Talk:Groningen Protocol: Difference between revisions
The Banner (talk | contribs) |
→Two different things: new section |
||
Line 19: | Line 19: | ||
:I do agree, one thing is the authors of the protocol to claim they have been working in collaboration with a prosecutor and another different and misleading info to say that the protocol was agreed upon by the Prosecutors Office. And due the other concerns it should be immediately corrected or removed. -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">[[User:ClaudioSantos|<b><i>C</i></b>laudio<b><i>S</i></b>antos]][[User_talk:ClaudioSantos|¿<b><i>?</i></b> ]]</font> 13:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
:I do agree, one thing is the authors of the protocol to claim they have been working in collaboration with a prosecutor and another different and misleading info to say that the protocol was agreed upon by the Prosecutors Office. And due the other concerns it should be immediately corrected or removed. -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" size="2" style="text-shadow:orange 0em 0em 0.7em,orange -0.4em -0.4em 0.5em,red 0.2em 0.4em 0.5em">[[User:ClaudioSantos|<b><i>C</i></b>laudio<b><i>S</i></b>antos]][[User_talk:ClaudioSantos|¿<b><i>?</i></b> ]]</font> 13:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
:True, two claims in one sentence. So I have split the sentence and gave each a proper source. [[User:The Banner|<span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<sub><i style="color:maroon">talk</i></sub>]] 15:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
:True, two claims in one sentence. So I have split the sentence and gave each a proper source. [[User:The Banner|<span style="font-family:'Old English Text MT',serif;color:green">The Banner</span>]] [[User talk:The Banner|<sub><i style="color:maroon">talk</i></sub>]] 15:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC) |
||
== Two different things == |
|||
This article appears to be taking about two distinct things and switching between them in a very confusing manner. |
|||
One second I am reading about killing infants with no hope for a happy/healthy life and the next I am reading about how Dutch law allows a 12+ person to request euthanasia for themselves.[[User:Wisnoskij|Wisnoskij]] ([[User talk:Wisnoskij|talk]]) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:05, 25 March 2013
{{WikiProject banner shell}}
to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.![]() | Netherlands Start‑class | ||||||
|
People seem to forget that only the adults can start the procedure, not the physicians! And they can only procede with it as parents and physicians and social workers agree about the unbearable and incurable suffering of the child.
I don't have a clue how much pain and love parents must have if they decide that death is the best option for their child. I hope no one knows how it feels. Eddylandzaat (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Recent reversion by eddy
Eddy, please show me where your edits can be cited to in the source given. Here is the full text [1]. Thanks. OzOke (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please keep in mind that the English-WP is NOT my home WP! Sometimes I skip a few days. Eddylandzaat (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I admit that I gave the wrong references. And I can't find the right one at the moment. And seeing your way of communicating, I don't even want to look for it. Have it your way. Eddylandzaat (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Nazi comparison
I've started a discussion on this revert here. Gabbe (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Verification issue
This sentence failed verification: "The protocol, as suggested by Dr. E. Verhagen, was agreed upon by the Prosecutors Office in Groningen and in July 2005 declared mandatory by the Dutch Society for Pediatrics." It is cited to a March 2005 article in the New England Journal of Medicine. First and most obviously, a March 2005 article cannot verify something that happened in July 2005. But it also doesn't indicate that the protocol was agreed upon the Prosecutors office in Groningen; it says, "With that aim, we developed a protocol in 2002, in close collaboration with a district attorney." It might be accurate if the Prosecutors office consists of a single district attorney, but that's not indicated and it does not identify Groningen as the district attorney's work area. I've flagged the sentence but believe it should be removed if not properly supported, especially with regards to the Prosecutors office in Groningen as this borders on being a potential WP:BLP issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do agree, one thing is the authors of the protocol to claim they have been working in collaboration with a prosecutor and another different and misleading info to say that the protocol was agreed upon by the Prosecutors Office. And due the other concerns it should be immediately corrected or removed. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- True, two claims in one sentence. So I have split the sentence and gave each a proper source. The Banner talk 15:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Two different things
This article appears to be taking about two distinct things and switching between them in a very confusing manner. One second I am reading about killing infants with no hope for a happy/healthy life and the next I am reading about how Dutch law allows a 12+ person to request euthanasia for themselves.Wisnoskij (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)