Talk:Family Health Care Decisions Act

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Low‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state)
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Neutrality

The article emphasizes controversies and only minimally discusses benefits of the proposed act. The article's neutrality is questioned. The article should be improved by making sure that both sides of the controversy are discussed, as well as providing factual information about the act. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the original author. I agree with Truthnado's criticism. However I just uploaded a revised version of the article. It offers a more comprehensive description of the background of the FHCDA, the bases for support and opposition, a thorough summary of the provisions of the FHCDA, and a description of proposals to expand the FHCDA. It includes an extensive list of references. And I believe it meets the neutrality standard.

I would appreciate it if someone issued a review of the revised article to take the place of the old one, which is no longer applicable.

However, I firmly disagree with the designation that is bill is low importance - it is very significant and influential, not only in NY but nationally and internationally. Professionals involved in medical ethics policy across the country are aware of and familiar with the FHCDA. Rswidler (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This 2024 Article is new, comprehensive and important

This 2024 article is by a new author and replaces a 2009 article by a different author. The earlier article was criticized on neutrality and other grounds, and deemed of low importance.

The entry now offers a comprehensive description of the background of the FHCDA, the bases for support and opposition for it, a thorough summary of the provisions of the FHCDA, and a description of proposals to expand the FHCDA. It includes an extensive list of references. And it meets the neutrality standard.

The reviewer of the 2009 article was not familiar with the importance of this legislation. It is very significant and influential, not only in NY but nationally and internationally. Professionals involved in medical ethics policy across the country are aware of and familiar with the FHCDA. Rswidler.

Rswidler (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]