Talk:Assisted suicide/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Language edits to "Opposition because of expansion to people with chronic disorders and disabilities"

Hi, I'm a student editor assigned to edit this article so I want to apologize in advance if I make edits you do not approve of. If you choose to revert my edits, please let me know what I did wrong.

I noticed the following sentence in the "Opposition because of expansion to people with chronic disorders and disabilities": 'There are many health care professionals,[who?] especially those concerned with bioethics, who are opposed to PAS due to the detrimental effects that the procedure can have with regard to vulnerable populations.'

I've changed it to the following: 'A concern present among health care professionals who are opposed to PAS, are the detrimental effects that the procedure can have with regard to vulnerable populations.' as it removes the "many health care professionals" and "especially those concerned with bioethics" claims, which appeared to be un-cited. I think the language I've put forth is more neutral. MishaSayenkoCSUEB (talk) 02:42, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Washington State Statistics

I think this section either needs to be changed from being under 'Support' to being under 'Arguments for assisted suicide' so that it is in line with 'Oregon statistics' which is a more developed section right above it. Please let me know if there are any objections to this. MishaSayenkoCSUEB (talk) 20:55, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Possibly should avoid talking about drugs used in the process

Suicidal pepole may read about it and get the urge to aquire the drug, even from illegal sources. This may have terrible consequences. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.89.194.236 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

wp:censor Ratel (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 27 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus, so revert recent undiscussed move back to Assisted suicide. Strong arguments on both sides, and I see no consensus in this discussion for the proposal nor for the title to which this article was recently moved without discussion, and should not have been. So the best read on community consensus is to procedurally revert back to the previously stable title, Assisted suicide, per Netoholic, with no prejudice against anyone proposing a move to Assisted death anew. (non-admin closure) В²C ☎ 22:53, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

---

Assisted death → Assisted suicide – This article was recently moved from "Assisted suicide" from "Assisted death" on 15 November 2019 by Doc James. I believe the original title is more appropriate. I have submitted a formal move request because I believe this is a potentially controversial move within the meaning of Wikipedia's moving policy. In addition, I do not have the authority to do the move myself, as I am not autoconfirmed.

Wikipedia's naming policy lists five criteria: recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency. I think "Assisted suicide" and "Assisted death" are equally concise, but "Assisted suicide" is the superior title when considering each of the other four criteria.

Precision: It is ambiguous whether "assisted death" refers to assisted suicide, where a person assists another person in committing suicide, which is self-inflicted; voluntary euthanasia, where a person kills another person at the request of the first person in order to end that person's suffering; or even palliative care, where a person receives assistance in undergoing the natural dying process. As I understand it, this article is intended to discuss the first of these three topics, and the term "assisted suicide" more clearly communicates it.

Recognizability and naturalness: A simple Google search for "assisted suicide" (in quotes) returns 9,580,000 results, whereas a search for "assisted death" only returns 764,000 results.

In addition, according to Google Trends, the term "assisted suicide" has consistently been searched for more than "assisted death" from 2004 (earliest possible date) to the present day by a factor of 6:1 on average. Although the term "assisted death" has increased in popularity over time, the factor remains roughly 2.4:1 even if we only look at the past year.

Medical organizations seem to differ on which term should be used. For example, the American Psychological Association uses "assisted dying", whereas the American Medical Association uses "physician-assisted suicide".

This article from the Columbia Journalism Review indicates that AP prefers "medically assisted suicide" when the name of the enabling legislation cannot be used. The BBC uses both "assisted suicide" and "assisted death".

It seems clear that overall -- at least today -- "assisted suicide" is the more recognizable and natural term.

Consistency: The term "assisted suicide" is already used in many article titles and section titles across Wikipedia, including:

• Assisted suicide in the United States
• Assisted suicide in the United Kingdom
• List of deaths from legal euthanasia and assisted suicide
• Manslaughter#Assisted suicide
• State-assisted suicide

The term "assisted death" is not used in any article or section title except this one.

In addition, a search for the term "assisted suicide" (in quotes) returns 981 results, whereas "assisted death" returns only 82 results.

For these reasons, I propose this article be renamed from "Assisted death" back to "Assisted suicide". Aerali (talk) 06:12, 27 January 2020 (UTC) (edited Aerali (talk) 23:04, 27 January 2020 (UTC))

• Keep at assisted death. This appears to be the term that is preferentially used by WHO "assisted death (“euthanasia1 ”) or assisted suicide"[1] But also it makes the most logical sense. Suicide is generally self inflicted, not purposely brought about by someone else. This is completely separate from suicide and thus it makes sense to use a different term to prevent confusion of the two. The other article should be changed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think the WHO's preference for "assisted death" is dispositive, given that other medical associations (such as the AMA, referenced above) prefer "assisted suicide". I'm afraid I don't understand the rest of your analysis, given that assisted suicide (as opposed to euthanasia) is generally self-inflicted; a common example is a person self-administering lethal drugs prescribed by a physician for that purpose. In any event, I would argue that the question of which term makes the most logical sense in principle matters far less than which term is actually in common use, and in the latter case "assisted suicide" is the clear winner. Aerali (talk) 06:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Doc James, the report you are linking to uses "assisted death" in regard to euthanasia, but uses "assisted suicide" to refer to the topic of this article. They explain that in a footnote on page 3, where they write "The report uses the term 'assisted death' as a substitute of the term 'euthanasia'", and prior to that where they refer to the two different options as assisted death (euthanasia) and assisted suicide. - Bilby (talk) 13:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Procedural - revert the undiscussed move - If a change is in order in the future, all related articles should be handled together through a properly framed RM. -- Netoholic @ 13:29, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Move to assisted dying - In the UK, "assisted dying" is heavily favoured by the mainstream media, whilst "assisted suicide" is almost exclusively used by opponents owing to the shock value of the word suicide. So here at least, there is much more recognition of the phrase "assisted dying" than "assisted suicide". That said, "assisted suicide" can still exist as a separate article to cover the continuing criminality of it, for instance there was a successful conviction for someone who provided fuel and matches to someone who set himself on fire, which is very far from what it being discussed in a medical context under the term "assisted dying". -- Jdee4 (talk) 14:16, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I do not agree that "assisted dying" is used more frequently than "assisted suicide" in the UK. A simple Google search shows that "assisted suicide" is used by the BBC (referenced above), the Mirror, the Sun, the NHS, the Crown Prosecution Service and Parliament. I do agree that the use of "assisted suicide" tends to be preferred by opponents, whereas "assisted death" and "assisted dying" tend to be preferred by supporters. But most English-speaking jurisdictions prohibit assisted suicide, so it is not surprising that this term remains more common. Aerali (talk) 16:03, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
    • But like I said in another comment, this debate isn't about the blanket legalisation of "assisted suicide" since the act I referenced in the references remains illegal. We can't just assume that "assisted suicide" is synonymous with Physician Assisted Suicide, because it clearly isn't, but that's the impression the article gives. Jdee4 (talk) 22:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
      • In bioethics, PAS is consider to be a subset of Assisted Suicide. The current article isn't exclusively about PAS. - Bilby (talk) 22:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
        • Then the vast majority of the article belongs under PAS, or every sentence in the current article needs to explicitly reference the legalisation of PAS and not AS. Jdee4 (talk) 23:19, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
          • This isn't specifically abouit the legislation, but should cover both the ethical and legal issues,which in turn cover both the broad term of assisted suicide and the narrower term of PAS. I don't see a major problem with spinning off a PAS article, but I'm not sure why one article can't cover both the general and the specific. - Bilby (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
            • As I say, mainly because the vast majority of the article relates to PAS without explicitly saying it is relating to PAS. The alternative to spinning PAS into a new article is to have a PAS heading within this article, with 90% of the existing article text within it, but my preference is for a new article called "assisted dying" or indeed "physician assisted suicide" (other terms exist too). Jdee4 (talk) 15:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
              • I forgot to say before, the title of the most recent UK parliamentary bill used the term "assisted dying". Jdee4 (talk) 01:49, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• I wasn't certain what content to expect at a page called assisted death. I wondered whether it was a superset of other articles (voluntary euthanasia + involuntary euthanasia + assisted suicide), or just one of them (voluntary euthanasia was my first guess), or something else (maybe hospice-like services for someone to dying of natural causes?). As always, I think that the subject of the article should be determined before the title. An article about "helping me die" is not the same as an article about "helping me kill myself". Whatever the actual subject is should be carefully determined, and then the title should be chosen to reflect that, and the content edited to match that subject (e.g., removing voluntary euthanasia information, if the narrower subject is chosen, or expanding the voluntary euthanasia content if the broader subject is chosen). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:57, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • @WhatamIdoing: Excellent point.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
  • The original purpose of this article, it seems, was to discuss the practice of assisted suicide as opposed to euthanasia (whether voluntary or involuntary). In practice, much of the content seems to conflate assisted suicide and voluntary euthanasia, which is a problem. I agree with you that "assisted dying" can indeed be confused with palliative care, which is a good reason why a more specific term such as "assisted suicide" or "euthanasia" is preferable. Aerali (talk) 22:41, 27 January 2020 (UTC)
• Move back to Assisted suicide - it is the standard term in bioethics, and the most commonly used term in this article's source - in particular in the peer-reviewed literature used here. It also clarifies the distinction between this situation, where a person brings about their own death with assistance, and that of euthanasia where their death is caused by the actions of another. Both have been refered to as assisted dying or assisted death, so the term fails to adequetly distinguish between the two, while the more common assisted suicide clearly distinguishes itself from euthanasia. I note that the example given by Doc James, in this report uses "assisted death" only to refer to euthanasia rather than the assisted suicide refered to here, which demonstrates how the term is not used consistently, while the more common "assisted suicide" removes that ambiguity. - Bilby (talk) 12:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I'll make the point again because it's hugely important, "assisted suicide" is not synonymous with "physician assisted suicide", and almost all the the content within the article relates to "physician assisted suicide". Jdee4 (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
    • As mentioned, PAS is a subsest of assisted suiciide. Happy to see that clarified further in this article. - Bilby (talk) 23:54, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
      • Done, bulk of content placed under PAS. I have yet to check for erroneous uses of assisted suicide vs physician assisted suicide. Jdee4 (talk) 00:29, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
        • It is going to take a lot more work than just adding a subheading for this to be viable, but I guess that is a start. - Bilby (talk) 00:48, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
          • What work? You mean adding in a bunch of content for the non physician-assisted variant of assisted suicide (which really is a tiny subject relative to PAS)? Jdee4 (talk) 00:57, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
            • No, clarifying things like countries where assisted sucidie by non-physicians is accepted, but PAS is not. Or where both are accepted. Then working on arguments that support assisted sucide in general, vs arguments only related to PAS. There's a lot to be done. - Bilby (talk) 01:08, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
              • I'd agree that now the "legality" section exists outside of the PAS subheading, extra attention is required to ensure both variants of AS are adequately covered, and not that PAS is assumed. Jdee4 (talk) 01:16, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                • The problems are complex. When assisted suicide is legalised, it is normally (but not exclusively) restricted to PAS. However, where it is illegal it covers both PAS and assisted suicide by non-medical professionals. And then we get situations like Germany, where PAS is effectively illegal, while assisted suicide by non-medical professionals is accepted. - Bilby (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                  • AND! There is a great deal over overlap between the legality section of this article, and Legality_of_euthanasia. I feel there's merit in an article called "Legality of (physician) assisted suicide and euthanasia" to consolidate the mess and avoid duplication. Jdee4 (talk) 02:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                    • I think it is mostly addressed now. Moving the content to another article will, at best, just create a new set of problems. - Bilby (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                    • This does raise an alternative, though. As it seems that assisted death/assisted dying can be used to refer to palliative care, assisted suicide and euthanasia, perhaps what we need is a broad overview article on the subject under that title. Then we'll have "Assisted death" or perhaps "Medically assisted dying" as the broad subject, and "Palliative care", "Assisted sucide" and "Euthanasia" as more detailed articles about the sub-topics, with the voluntary, non-voluntary and involantary articles regarding euthanasia as the next tier. - Bilby (talk) 03:43, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
                      • It certainly needs consideration. For instance Australia has two very similar PAS/VE laws in two different states, one which permits voluntary euthanasia and one that does not. For them to be considered distinct and belonging in two separate articles, one for PAS and one for VE, makes no sense. "Medically assisted dying" can cover both these very similar topics, VE being direct "MAD", PAS being indirect MAD. Jdee4 (talk) 03:53, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• Move back to Assisted suicide. Yes, there are sources that suggest "assissted death", but there are many sources that also use "assisted suicide," and it's not clear to me why the former sources should be preferred over the more numerous latter. Additionally, in a Wikipedia context, article titles need to be clear. As others have noted, an article on "assisted death" might well be reasonable, but to me I'd assume it'd be an article about hospice care / end-of-life care and the like, not one on suicide. SnowFire (talk) 16:26, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• keep at assisted death seems the better route...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:23, 28 January 2020 (UTC)
• keep at Assisted death I much prefer the term "assisted death or dying". I feel quite strongly about this because I had a friend who got one of those fast-growing brain cancers that are not operable. She and her husband planned her death and it was not an easy thing to do at all. It would be very wrong and disrespectful to say she committed suicide, an act that is not infrequently committed without first getting help, looking at alternatives, without thinking of the sorrow one's death will cause the family, etc. The only thing comparable about the two is that they both end in dea'th. Gandydancer (talk) 01:22, 29 January 2020 (UTC)
• keep at Assisted death or Assisted dying...[2] Whispyhistory (talk) 14:25, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Google Trends graph

• Comment: Wow, this is a tough one. Strong arguments on both sides. Here is a bit more data to consider.

If one considers Google searches for "assisted death" and "assisted dying" together, then "assisted suicide" and "assisted dying/death" are about equal, in terms of worldwide Google searches over the past 12 months. However, this is a recent trend. As Aerali explains well, "assisted suicide" is the most common natural language term as of January 2020. The term ("assisted suicide") has been in use much longer ( first used in 1884); and is used most often in the scholarly literature (number of searches for each term on Google Scholar: "assisted suicide" - 48000; "assisted dying" - 9810; "assisted death" - 9470; Google ngram search results for the 3 terms).

But I suspect that in a few years, "assisted dying" and "assisted death" will be used more and more often, replacing "assisted suicide" as the most common term.

A possible compromise: Revert the article's name to "Assisted suicide", and agree to revisit the issue in a specified period of time.   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:46, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I think part of the problem is that "assisted death" and "assisted dying" are being used as terms to cover both euthanasia and assisted suicide, as there isn't a different common term to cover both topics. - Bilby (talk) 21:39, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Another problem is that this isn't a blanket legalisation of "assisted suicide", it's a tightly regulated exemption to assisted suicide law which only applies in a medical environment. Assisted suicide, in the context I gave in the reference below, is illegal in all jurisdictions which have "legalised assisted suicide". Physician Assisted Suicide makes far more sense but doesn't have the adoption rate of the shorter forms. Jdee4 (talk) 22:30, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Good points!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:37, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

We should sometimes use the most appropriate term, not just the most common one per google. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doc James: On a personal level, I prefer the terms "assisted dying" and "physician-assisted dying", and I support efforts to allow terminally ill individuals to die with dignity, at the time of their choosing. I held that belief as a young adult, and it was only strengthened when my father developed ALS and eventually had to starve himself in order to die when he wanted. He had endured amyotrophic lateral sclerosis to the point where he could no longer speak or move his limbs. He was a physician and knew that neither his personal physician, his daughter (in medical school at the time), nor anyone else could help him die when he wanted without facing criminal charges and a likely felony conviction with a prison sentence. This knowledge is what led him to (forced him to) choose starvation as the only option that would not harm others. Despite the devastating progressive paralysis characteristic of ALS, he forged a meaningful life, writing articles, including one published in JAMA; writing an autobiography, dictated to my mother when he could still speak, and dedicated to the grandchildren he would never meet; and communicating, in-person wherever possible, with all his family members and close friends (as opposed to avoiding the painful emotions involved when saying goodbye to those he loved). It still enrages me that he—and millions of other marvelous human beings—cannot choose to die with dignity at the time of their choosing. Thank you for listening. - Mark /   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 17:47, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

User:Markworthen I would also be perfectly okay with "assisted dying". It is a descriptive term without all the extra controversy associated with suicide. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

How would you distinguish between palative care, assisted suicide and euthanasia when using assisted dying? - Bilby (talk) 06:20, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bilby: I like your idea (above) to create an overarching article, "Medically-assisted dying" (or similar).   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 14:28, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

I'd also be in favour of a PAS/VE consolidation article. Jdee4 (talk) 15:06, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Terminology

I thought it might be worth clarifying some of the terminology used in this discussion.

Here is my own understanding:

• "Suicide" is the act of a person ending his or her own life.
• When this is done with the assistance of another person, it is called "assisted suicide".
• When this other person is a physician (or often some other medical professional), it is called "physician-assisted suicide".
• "Homicide" is the act of a person killing another person.
• When this is done to end the suffering of the person being killed, it is called "euthanasia".
• When an act of homicide is done with the consent of the person being killed, it is called "consensual homicide".
• When an act of homicide is both consensual and done to end the suffering of the person being killed, it is called "voluntary euthanasia".
• When an act of homicide is not consensual and done to end the suffering of the person being killed, it is called "involuntary euthanasia" or "non-voluntary euthanasia" depending on the circumstances.
• There does not appear to be a concise, unambiguous term to refer to:
  • all consensual homicide performed by a physician
  • voluntary euthanasia performed by a physician
  • the general category of consensual homicide and assisted suicide
  • the general category of voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide
• The terms "assisted death" and "assisted dying" are ambiguous and can be used to refer to voluntary euthanasia, assisted suicide, or even palliative care.

Aerali (talk) 23:52, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

References

References

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

\

Edit to Legality section

I changed the phrasing in the United States adding ", or court rulings," because in Montana there is not a law establishing the allowance of medical assisted death, but rather a Montana Supreme Court ruling that nothing in their law prohibits it. I don't have time to do the formatting on the source but it can be found at https://www.deathwithdignity.org/learn/death-with-dignity-acts/ if someone else wants to cite both Montana specifically and all the other states where it is legal. 162.247.134.110 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Done. Baxter v. Montana is discussed later in the article, nonetheless it's helpful to note the distinction in both places, so thanks!   - Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 16:49, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Religious concepts relating to suicide

Hello Gesaly (talk · contribs) I have first cleaned up and corrected grammar of your recent edits adding religious concepts relating to suicide, on further thought, however, none of these have anything to do with the topic of this article, viz. Assisted Suicide - the content is interesting though but should probably be included in Religious views on suicide.

Below is the content (plus my corrections) you inserted and that I have contested, content that is already in Religious views on suicide I have removed (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Christianity, Islam)

Extended content

Paganism An extreme form of military self-sacrifice (Devotio) is described by the Augustan historian Livy. Paganism has perhaps a relaxed attitude towards suicide, permissible when meant to stop suffering. Japan religions Some concepts related to suicide found in Japan's religions include: Seppuku, Jigai, Junshi, Kamikaze and the Banzai charge. Balinese religions In Bali, Puputan is a term for a mass ritual suicide. American religion Ixtab was the indigenous Mayan goddess of suicide by hanging. Tamil Vatakkiruttal is an ancient Tamil ritual of fasting till death.

Mvbaron (talk) 11:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Possible typo in lead?

The last sentence of the lead reads "and taking a specified, lethal dose of themselves"

This doesn't make much sense, but I'm not sure what it's supposed to say.

TheForgottenKing (talk) 05:45, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

"Harvesting Organs"

The section of the article reads,

"Conflict of interest

Physicians and healthcare practitioners may have a conflict of interest when it comes to harvesting organs from assisted suicide patients. While there may be few candidates, the conflict nevertheless may exist in some cases, raising serious ethical questions."

This may be true (though I doubt it)--but in any case, without any supplementary information, it reads as a straight opinion. This should probably either be expanded upon, or removed entirely.

I doubt it too, a body that's filled with a lethal dose of drugs is not suitable as a source of transplanted organs. A doctor who would kill (or cause to die) one patient to save another would be looked upon as monstrous. Even if the death provided organs for several patients, that would essentially be a reifying of the Trolley Problem in philosophy. Outside of totalitarian states, life is seen as sacred and a person's body and life belongs only to them.

84.70.145.70 (talk) 03:58, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Colombia doesn't make sense

"In May 1997 the Colombian Constitutional Court allowed for the voluntary euthanasia of sick patients who requested to end their lives, by passing Article 326 of the 1980 Penal Code.[78] This ruling owes its success to the efforts of a group that strongly opposed voluntary euthanasia. "

The court allowed for euthanasia, thanks to a group that opposes euthanasia!?

84.70.145.70 (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

Palliative medicine articles

Please be aware when citing articles from palliative medicine that they are mostly opposed to changes in the law in respect to assisted suicide and cannot therefore be considered neutral. For instance they will commonly conflate euthanasia and voluntary euthanasia where there is a very important distinction. Jdee4 (talk) 15:02, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Decent End of Life Care

Could this article highlight that the debate on 'Assisted Suicide' did not just appear from nowhere, but is part of long-running campaign? Then again, if the article is to fully report concerns about quality of life and death, then might it not highlight calls for better funding of first-rate end of life care? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.137 (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Various advocacy organizations and dates of various advocacy documents are already mentioned in the article. It's unclear what you mean by "long-running"; do you have specific facts you want to see included or reliable sources that could be cited? -- Beland (talk) 02:04, 23 June 2024 (UTC)