Talk:Euthanasia

Neutrality

Is that ugly neutrality tag still necessary or can it be removed? Night of the Big Wind _talk 13:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

While the issues raised in July might still be unresolved, there's currently no active discussion on this talk page. Therefore the template should be removed. Gabbe (talk) 13:44, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Since no one objected here, I have removed the template. Gabbe (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Nazi Euthanasia Programme

I have POV-tagged the section on the Nazi Euthanasia Programme because it contains one sentence of history and ten arguing entirely that the programme was not really euthanasia. This is entirely unbalanced and POV. The bulk of the section should be historical fact, with maybe a sentence or two explaining the 2 different points of view i.e. it was or wasn't euthanasia. The rest of the argument should be presented, in a balanced way of course, on the main Nazi euthanasia article. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

You are free to write a draft for discussion here! Most editors here argue that the euthanasie program of the Nazis has nothing to do with a "dignified death" to end "endless suffering" but is an euphemism for mass killing on undesirables. Night of the Big Wind _talk 22:14, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

I honestly think it wouldn't be unreasonable to remove the whole section, based on NPOV and undue weight. Dawn Bard (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I made that case before, but not to much success. Action T4 remains part of the broad Euthanasia debate, but the discussion today moved in very different directions. A mention due to its historical significance is worthwhile, but I am uncomfortable wih relating it too much to the modern discussion. - Bilby (talk) 04:26, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I attempted to remove this per WP:UNDUE and was reverted. In reviewing the source, it also appears the quote is taken out of context in a manner that violates WP:NPOV...

...snip... pg. 64-65

Numerous German physicians, psychiatrists, nurses, civilians, soldiers, and bureaucrats participated in this program of medical murder, fust code-named "Aktion T-4" after the street address of its office headquarters, Tiergartenstraße 4. In August 1941 the Aktion T-4 program was closed down in Germany, but the killing continued informally as T-4 personnel were transferred to Nazi death camps such as Bełżec, Sobibor, and Treblinka where they helped to build gas chambers. The full enormity of those crimes did not become public knowledge until 1946-1947, when twenty-three defendants (all but three of them physicians) were put on trial in Nuremberg in the so-called Doctors' Trial. To more than one historian, Aktion T-4 was the first Nazi mass-murder program to target specific groups of people, and thus was a "first chapter" to the "Final Solution" — the genocide of European Jews.

This brutal chapter in German history warrants attention because not only has it tainted the word "euthanasia" ever since, it also shows that — the arguments of American euthanasia proponents not withstanding — there were enough disturbing similarities between the two national versions of euthanasia to provide ESA critics with valuable propaganda. As later events would demonstrate, euthanasia opponents have sometimes used the arg umentum ad Hitlerum irresponsibly, but some euthanasia supporters have been equally guilty of denying any comparisons between themselves and the Nazis.

The origins of Nazi euthanasia, like those of the American euthanasia movement, predate the Third Reich and were intertwined with the history of eugenics and social Darwinism, and with efforts to discredit traditional morality and ethics. Nazi euthanasia "policies did not materialize out of thin air in response to unforeseeable wartime circumstances; they were entertained long in advance, by people who were very conscious of past precedents and of what they were doing." Beginning in the late nineteenth century, German physicians and scientists increasingly used the language of eugenics and social Darwinism to characterize their approaches to public health. The result was "racial hygiene," roughly equivalent to what Anglo-Americans called eugenics. Racial hygiene was a form of preventive medicine that, by drawing heavily on Darwinist notions, attempted to balance the health needs of the individual and those of society. Racial hygienists argued that such policies as health and disability insurance, the end of child labor, and the expansion of hospitals and clinics interfered with the process of natural selection that normally strengthened the species by eliminating its weaker members. Modern, civilized society needed a new science of public health that continued to protect the less fit with social security measures, while humanely doing the work of natural selection through eugenic programs designed to prevent the reproduction of inferior individuals.

...snip... pg.70

There was certainly nothing inevitable about the way early defenses of euthanasia culminated in the horrors of 1939-1945. Then, as now, it was perfectly possible for an individual to defend the voluntary right to die while opposing coercive euthanasia. The critical turning point in the German descent into medicalized brutality was the 1933 advent of the Nazi regime, more so than any spirited, pre-Third Reich endorsement of euthanasia. Nazification plunged the country into a social revolution and a world war that desensitized Germans in ways barely imaginable before 1933. In extreme times, toleration of extreme measures is apt to rise, and some ordinary people will become extraordinary criminals.

 — Dowbiggin, Ian (2003). A Merciful End: The Euthanasia Movement in Modern America. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0195154436. 

So I agree with the POV tag...just for other reasons. The section should probably go.  — ArtifexMayhem (talk) 23:18, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

No the section should stay as it is an important part of the history of euthanasia. It just needs to be more factual and balanced. Surely that's not beyond us? --Bermicourt (talk) 06:41, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree that it has a place in the history section...with proper use of the sources...but it does not have sufficient weight for more than a few sentences. It currently terminates entire history section and is rather POV. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 15:35, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I cannot understand why it should be removed: there is no consistent legal definition of the term 'euthenasia' across europe, let alone worldwide. It is terribly important it is retained: many of the arguments used to justify non voluntary euthenasia are still being employed in Amsterdam to terminate lives without proper informed consent. The cost of keeping someone alive in a (potentially) disabled state is used to withold intensive care admissions across the NHS, despite the fact there are no predictive algorithms in existence, and despite the fact that APACHE instructions are that they are NEVER to be used to form a prognosis of recovery. Having seen the appalling standard of 'evidence' presented to the Select Committee on Assisted Dying by the highly biased government 'think tank' Demos (wild extrapolations, miscalculated stats and totally unjustifiable extrapolations) it is essential that data from the historical context (previous mass euthenasia projects) remains widely available. Please leave it in.79.75.219.137 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.75.219.137 (talk) 16:14, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

What are you rambling about Amsterdam? Do you have any proof of this comment: It is terribly important it is retained: many of the arguments used to justify non voluntary euthenasia are still being employed in Amsterdam to terminate lives without proper informed consent.?? Night of the Big Wind _talk 16:58, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The 'evidence' taken into consideration by the Demos 'Commission on Assisted Dying' is available at <http://www.commissiononassisteddying.co.uk/read-evidence> . None of the the researchers for this 'think tank' has a degree in a scientific subject, one has a degree in Geography! 79.75.219.137 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)twl79.75.219.137 (talk) 16:33, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Although I am cautious with this unknown think tank, I must admit that the commisioners and (as far as I looked into it) people who submitted evidence look reliable. I do not understand your concern about the researchers. It looks that they are there to research and support the commision, not to make the decisions. Night of the Big Wind _talk 17:23, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-voluntary euthanasia text regarding NL is incorrect

The text regarding Non-voluntary euthanasia at the top of the article is incorrect, I quote: Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. However, in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions. These conditions include patient request, taking into consideration the amount of suffering the patient is experiencing, alternative courses of action must be discussed and pursued, all available information must be presented to the patient. It seems that, maybe due to a number of edits, two things are being mixed. There's:

• The Groningen Protocol, which defines a set of rules for euthanasia on infants specifically. Since this is non-voluntary, it is illegal, but physicians are not prosecuted when they follow a specific set of rules.
• The Voluntary euthanasia law in The Netherlands, which indeed refers to the patient request, the amount of suffering, and more.

So we're mixing voluntary and non-voluntary here. Since the sentence Voluntary euthanasia is legal in some countries and U.S. states. already deals with voluntary euthanasia, I don't think it's worth mentioning the Netherlands there.

Therefore my suggestion would be to rewrite the Non-voluntary euthanasia sentence to: Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries. However, in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions when euthanasia is performed on infants. With or without a reference to the Groningen Protocol. Alternatively, if you find this too detailed for an introduction text, then remove the entire reference to The Netherlands, since it's also mentioned later in the article and more well explained.

Note that the Non-voluntary euthanasia text later on in the article is in fact correct. And so is the Non-voluntary euthanasia article itself. Szop (talk) 18:44, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, never noticed that! But the Groningen Protocol is indeed only for the cases of children 12 years and younger. Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Good catch - thanks. I think the intent was to refer to both non-voluntary and voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, but that wasn't the right spot to refer to both. I've changed it as suggested. - Bilby (talk) 07:03, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 February 2012

Please remove the part in the introduction stating: "However, in the Netherlands, physicians can avoid prosecution by following well described and strict conditions when non-voluntary euthanasia is performed on infants.[3]"

Everybody knows this is complete crap and should not be in a public encyclopedia like Wikipedia. The source isn't accessible for the public to check whether this is true. For more information about the strictness of euthanasia in the Netherlands, please google translate this page http://www.euthanasiecommissie.nl/zorgvuldigheidseisen/

Best to you, Dennis 145.94.184.76 (talk) 09:07, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Complete nonsense. Physicians have to follow the Groningen Protocol. That are strict and well described conditions. You are referring to a list of conditions related to voluntary euthanasia on adults. (En nee, daar vergis ik mij echt niet in.) Night of the Big Wind _talk 14:19, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 15:18, 22 February 2012 (UTC)