered if this should be "skeptical". I'm not sure about the rest of the English-speaking world, but I have never seen it this way in the US. I looked it up, and it would appear that it is technically correct, but perhaps it would be clearer if spelled with a "k"? I know Wikipedia is global, so I wanted to throw this out there before I went making possibly inconsiderate changes.Bronsonboy (talk) 21:34, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This wikipedia uses the local spelling in relation to the article which in this case is Indian English, likely similar to British English and not American English, so sceptical appears correct - http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090911101439AAIIP6Z - Off2riorob (talk) 21:40, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Inaccuracy regarding U.S. laws[edit]

In most of the United States, the term "euthanasia" refers to active euthanasia only (the type that is currently legal in the states of Oregon, Washington, and Montana). In the U.S., passive euthanasia is generally non-controversial and is legal throughout the country (per this U.S. Supreme Court decision), although the conditions vary by state. In a few states, like Florida and Missouri, the patient has to consent (i.e. voluntary passive euthanasia), but in most states it only has to be demonstrated that further life support would be "futile" (i.e. non-voluntary passive euthanasia). See http://books.google.com/books?id=hOBQNjyGVBQC&pg=PA629&lpg=PA629 or http://ajrccm.atsjournals.org/cgi/content/full/162/6/2029 for more info. Kaldari (talk) 22:52, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I'll take a look tomorrow. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the list here of countries that permit "some type of euthanasia" is actually a list of countries that permit active euthanasia or non-voluntary passive euthanasia. Unfortunately, the terminology is different in different countries (and states), but I imagine there are other countries besides the ones listed that permit passive euthanasia (although they may not call it that). Kaldari (talk) 22:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother referring to the other Wikipedia articles on euthanasia. They are all hopelessly confusing and not accurate. Kaldari (talk) 23:00, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is enlightening. it is a complex issue. i dont have much time now. thanks though. --CarTick (talk) 23:17, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like I've been reverted again. I'm not going to edit war about this, but I would like to state again that the current wording is misleading. Also, Albania allows passive euthanasia as well. Kaldari (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would remove the following two statements from the lead "India is one of the few nations that allow some form of human euthanasia. Belgium, Luxembourg, The Netherlands and Switzerland and the U.S. states of Oregon and Washington also allow euthanasia in limited circumstances." First of all, most countries in the world support some form of passive euthanasia - that is, in most jurisdictions it is not legal to force a treatment upon a patient if they refuse it, even if that treatment would save the patient's life. What jurisdictions differ on in this regard is typically issues like: "How explicit does the refusal have to be?" or "Are patients allowed to reject life-saving treatment that is already underway, or only before it is given?", and so on. I'll see if I can find a more authorative source on this than the LA Times. Gabbe (talk) 06:26, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this needs to be changed. Taking someone off life support, what this article calls "passive euthanasia", is legal in every state of the US. I can't comment on what other countries. It happens all the time, every day, to many patients, including vegetative ones, brain-dead ones, and fully conscious ones who are on hospice or such. Lethal injection is what happens in Oregon. That is not the same as pulling a feeding tube. I'm utterly confused by the statements made in this article. -IceCreamAntisocial (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

we should blame LA times for that. that is how bad newspapers are these days. please someone feel free to modify with an appropriate reference. --CarTick (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section[edit]

The opening line of the article currently reads, "Passive euthanasia is legal in India." It seems more like a declaration rather than an encyclopedic entry. I suggest changing the opening line to something a bit more fitting. Theo10011 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to jump over here to post the same thing. This is horrible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.153.73 (talk) 22:24, 11 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]