Talk:Assisted suicide

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Death / Suicide  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
This article is supported by the Suicide task force (marked as High-importance).
WikiProject Philosophy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Medicine (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that this article follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.


The article Aid in Dying contains information specific to Oregon. It would make sense to place it in the overall context of the Assisted suicide article. -- Whpq (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

References to “suicide,” when talking about the rational decision of a terminally ill patient who by definition is already dying, is an archaic and inappropriate term. There is a clear distinction between an irrational and emotive act versus one that is well thought through with the support and guidance of a physician.

Suicide is hurtful and derogatory term to both a dying patient and the patient’s loved ones, conjuring up images of irrational, depressed teenagers, adults with mental illness, and terrorist bombers. It suggests guns and violence and it suggests the patient is choosing death over life, when in fact a terminally ill patient no longer has such an option.

Most patients asking for aid in dying have exhausted all possible curative therapies and are left with only the manner of how death comes to them. They may want to choose what some call “the least worst death,” but they cannot choose life over death.

Physicians originally accepted the term "physician assisted suicide" to distinguish it from euthanasia; a process in which a third party, usually a healthcare professional, brings about the patient’s death via administering a lethal dose of medication, most commonly via injection.

Physicians like Drs. Timothy Quill and Marcia Angell coined the term “physician assisted suicide” to signify the voluntary self-administration of medication by the patient. They did not consider the effect the term might have on patients, its negative connotation among the general public, or even in churches that withhold sacraments from “suicides.” Instead, they were after a strictly clinical distinction between the patient’s own control versus the involvement of a third party.

The following authorities and organizations have all recognized the distinction between “suicide” and the rational decision of a terminally ill patient.

In Oregon, where physician aid-in-dying has been a legal option since 1997, Section 127.880 §3.14 of the law states: “…Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.” [1995 c.3 §3.14]. The Oregon Department of Human Services, which reports on implementation of the Oregon Death With Dignity Act, announced in October of 2006 that it would no longer refer to a death under the law as "assisted suicide" or "physician assisted suicide” recognizing that these terms are inappropriate.

The American Medical Woman’s Association, comprised of over 10,000 female physicians issued a position paper in which it states: “The terms ‘assisted suicide’ and/or ‘physician assisted suicide’ have been used in the past, including in an AMWA position statement, to refer to the choice of a mentally competent terminally ill patient to self administer medication for the purpose of controlling time and manner of death, in cases where the patient finds the dying process intolerable. The term ‘suicide’ is increasingly recognized as inaccurate and inappropriate in this context and we reject that term. We adopt the less emotionally charged, value-neutral, and accurate terms 'Aid in Dying' or 'Physician Assisted Dying'”.

The American Psychological Association states: "It is important to remember that the reasoning on which a terminally ill person (whose judgments are not impaired by mental disorders) bases a decision to end his or her life is fundamentally different from the reasoning a clinically depressed person uses to justify suicide."

The American Public Health Association emphasizes “the importance to public health of using accurate language” and, accordingly, urges: “That health educators, policy makers, journalists, health care providers recognize that the choice of a mentally competent terminally ill patient to choose to self administer medications to bring about a peaceful death is not ‘suicide’, nor is the prescribing of such medications by a physician ‘assisted suicide’.”

The Washington State Psychological Association “supports value-neutral terminology such as aid-in-dying, patient-directed dying, physician aid-in-dying, physician-assisted dying, or a terminally ill individual’s choice to bring about a peaceful and dignified death.”

And the American College of Legal Medicine has stated: “the term ‘physician assisted suicide’ is arguably a misnomer that unfairly colors the issue, and for some, evokes feelings of repugnance and immorality. The appropriateness of the term (assisted suicide) is doubtful in several respects….ACLM rejects the term ‘physician-assisted suicide’.”

For the reasons above, it is time to recognize the distinction that the more appropriate terminology is “aid in dying” and I believe the term should stand on its own rather than placed in the same context as suicide.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum for discussion about this topic nor a forum for your personal original research or for you to be a soapbox. I'm speedy merging this since the original author has indicated they created the page in direct violation of WP policy. .:davumaya:. 09:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
The word suicide by itself means just that: sui-cide, inducing one's own death. Whether this act is rational or not, or what feelings it may evoke, is not implied by this term. (Nor are all suicides of not terminally ill individuals irrational or caused by mental disorders.) OTOH the word dying usually means death by a cause outside of one's own will, so aid in dying seems a misnomer to me.
Yes Suicide is suicide no matter what you call it. Assisted suicide is more akin to euthanasia and these articles along with lethal injection should be merged. A Bom Nible (talk) 17:46, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
There really should be a terminology section in the main article. There are many reasons for drawing a distinction between suicide and controlling one's death via ingestion of provider-prescribed life-ending medicine. (1) Suicide, as discussed in psychiatry, is always coupled with mental distress or mental disorder. Aid In Dying is unavailable (in jurisdictions that allow it, e.g., Oregon and Washington) for patients whose mental distress or disorder is informing their decision. (2) Suicide, often with regard to saving clauses in insurance plan, refers to cutting off life prematurely; that is, ending the life of a patient who wasn't diagnosed with a terminal illness. Terminally-ill have already entered the dying process. It's not a question of whether they'll die soon but how. (3) Philosophically, ending one's life is not necessarily suicide. Is jumping from a high floor of a burning building suicide? Is jumping on a grenade to save other soldiers suicide? Each situation identifies a person ending her or his own life, but it is inappropriate to cast them as suicidal. Rousseau, with similar discussion, regards these acts primarily as preserving autonomy. Jordan 20:34, 31 December 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talkcontribs)

There's an important legal distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia which needs to be preserved if only for legal reasons (though there are good ethical arguments for preserving it also). It would be nice if the English language had a variety of terms to distinguish between types of suicide, or even rational and non-rational: but it doesn't really. Too many euphemisms, however well-meaning, can I think be confusing, especially when there is no agreed consistency from one country to another. However, the word euthanasia is also used as a generic: as in "some form of euthanasia" (by which the reader generally comes to assume can include assisted suicide). This seems to be the direction the relevant Wiki pages are heading and perhaps more accurately accords with common usage and common sense.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 06:50, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Merged discussion from Talk:Aid in Dying[edit]

I see that my creation of this article was inadvertently opposed to an earlier decision [above] to merge it. That was a "speedy merge" decision, which concerned the version of the article that existed at the time. There is, in fact, a good argument to be made for having the article, which wasn't made before. The state of Washington now has a "physician aided dying" initiative being considered by voters, and the term has also been accepted in the medical community more broadly than in the state of Oregon. (The American Medical Student Association, American Medical Women's Association, Washington State Psychological Association, American College of Legal Medicine, American Public Health Association, and American Acacemy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine have all made official decisions to include the term in their lexicon, in contrast to the term "suicide."

Sources will be added to the article to reflect all this; but in the meantime, it is important to have a separate article on the subject; from a legal standpoint, aided dying is not suicide (which is a crime in Oregon), and there is a growing body of academic and medical work recognizing the importance of the distinction. -Pete (talk) 22:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

We don't observe legalities in Wikipedia. This is an encyclopedia. Aid in dying is not separate from Assisted suicide because it still means the same thing only in a different way. Similarly, you have nothing but a definition there. By merging we can better talk about both topics. .:davumaya:. 22:53, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
"We don't observe legalities in Wikipedia" is not a response to any argument I made. However, I can see the sense in having a single article, to permit exposition of similar concepts in a structured way. I suspect we can both agree that the present article on Assisted suicide leaves a lot to be desired though, so we have some work to do. I'll think this over and discuss here before making further significant edits. (As I stated before, my reversing of the merge was inadvertent; I didn't notice the earlier discussion until after I created the stub.) -Pete (talk) 23:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That's fine. I want to express I am not opposed to Aid in Dying or whatever is happening with medical terminology and whatever movements associated with these processes. My comment about legalities was that, there is no need to separate articles because legal definitions separate two topics unless its very warranted. Aid in Dying historically appears to have evolved from the debate on assisted suicide, thus even though its new and different, it's still part of the same idea. This is why its better to have both topics together (for now). On another point, I want to ensure that Wikipedia:Recentism doesn't come into play. AID may certainly blossom into its own sort of thing but there is indeed not enough material to let it stand alone. Lastly, I fear if we leave AID as its own stub it would have been marked for deletion or merge anyway. .:davumaya:. 21:19, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting back to you. I've had some offline discussions with a friend who works for Compassion & Choices. What I see going on is this: the term "aid in dying" is the preferred term for the legal version(s) of this that have passed or being pursued; and the medical and legal community seems to be happy to go along with that. The term draws a distinction that is significant, but it is not yet part of the common lexicon. So, I'd say the term is in a grey area where it's not clear whether it qualifies as being notable on its own. (As a technical matter I think it is, because there has been significant media coverage of the term; but that doesn't necessarily mean that having a separate article is the best way to go.)

I'd propose doing a major workover of the article, but discussing the best way to approach it ahead of time. I think leading with a definition of assisted suicide, using the second paragraph of the lead section to discuss aid in dying and how it's related/not related, and then get to distinguishing it from euthanasia (which, I think, is a much clearer line, but should be included because people get it confused so frequently).

In the structure of the article, the Oregon and Washington initiatives should be discussed in the context of 'aid in dying', rather than the history section of 'assisted suicide'. It should be explained that 'assisted suicide' was the common term up until XYZ date, and used to be more inclusive than it is now; and that 'aid in dying' covers only acts that are legal, condoned by a medical authority, etc.

What do you think? -Pete (talk) 19:50, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That sounds appropriate for this article. You can also setup sections even if you don't have content for them yet. .:davumaya:. 20:35, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Great, thanks for the quick reply. I found the article below, which shows that the terms "aid in dying" and "death with dignity" were used at least as early as 1988, in relation to a California ballot measure (which, notably, would have permitted the physician to administer the lethal dose.) The term euthanasia seems to be used pretty loosely in articles from that era. All of this comes as a bit of a surprise to me -- and may be very helpful in determining the best structure for the article. Seems there's more history to the term than I'd thought. Also, are you aware there's an article on Right to die? What are your thoughts on that? I haven't read it closely yet.
Colburn, Don (January 26, 1988). "Euthenasia - allowing the terminally ill to die is generally accepted. But should "active" euthenasia be available in the United States?". Washington Post. 
(Link may or may not work without subscription..I've had very inconsistent results with Newsbank articles.) -Pete (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Seems the debate in the medical community and media was largely the result of a 1988 anonymous confession of a young physician who admitted to helping a patient referred to as "Debbie" to commit suicide. Which spurred a debate in medical journals and in the mainstream media. Cohn, Victor (April 12, 1988). "Story of 'Debbie's' death isn't over". Washington Post.  -Pete (talk) 21:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am going to change the title of this article to "Aid In Dying". I have decided to change it because it is used more frequently in the article than the actual term Assisted Suicide is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devan95belt (talkcontribs) 19:42, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


If references can be provided for the NGOs cited above that prefer alternative terminology, they can be added to the article. I added the Oregon legal citation, since that's the only one that was provided. -- Beland (talk) 15:03, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I am going to add a new paragraph under the section Legality, which describes a definition difference between aid in dying and assisted suicide. I think this will provide readers with a well understanding that these are two completely different terms. Devan95belt (talk) 19:42, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

I am going to update the current definition of Assisted Suicide to, "Assisted suicide is a term used to describe suicide with the help from another person (such as a doctor) to end suffering from severe physical or mental illness." I believe this definition provides a better understanding of the topic for the reader. Devan95belt (talk) 19:25, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Changed the paragraph on Reasons for Seeking, because it seemed biased to Oregon patients only. Devan95belt (talk) 05:37, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Published evaluation of physician aided dying[edit]

I have added some recent published research on PAD.--Claud Regnard (talk) 00:23, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Added a sentence about the requirements for physician assisted suicide in Oregon. Devan95belt (talk) 00:42, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Added a recent statistic about the Oregon Death With Dignity Act under the United States section. Devan95belt (talk) 04:22, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Text removed from article[edit]

I removed the following fragments of text from the article, because it's not clear how they relate to the subject matter of this article. If they can be better explained in the article text, it might be appropriate to restore them.

  • The Texas Advance Directives Act allows hospitals to withdraw life support after giving 10 days' notice. Oregon and Washington's respective laws specifically apply to state residents only, which prevents citizens of other states from seeking life-ending medical care in either state,and other punishments.
  • In Pretty v. UK, a ban against suicide assistance for a paralyzed person wasn't considered as a violation of ECHR by European Court of Human Rights.[1]
  • including the United Kingdom (where a bill to legalize it was voted down in 2008)

-Pete (talk) 23:46, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph Changed[edit]

I have changed the following pararaph: The term euthanasia refers to an act that ends a life in a painless manner, performed by people other than the patient, which do not involve the choice of the patient, or which involve passive withdrawal of life support.

to: The term euthanasia refers to an act that ends a life in a painless manner, performed by someone other than the patient. This may include witholding common treatments resulting in death, removal of the patient from life support, or the use of lethal substances or forces to end the life of the patient

with the intent of removing contradictions between euthanasia and Assisted suicide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:04, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Added a new paragraph under United States, describing how many deaths have been committed since Oregon legalized assisted suicide.Devan95belt (talk) 05:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

More references[edit]

I have added some recent references on physician action and attitudes towards assisted suicide in the UK. --Claud Regnard (talk) 23:28, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Added a brief description of the Dignitas organizationDevan95belt (talk) 05:23, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Against assisted suicide: more references[edit]

If someone could add some organizations that oppose assisted suicide that would be great because currently there is just a lot of groups supporting it making this article slightly biased. Evan 02:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent Redfield (talkcontribs)

I think that has now been done (I have added one myself). Some of the references seem suspect however; for instance, a Mayo paper is quoted in several places to support arguments against assisted suicide, yet the abstract reads: "One of the most potent arguments against physician-assisted death hinges on the worry that people with disabilities will be subtly coerced to accept death prematurely. The argument is flawed. There is nothing new in PAD: the risk of coercion is already present in current policies about end of life care. And to hold that any such risk is too much is tacitly to endorse vitalism and to deny that people with disabilities are capable of choosing authentically." In other words, it quotes the argument to refute it. This is not clear from the Wiki citation given, which is the opposite. I thought I'd flag this rather than remove it straight away, so giving an opportunity for someone to justify the citation or find a more appropriate one. Otherwise the citation should be deleted.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2014 (UTC)


I added a weasel tag. Any comment? Disagreement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lopside (talkcontribs) 22:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Hippocratic Oath[edit]

I added a section under Attitude of Healthcare Professionals titled Hippocratic Oath because I believe a lot of people think Healthcare Professionals should not participate in assisted suicides because of the oath they take when entering the profession. Under the original oath, that may have been true but there is a modern oath taken by doctors that no longer suggests that. Dancer1090 (talk) 18:56, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Hippocratic Oath may not be worth so much anymore. Hans Petter Aarseth, former president of the Norwegian Doctors' Association has openly on public radio said that he, as the president, directly administers how many people who are to kill themselves every year, that is, he "administers the numbers", ref. Rogaland Radio, 1990. There are other disturbing facts out there in the World as well. Please, check it out! (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor changes[edit]

I have updated the UK entry to reflect the current situation. The section on published evidence is important since there is so little well conducted research. The section should simply report evidence on Assisted Suicide published in peer reviewed journals or from local government reports. Therefore I have made minor changes to the section headings to reflect this. The comment that this section was based more on opinion is puzzling, unless the writer knows where and how the evidence has been incorrectly reported. --Claud Regnard (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2010 (UTC)


The wording "upon their wanting to do so" strikes me as imperfectly formed. I agree that the concept of voluntary death is an essential point, but perhaps this can be rephrased? -Stevertigo (w | t | e) 02:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

'Passive' & 'Active' euthanasia[edit]

Under the section Factors that influence physicians' attitudes towards physician assisted death both Passive and Active euthanasia are mentioned but they are not defined anywhere in the article nor are they linked (if such links exist within Wikipedia).

IMO under this subject/article the differences should both be defined, at least in an abridged version, along with being linked.

If I were much more knowledgeable regarding the two I would do it myself, but I am not an expert and here these two different aspects regarding assisted suicide should be differentiated and explained if even briefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cherchez la Femme (talkcontribs) 23:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Oops forgot to add my signature, sorry. Cherchez la Femme (talk) 23:42, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Hippocratic Oath - Outdated[edit]

In the introduction, the following sentence strikes me as biased: "The moral code against assisted suicide is stated as early as Hippocrates and included in the Hippocratic Oath traditionally taken by medical doctors."

In watching the documentary How to Die in Oregon I heard a different perspective on this through the physician interviewed in the film, "'First do no harm' is going to be different for every patient. Harm for some patients is, ‘no, no, no, you’ve got to do this the way your body decides as opposed to the way you decide.'" This quote can be heard in the trailer for the film.

Should the Hippocratic Oath sentence in the intro section be changed to something more neutral or should a second sentence be added to provide another point of view? Melissathebarber (talk) 22:47, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

  • I agree completely - I took it out. It was a recent addition, so a consensus version of the article had existed without it for a long time, and it was unsourced. And as you point out, it represents one person's personal interpretation of the Oath, especially without sources. Dawn Bard (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, Dawn Bard, for your help. Melissathebarber (talk) 18:08, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
You should rather be talking about this: - The Declaration of Geneva! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2012 (UTC)


Another thing which caught my eye of something which seemed a bit biased was the assignment of the category "Homicide" to this article. I don't believe the legal definition of homicide is appropriate for this topic since the terminally ill patients self-administer the medication to end their lives on their own. This categorization of this article is inconsistent with the Suicide article which isn't under the Homicide category. Melissathebarber (talk) 21:07, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a good catch to me. Because it isn't homicide everywhere I don't know why it would be in that category. I'll remove it. Jesanj (talk) 21:19, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

"Harvesting Organs"[edit]

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.


Regarding this edit, I doubt that everyone accepts that this crime is victimless. I was under the impression that the person who is assisted to commit suicide is considered to be a victim, the logic being that the fact that someone wants something does not necessarily mean that thing is in their best interests. James500 (talk) 12:16, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


I removed the image of Socrates drinking hemlock because that was a state execution, not a suicide at all. A better image should be found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Problem with image[edit]

I just noticed that the page says that assisted death is legal in the US in 3 states (Oregon, Washington and Montana), but the image next to them only shows Oregon and Washington as highlighted, so I think that this needs to be fixed. I'd do it, but do not know how to edit the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:48, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Background for the Intellectual Defence[edit]

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 have formerly cited one source for where to obtain "an acceptably complete argument" outside "it's worthwhile to live because those who want to suicide are by definition lunatics and therefore do not carry sound judgment to own pains, fx.". While I've been "warned" by Jonathanfu for adding to this ideal cause, I re-erect this topic for the very use of the information itself. I hope you like it.
End. Comment to the removal:
This has formerly been removed and as there is no other good alternative, I find this offensive, both to all real and potential readers and to myself. What about you?
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 a pre-emptive strike. 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. --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Here we go again... Now added under "Defence for Legalising Assisted Suicide", followed by "Opposition". If you are utterly against the above, I want a notification, please! Just tell me how you like to have it... --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Now here is the normative for the medical doctors (and no need to mention Hippocrates Oath): , The Declaration of Geneva. Mentioning it twice on this Talkpage, is it allowed? --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 13:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
Undone deletion of "The Intellectual Defence"!
Given a section on this article, "The Intellectual Defence", it is now proven that Jonathanfu fails to understand what he's "discussing" by this link, , where he clearly mixes sides and end up misinterpretating what "The Intellectual Defence" is supposed to imply here, that this section is about pro suicide legislation, that it speaks pro euthanasia/right to suicide, and not con as he seems to "pervert" the whole thing into. So this time, I hope you understand that WP:VAN lies NOW wholly on Jonathanfu. As the case is clear, please...! --LFOlsnes-Lea 12:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
Objection goes to User:Bilby too. Also, this user now possibly also carries the responsibility of (blatant) wrongdoing, in doing something this user has no clue to the extent of, i.e., the role of the academia. This user obviously sides with Jonathanfu. --LFOlsnes-Lea 12:44, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
The pro-argument to assisted suicide further (under the above header): that pains and lunacy are together one psychological fact, that pains entails lunacy "after a while" and that given a pervading combination of pains and lunacies for individuals and families alike, the qualifying routine for getting access to (assisted) suicide must, perhaps, necessarily in because the consequences can otherwise speak insanity for all. You? (talk) 02:34, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
More block evasion from Lea Jonathanfu (talk) 04:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Shift of Strategy[edit]

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!!! Cheers! LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 05:22, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

As the psychologists have something similar (to the Geneva Declaration for med. doctors), 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) 12:02, 21 September 2012 (UTC)
See WP:NOTSOAPBOX Lova Falk talk 10:18, 22 September 2012 (UTC)
You´re very good with the WP:NOTSOAPBOX, but let me have a few shots: Wikipedia:Five pillars, that Wikipedia is to provide a discussion presenting both sides, like "Opposition" to "In Favour" (Background for the Intellectual Defence), Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Assume good faith by making the case for people who are suffering, who are weak and vulnerable, Wikipedia:Be bold for daring to stand up to idiots and Jangling Jacks, who do not have the senses it takes to make the clear cases pro- and con- in debates! So this is my answer. Please, stop attacking me for making relevant inquiries into "troubled waters", into cases obscured by hard threats and besieged by deeply crazy people, "you know who". The World is a complex and highly dangerous place. All constructive resources are needed and the idiots are to carry full responsibility for diabolical actions. Likewise, I demand HONESTY from the participants in the debates and I consider this "academic". So I hope you can see this too and let both sides have a voice, where I see this article as defending the "self-righteous" med. doctors and psychologists who are only doing research and who never speak up for the troubled parts of their professional bodies of members. There is a lot wrong in the World. Why are they so silent? Why can´t "Background for the Intellectual Defence" or equivalent be entered into the article? Where are the proponents for Dignitas and the legacy of Dr. Jack Kevorkian? Why are there so few "Jack Kevorkians"??? I think these issues need to be answered honestly and I expect this "accusation of soapboxing" not to be some trick! Nice signature, btw. Cheers! (Consider this from Olsnes-Lea) -- (talk) 00:19, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
See WP:NOTFORUM and WP:TPG, and do actually read the soapbox page, as I have referred you to it several times. Wikipedia is not a forum for you to discuss topics. Talk pages are not places for general debate on a topic, they are there for you to discuss how to improve an article. If you are not suggesting changes and providing links to reliable sources, then you are misusing the talk pages. The page Wikipedia:Five pillars does not support your claim. Wikipedia is not here to provide discussion, but information. Nobody has been attacking you, and believe me, we are assuming good faith when you are simply referred to WP:SOAPBOX and not accused of wasting our time with semi-coherent nonsense. If you have questions, then WP:BEBOLD and find the answers, don't just prattle on talk pages. If you can find some reliable sources for all of the claims you make, by all means, add information. But otherwise, keep the talk page guidelines in mind, and try to refrain from using them as your personal soapbox. Jonathanfu (talk) 19:53, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
Adding information: Yes, 1 point for "2 sides", 2 points for defending the weak to grotesque people (torture shops and meat shops, no, they are not nice), 3 points for "honesty" and possibly a 4th point for "few Dr. Kevorkians". Some must be admitted to be good? ;-) Have a nice day! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 08:22, 23 September 2012 (UTC)
What information are you trying to add? And where are the WP:RS to support your information? Jonathanfu (talk) 19:54, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
‎3 days before Christmas (Christian ethics now redefined?):
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! (talk) 14:02, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Possible bias[edit]

It seems to me that there may be some bias leaning in both directions in this article. It doesn't seem have arisen out of maliciousness, but the jumbled writing style. The section that details the support of assisted suicide seems short on reasons and heavy on more specific information about who is operating organizations, and where they are operating, and what they are doing currently. Whereas the section that has details on the opposition seems to have more detailed information on why they oppose assisted suicide. Furthermore, the supporting section is significantly less readable and subject to being passed over, even as I attempted to find more information on the subject. (talk) 09:26, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added two organisations to the list, both campaigning on a disabilities issue, but one that is pro and one that is opposed.Parzivalamfortas (talk) 07:27, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Organizations opposed to assisted suicide[edit]

A number of organizations opposed to assisted suicide have been removed from the list in this article on grounds that they are not individually notable [1]. Per WP:NOTESAL, organizations do not need to be individually notable to be included in a list. They only need to be notable as a group and individually verifiable with reliable sources (not the same thing). James500 (talk) 21:58, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

To put it another way, WP:N doesn't apply to the contents of this article, it only applies to its existence. James500 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:NOTESAL applies to stand-alone lists, or articles that are primarily lists of information. This article is primarily prose. I assume WP:EMBED deals with embedded lists like we see in this article, but that MOS article doesn't elaborate much on notability as far as I can tell. Jonathanfu (talk) 12:27, 22 August 2013 (UTC)


In the beginning of the article (second sentence), it states not to confuse assisted suicide with euthanasia. However, a few lines down, in the "Legality" and "Legality by country" sections, there is a link to articles about legality of euthanasia. This seems to be a double standard. Edit, or no edit? --2myname1 (talk) 20:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Tightening that up might be tricky, but seems worth doing. I'll look into it over the next few days. As a general rule, physician-assisted suicide will be legal where euthanasia is legal, while it is very possible for assisted suicide to be legal while euthanasia remains illegal. The Belgium claim confuses that a bit, though, so I'll need to dig. - Bilby (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

United Kingdom[edit]

I am adding a new paragraph about the solution in United Kingdom that wants to have a medical specialist devoted to assisted suicide. I am adding this because it is not mentioned in the article and I think it is a substantial piece of information because it is a new development and it is shows that assisted suicide is becoming more accepted in the medical field.Devan95belt (talk) 19:16, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

  1. ^ ECHR judgement in case 2346/02