Talk:Euthanasia

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

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

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

Nazi Action T4 and Euthanasia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:Jorfer and WP:OWN issue on this page

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"ending a life" in the introductory text

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

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

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

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

Euthanasia of children

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

Strawman argument?

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

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

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

Health Care Professionals

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

Factors that influence physicians' attitudes towards euthanasia

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

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

Factors that influence doctors' decisions in end of life care

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

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

Opposition

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

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

Improvements in end of life decision making

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Euthanasia and China

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factors in attitudes towards euthanasia

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

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

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

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

Euthanasia in Andalusia

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

Asking to remove reference to euthanasia in Andalusia (Spain)

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

Please remove:

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

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

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

Euthanasia and the Disability Rights movement

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

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

Military euthanasia

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

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

Edit Request

{{editsemiprotected}}

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

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

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

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

End-of-life counseling

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

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

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

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

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

Moral / theological against -

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

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

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

Terminolgy

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

                       Voluntary                    Non-Voluntary             Involuntary

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

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

Biased

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

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

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

Reorder of page

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

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

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

Recent Action T4 edits

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

POV deletions of reliably sourced material on Nazi section

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

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

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

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

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

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

Passive vs "non-active"

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

Ratel's recent changes

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

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

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

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

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

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