Talk:Aktion T4

Confusing lead

I find this paragraph extremely confusing:

Action T4 (German: Aktion T4) was a program, also called Euthanasia Program, in Nazi Germany spanning October 1939 until August 1941, during which physicians killed 70,273 people[1] specified in Hitler's secret memo of September 1, 1939 as suffering patients "judged incurably sick, by critical medical examination,"[2] but described in a denunciation of the program by Cardinal Galen as long-term inmates of mental asylums "who may appear incurable."[3] The Nuremberg Trials found evidence that German physicians continued the extermination of patients after October 1941 and evidence that about 275,000 people were killed under T4[4].

"70,273 people" killed during T4? Or "about 275,000" killed under T4? Which is it? The German Wikipedia article says, more than 100,000. I would strongly encourage editors working on this article to pay close attention to de:Aktion T4, as that article's editors have a good reputation and the article is closely watched.--Goodmorningworld (talk) 16:34, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Both figures are correct and refer to different data sets and time intervals. The 70,000 figure refers to the original T4 program from 1939-41, the 200,000 or 275,000 figures include the secret extensions after 41 and provide a total estimate for the 1939-45 period.--Kmhkmh (talk) 14:33, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Undue weight and POV deletions of reliably sourced material on Euthanasia section

I am additing the NPOV tag on the Euthanasia section. One user has been repeatedly deleting sourced material which does not comport with his view that T4 is unrelated to euthanasia. Certainly, there is sourced material which says calling the program euthanasia is a euphemism, but there is also reliable sourced material which notes that the program developed out of the euthanasia movement and, even after news of atrocities, had sympathy within the Anglo-American movement. Simply deleting sourced material with which you disagree and presenting one POV as if it were the only view is a blatant violation of NPOV. The section, with multiple cummulative quotes and a quote box, bolstering the false impression of the view as undisputed fact, also gives undue weight to the idea that T4 and euthansia are so divorced. I think the tags should remain until balance is restored. Mamalujo (talk) 19:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I've added a couple of {{cn}}s to your paragraph, because I for one would find it useful to evaluate this issue if you could please point me at the relevant references. Thanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

This is a talk page not the article. Please don't edit my posts. If you'd like to ask for sources, do so, but don't put "citation needed" tags in my post. If you look at the sourced additions I made to the section which were deleted, that is a starting place. Mamalujo (talk) 20:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is some additional sourced material that the movement, even after the war, continued to consider nonvoluntary euthanasia for the "unfit". Also, the idea that euthanasia is and was so divorced from eugenics is not supported by the historical record as many western advocates of the practice were supporters of eugenics and the two were closely tied. The founder of the Euthanasia Society of American advocated involuntary euthanasia as did other early 20th century American advocates who even introduced such legislation. Mamalujo (talk) 20:36, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those refs. My intention in editing your post was simply to highlight the pertinent issues in the clearest possible way.

These refs indicate that some people unconnected with T4, in another country, also considered involuntary euthanasia for hereditary conditions. Now clearly the meaning of the term "euthanasia", and the level of coercion involved, is somewhat subjective. There's no dispute that "involuntary euthanasia", qualified in that way, means what it obviously does. There's barely any more disagreement that euthanasia, as used today, certainly does not. Now the question is, in relevance to this article, is why the term was used by the authors of T4?

• Did they mean that it was involuntary euthanasia, were open about this, and used the term to communicate the meaning of involuntary, forced, euthanasia in a society where that was an acceptable interpretation of the term?
• Was the term used because a broadly-held meaning of "euthanasia" had already shifted (outside T4) to encompass involuntary euthanasia?
• Or did they instead use the term as camouflage? Hiding the "involuntary" aspect between a term that could be defended as "merciful" in the mind of a public who didn't appreciate just what was being put forward? This is certainly the interpretation put forward by Friedlander(ibid).

Your refs indicate that some people, presumably unrelated, had also advocated involuntary euthanasia, and then went on to form a group that advocated euthanasia more broadly (and I don't know if this also included involuntary euthanasia). However that tells us little about T4's own intentions (case 1 above), nor does it support an argument that a wider-held position had shifted from voluntary euthanasia to involuntary euthanasia (case 2 above) (the Euthanasia Society if anything had gone the other way).

Overall, these refs do little to contradict the interpretation, already supported by direct references, that T4's use of "euthanasia" was solely as a camouflaging euphemism, to present the rarely acceptable involuntary aspect as instead a more widely acceptable merciful and voluntary version. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:06, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Mamalujo, your first source (Shai Lavi book) quotes a source to make the allegation that the early euthanasia movement in the USA considered euthanasia for the medically unfit. So that's not a source itself, merely a book quoting another source. No evidence for the claim is presented. In itself, this is not a notable source for your contention.
2. Your second source leads nowhere, simply to a description of the book And the walls came tumbling down.
3. The Milton James Lewis book makes broad claims about the people who formed the ESA without citing any evidence. What he says may be correct, or not. It's difficult to tell since he presents nothing to support his claims (in the accessed excerpt). Similar claims are made here, this time sourced to an outspoken opponent of euthanasia, Ian Dowbiggin. If you wish to insert claims sourced to an activist like Dowbiggin, we'll have to qualify the his views with phrases like: "Anti-euthanasia campaigner Ian Dowbiggin states that ...".
4. So even if we accepted this badly sourced claim as worthy of inclusion, there is still no support for your contention that "many western advocates of the practice were supporters of eugenics". Apparently Charles Potter thought about it (although I've still seen no actual proof of that). So who are the "many", and where is the article they published along these lines? Where is the proof? Citing claims made by a religious conservative activist like Dowbiggin, who seems to enjoy impugning the reputation of dead people (who cannot sue), or citing sources that cite Dowbiggin (as you have done) is not enough. ► RATEL ◄ 01:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)I'm somewhat puzzled by the source, which seems to indicate VELS was advocating involuntary euthanasia (VELS is the Voluntary Euthanasia Legalization Society, founded mid-1930s). If there was any such advocacy, it does not seem to be a significant part of their agenda. I don't see the connection to T4 either; simply because there were some people who believed in both voluntary and involuntary euthanasia does not really tie the two. Is there something I am missing? (I'm the admin Ratel mentioned, but since I've been involved in this discussion before, I'm not wearing an admin hat). --TeaDrinker (talk) 01:23, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be true that some members of the very early euthanasia movement in America had positive views of involuntary euthanasia for mentally defective babies, etc. However, this looks to have been a phase that quickly passed, and moreover seems to have emanated not from the wider membership of the movements (which consisted of only a few people in the beginning anyway), but be the maverick opinions of isolated individuals. In fact, the reading around this issue I did today shows that some early members actually resigned from the ESA because of disagreements over this issue, so it was not a firm policy of the ESA's at all, and they even published words condemning involuntary euthanasia. So we're talking about the ideas in the heads of a handful of people as they were deciding what the movement would be. They soon moved on to things like Living wills. The relationship of these minutiae of the early history of some pro-euthanasia society in the US to Aktion T4 is extremely tenuous, at most, and inclusion would raise NPOV and undue weight issues. ► RATEL ◄ 01:55, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm not at all clear what Mamlujo's thesis is here: Is it that T4 was related to a publically-acceptable campaign of euthanasia, or a publically-acceptable campaign of eugenics ? The two are quite distinct: although involuntary euthanasia for hereditary conditions could be described as broadly eugenic, to claim that any and every eugenic program went as far as supporting euthanasia isn't supportable. That would be a right old Bellamy salute to claim! Andy Dingley (talk) 08:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Andy, let's be clear, it's not my thesis but that of RS's. What the original source in my original edit made out was the fact that what T4 was doing was considered "euthanasia", not just by the Nazis, but also by advocates of the practice outside of Germanty - not only Nazi's but also Anglo-American advocates of the practice supported involuntary euthanasia of the unfit. It is plainly balance for the assertion that T4 was only using the term euthanasia euphemistically - much of the Anglo-American movement likewise saw involutary euthanasia of the "unfit" as euthanasia. Andy, you may see eugenics as distinct from euthanasia, and today it is much more so, but as you can see from my last two links above, prior to and during the war they were seen as closely linked. And it was not just some members who advocated involuntary euthanasa but the very founders of the movement, and the involuntary euthanasia of the "unfit" had enough widespread support to be part of a number of pieces of legislation which were introduced. With regard to whether VELA (U.k.) advocated involutary euthanasia, they did in some instances at some periods. ESA (U.S.) did so more explicitly. The sources I gave above were just additional sources which supported the sourced edits I made, they weren't in the original edits. The RS edits show that T4 was not so distant from euthanasia as the section had asserted. The edits are necessary for balance. The edits also point out the ramifications of T4 on the Anglo-American movement - causing them to distance themselves from involuntary euthanasia. As far as all the second guessing of RS's, particularly on Ratel's part, that sinks into OR. As far as labelling the material from Dowbiggin as being from an opponent of euthanasia, that seems inappropriate and highly POV. Do sources which are advocates of euthanasia get such a label either here or in the euthanasia article. Also, Dowbiggen is a noted professor of history - it is not "badly sourced" - moreover multiple other sources (see my post above) support the facts he states. I'm going to reintroduce my edits and remove the POV and undue weight tags. Plainly they provide balance for the assertion that T4 was only euphemistically called "euthanasia", they give historical perspective of the fact that some of the Anglo-american euthanasia supported involutary euthanasia of the unfit generally and even of T4 specifically, and also gives historical ramifications of T4. Mamalujo (talk) 19:31, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Please do not change the section while the consensus is against you. That's rule one of wikipedia. You seem to be on a mission to link euthanasia of all kinds to eugenics and murder, which is a ploy of certain religious groups opposed to voluntary euthanasia. Are you one of those? I notice you have a long history of edits to articles dealing with religious issues. You need to understand that while Aktion T4 was euphemistically called a "euthanasia" program, it should have more accurately be described as an involuntary euthanasia program. Your attempt to conflate voluntary euthanasia (usually simply called "euthanasia" because involuntary euthanasia is never assumed) and Aktion T4 (involuntary euthanasia, eugenics and simple murder) is pure POV pushing that does not belong in the encyclopedia, notwithstanding your use of activist sources on the same mission, like Dowbiggin. ► RATEL ◄ 04:27, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

"Are you one of those?" Please refrain from ad hominems in talk page discussions. I am not "on a mission" to do anything other than to accurately reflect the historical record regarding this Action T4 and its ramifications in a balanced NPOV way. The current version is lacking in this regard. You seem to oppose accurate historical facts from RSs that note the ramifications Action T4 had and the sympathy for involuntary euthanasia and even the Nazi program within some of the midcentury euthanasia movement. Mamalujo (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• To address the confusion underlying this issue, I've edited into the article the differences between voluntary euthanasia (aka "euthanasia") and involuntary euthanasia. Aktion T4 is loosely linked to involuntary euthanasia through "mercy killing", although in the Nazi model it simply became murder of anyone disliked by the Nazi minions, according to the Aktion T4 article. ► RATEL ◄ 04:47, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Of course there are sources, even "reliable" sources according to Wikipedia policies, like for example: Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, 1949, No.241, pages 39-47, which clearly state that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4 ... 201.244.201.128 (talk) 03:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Bishop Galen

Hi,

The article currently states

A few weeks after the pastoral letter was read out [which happened in July, acc. to the article (Yaan)], the Catholic Bishop of Münster in Westphalia, Clemens August Graf von Galen, publicly denounced the T4 program in a sermon, and telegrammed his text to Hitler, calling on "the Führer to defend the people against the Gestapo". "It is a terrible, unjust and catastrophic thing when man opposes his will to the will of God," Galen said. "We are talking about men and women, our compatriots, our brothers and sisters. Poor unproductive people if you wish, but does this mean that they have lost their right to live?"[59] Robert Lifton says of this sermon: "This powerful, populist sermon was immediately reproduced and distributed throughout Germany — indeed, it was dropped among German troops by British Royal Air Force pilots. Galen's sermon probably had a greater impact than any other statement in consolidating anti-'euthanasia' sentiment."[60] Another Bishop, Franz Bornewasser of Trier, also sent protests to Hitler, though not in public. In August Galen was even more outspoken, broadening his attack to include the Nazi persecution of religious orders and the closing of Catholic institutions. He attributed the heavy allied bombing of Westphalian towns to the wrath of God against Germany for breaking His laws.

my questions are:

Did Galen really denounce the euthanasia program in two separate sermons, or are the two mentioned sermons one and the same? and

In which sermon did Galen attribute "the heavy allied bombing of Westphalian towns to the wrath of God against Germany for breaking His laws".? I couldn't really find it in this one, except some sentences towards the ending which more or less predict punishment for those "who do not want what god wants".

Yaan (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Euthanasia template

There's a new navbox available, provided by the {{Euthanasia}} template. What relation "Action T4" bears do modern day usage of the term "euthanasia" is of course a hotly debated topic, and I don't mean to state anything one way or the other. What do editors here feel, would it be appropriate to include that navbox in this article? Gabbe (talk) 09:19, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

No. This is about murder and eugenics under the guise of euthanasia. Putting the template here is exactly what euthanasia opponents would want. ► RATEL ◄ 14:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that since the nazi usage of the term it has become somewhat ambiguous. Ultimately you cannot simply describe a term as it was defined at one time and declare that to be the "true" meaning of the word. In German the term was used for eugenics and not just int the form of a euphemism or disguise but as official language, i.e. if you look up the term in various German dictionaries or encyclopedias of the 1930s, the term will be defined as "killing unworthy life". Wikipedia should not join ideological battles over the "true" meaning of a certain term, but simply report it as it is/was.--Kmhkmh (talk) 15:22, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

So, since euthanasia means "good death", it clearly has nothing to do with "killing unworthy life". Thanks for clarifying. ► RATEL ◄ 00:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you completely misunderstood the point, it says that least in German it does not only mean "good death" but "killing unworthy life" as well. The point is that words are not only defined by their original literal meaning (Greek for "good death") but by their usage over time. To get you some (harmless) language examples to understand that point:

• "pulling your leg" does not only mean that somebody is literally pull at your leg, but it as also a acquired a second meaning as "kidding or fooling you".
• "anal" is not just literally referring to the anus but it can also describe a person's attitude/behaviour.
• "gay" doesn't really stand for happy anymore (it's original meaning in the 19th century) but it usually used for homosexual.

In a similar way Euthanasia has at least in German acquired such a double meaning and consequently in German people often don't use that term anymore, when they refer to aids for dying/selt controlled death in order to avoid any disambiguities. The German WP article on the subject explains that point fairly well btw.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:43, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the English section of Wikipedia, and it is being written now. Thus, the WW2-era meaning of a word resembling "euthanasia" in German is irrelevant. English words should be used in the English section of Wikipedia with their current meanings.TimothyFreeman (talk) 03:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

But Aktion T4 was a german action. PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes the reference to the situation in the German language is merely an illustration of what one has to consider, i.e. the argument put forward above simple referring to the literal translation is not sufficient. The assessment needs to be based on the current and common use in English. If that differs from the use in German, that's fine, but that's, what has to be considered and not just the literal translation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

1. In order to compare Aktion-T4 with euthanasia, why euthanasia can be merely defined as a "good death", which is the ideal definition given precisely by the supporters of euthanasia?. Under what criteria could be excluded, for example, the legal point of view from euthanasia definition?

2. Would not be a bias when it is assumed that euthanasia nowdays is not a murder under the guise of euthanasia only based on a ideal and propagandistic definition claimig that euthanasia is just a "good death"? where are the proofs that euthanasia nowdays is not a murder under the guise of euthanasia?

3. For instance, there are a lot of reliable sources claiming that euthanasia is a murder, thus a murder under the guise of euthanasia, for example: most of the Criminal Codes around the World. But also there are the following source, which is a reliable source according to Wikipedia policies: Alexander Leo, Medical science under dictatorship, New England Journal of Medicine, 1949, No.241, pages 39-47, which is also a source claiming that Aktion T4 was euthanasia and that any euthanasia is not unlike Aktion T4. Would not be a bias to exclude this point of view from the article? Would not be a bias to exclude this point of view from the criterias used to decide the inclusion of the euthanasia-template? PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 07:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing neither for the template nor against it. Nor I am going to start a discussion about the nature of euthanasia here or whether T4 should be called Euthanasia in English or not. My point was merely that the original argument further up. which was simply referring to the literal translation, is not good enough. For whatever assessment you want to argue you need to look at most common uses of euthanasia in (English speaking) societies and not just the original literal translation. The situation in Germany was given as an illustration to show, that common uses can significantly deviate from the original literal translation.--Kmhkmh (talk) 12:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you Kmhkmh. Therefore, I'm asking everybody: would not be a bias when it is assumed that euthanasia nowdays is not a murder under the guise of euthanasia (like Aktion-T4), only based on a ideal and propagandistic definition claimig that euthanasia is just a "good death"? Would not be a bias to assume this ideal point of view as the only criteria used to decide the inclusion of the euthanasia-template in the Aktion-T4 article? (see above my 3 points on this issue)PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 18:07, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Circularity

There is a problem with circular references here, to and from the lethal injection article. While it is obvious that the Nazis did not use the modern U.S. lethal injection protocol, WP does not say what drugs or methods they used. These facts are probably buried in the transcripts of the Doctors' Trial, but might also be in published books. I don't have access to a good research library, but some WP contributors do. Perhaps they could help. Donfbreed (talk) 22:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Alexander and Action T4

I removed the quote on Alexander's discussion of euthanasia and Action T4 as follows:

Here one sees what "euthanasia" means in actual practice. According to the records, 275,000 people were put to death in these killing centers. Ghastly as this seems, it should be realized that this program was merely the entering wedge for exterminations for far greater scope in the political program for genocide of conquered nations and the racially unwanted. The methods used and personnel trained in the killing centers for the chronically sick became the nucleus of the much larger centers on the East, where the plan was to kill all Jews and Poles and to cut down the Russian population by 30,000,000.

Similar, I've removed the reference to Alexander in:

For other authors, Aktion T4 clearly has a relationship with euthanasia. Not only is it claimed that euthanasia was an euphemism to cover and justify murders; but these authors, such as Leo Alexander, (who was an advisor during the Nuremberg Trials), even claim that Aktion T4 is precisely an example of what euthanasia really means in actual practice.

The source for the quote is Alexander Leo, Medical Science Under Dictatorship, The New England Journal of Medicine, 1949, No.241, pages 39-47.

I then realised that there have been heated debates on this topic, so my apologies upfront. However, in reading the Alexander paper, the quote being used above was used to describe the preceding paragraph in his work, which was a description of what was happening in Germany in regard to Action T4. Alexander was effectively saying "this quote shows what the actual practice was in Germany" rather than "Action T4 is an example of the actual practice of euthanasia". - Bilby (talk) 05:32, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, you are wrong, Alexander clearly refers to euthanasia as such for example adverting that also there is an euthanasia movement with the same propaganda and basis, and also alexander refers to euthanasia in The Netherlands. And in fact the citation you are asking for is precisely that source: Alexander. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 05:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

However if you use Alexander as a statement about modern English term euthanasia, you may run into a problem of fringe or at least undue weight. If you restrict Alexander to T4 he is essentially saying what other scholar say on the subject as well, i.e. you quote Alexander as an exemplary voice of the general scholarly opinion on the subject. But if you read it as a statement about the modern English term it does not represent the general scholarly opinion anymore and might be even borderline fringe. If the latter rather than the former is true, then this might suggest that Alexander should not be quoted at all. Moreover that statement would be better suited for the article about Euthanasia rather than this one (see reminder below).--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a general reminder to all involved: This is an article about T4 and it is not about what does or does not constitute Euthanasia and what the term Euthanasia currently does or does not mean in the English speaking world.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:53, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Quoting Alexander: "The question that this fact prompts is whether there are any danger signs that American physicians have also been infected with Hegelian, cold-blooded, utilitarian philosophy and whether early traces of it can be detected in their medical thinking that may make them vulnerable to departures of the type that occurred in Germany ... From the attitude of easing patients with chronic diseases away from the doors of the best types of treatment facilities available to the actual dispatching of such patients to killing centers is a long but nevertheless logical step. ... Evidence of the existence of such an attitude stared at me from a report on the activities of a leading public hospital unit, which stated rather proudly that certain treatments were given only when they appeared promising ... To be sure, American physicians are still far from the point of thinking of killing centers, but they have arrived at a danger point in thinking, at which likelihood of full rehabilitation is considered a factor that should determine the amount of time, effort and cost to be devoted to a particular type of patient on the part of the social body upon which this decision rests. At this point Americans should remember that the enormity of a euthanasia movement is present in their own midst." PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:03, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

That's definitely not a quote for this article (see above).--Kmhkmh (talk) 06:09, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

It will not be used in the article -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't doubt that Alexander made discussed euthanasia in general. My concern is only that Alexander's quote, as used above, was not about "euthanasia in actual practice", but about "Action T4 in actual practice". Which is fine, but means it can't be used to support a comparison with modern usage, as is currently being drawn in the article. - Bilby (talk) 06:12, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No Sir, Alexander says: "euthanasia movement" why are you assuming that the word euthanasia is not euthanasia but Aktion T4? And why are you assuming the section "Aktion T4 and euthanasia" must be restricted to "modern euthanasia"? -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

He does mention euthanasia movement elsewhere in the article (twice, in fact). That's fine. Nevertheless, the quote being used in regard to actual practice does not refer to the movement, but Action T4. Yet in this article it is being used to draw a comparison with the wider practice, and this does not appear to be Alexander's intent. I'm generally concerned, as per Kmhkmh, about relating Action T4 too strongly to the wider movement, as that does seem outside of the article's scope - however, that wasn't the point I was making. - Bilby (talk) 06:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

1- I can read that Alexander makes a difference betweeen the allegedly "good" intentions and the real lethal effects. But where in the text Alexander makes a difference between euthanasia and Aktion T4? Instead of that, for example, Alexander actually refers to the decree of Hitler (which never uses the word euthanasia) as it was an order to commit euthanasia: "The first direct order for euthanasia was issued by Hitler on September 1, 1939, and an organization was set up to execute the program." So, you are right Bilby, in the quoted text Alexander is refering to Action T4, but you are wrong Bilby, because Alexander is refering also to euthanasia, as Alexander always refers to Aktion T4 as euthanasia, he never shows a difference between Aktion T4 and euthanasia.

2- As I understood none of the quoted sources in the section (AktionT4 and euthanasia) refers to something called "wider euthanasia movement" but one of those authors compares AktionT4 with that he believes euthanasia actually means, the other author compares Aktion-T4 with an euthanasia definition taken from a dictionary and the third one (Alexander) compares it also with that he thinks euthanasia actually means. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 06:59, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think I'm doing a good job of getting my point across, so I'll try leaving it to others to decide what I mean. However, just to be clear: I don't dispute that Alexander made references to general euthanasia. All I am saying is the quote in which he refers to "actual practice" is not related to euthanasia in general, but is directed to what was happening in Germany. Taken out of context, as it is here, it reads like a general comment, but in context it clearly relates to the events of Action T4 only. Thus having it out of context in the article is misleading, and using it to support "Aktion T4 is precisely an example of what euthanasia really means in actual practice" is a significant problem. At any rate, I've said enough, so I'll step aside. - Bilby (talk) 08:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

No, the quote is not out of context and is not misleading because precisely the author (Alexander) never in that texts refers to Aktion T4 as something different than euthanasia. -- PepitoPerez2007 (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

... Again ...

TickleMeister: one must refer to the context, to find what Alexander is meaning. When he says "Here one sees what 'euthanasia' means in actual practice" he is not quoting euthanasia to differentiate this "nazi" euthanasia from a "good" euthanasia. When he quotes euthanasia is not because it would be a "nazi" euthanasia instead of a "good" euthanasia. There is not any proof that Alexander make any distinction between a "nazi" euthanasia and another sort of euthanasia. Instead reading the text one find evidence that for this author euthanasia is alwways euthanasia and a danger thing. In this section it was already quoted another parts of Alexander's text which should be useful to see this point:

... From the attitude of easing patients with chronic diseases away from the doors of the best types of treatment facilities available to the actual dispatching of such patients to killing centers is a long but nevertheless logical step ... To be sure, American physicians are still far from the point of thinking of killing centers, but they have arrived at a danger point in thinking, at which likelihood of full rehabilitation is considered a factor that should determine the amount of time, effort and cost to be devoted to a particular type of patient on the part of the social body upon which this decision rests. At this point Americans should remember that the enormity of a euthanasia movement is present in their own midst.

— Alexander Leo, Medical Science Under Dictatorship, The New England Journal of Medicine, 1949, No.241, pages 39-47

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 13:51, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

But he refers here to a form of non-voluntary euthanasia in which the decision is made by "a social body" and not the patient himself. There is no such form of euthanasia on Earth at present, except for the Groningen Protocol. Therefore he is not referring to what is generally meant by euthanasia in the modern sense. I think the wording I inserted should ve replaced. What do others think? TickleMeister (talk) 14:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

As I stated above, I think the quote by Alexander is about Action T4, rather than euthanasia in general, especially given that it immediately follows from, and comments on, a long quote describing the Action T4 process, so I don't feel that it is correct to assume that he is discussing the general topic when it could be more easily assumed that he is discussing the specific case. More generally, I think you are correct, in that what he saw as euthanasia isn't necessarily what is meant by the term today. - Bilby (talk) 14:30, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I see what you mean, Bilby, and I agree with you. TickleMeister (talk) 14:33, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

TickleMeister: you say this author refers to a form of non-voluntary euthanasia and he is not referring to that concept which you think is generally meant by euthanasia in the modern sense. That is a distinction made by you TickleMeister not by the author. The author is not making any distinction between one euthanasia and other euthanasia. Even more, as I already noticed: the author is not ever making any distinction between "nazi euthanasia" and other euthanasia. The author in each part of the text is precisely warning against euthanasia, for example against euthanasia movement in NorthAmerica as a risk factor which could lead American phyisicians to commit the same crimes as physicians did during nazi regime. I see your point TickleMeister: you think that AktionT4-euthanasia couldn't be compared with certain modern sense concept of euthanasia, but precisely that section ("Aktion T4 and euthanasia") goes on different points of view from different authors about the relationship between AktionT4 and their own concept of euthanasia, it doesn't matter if you or me don't agree with their concept of euthanasia, and it also doesn't matter if you or me believe their concept of euthanasia is not well adjusted to the "modern sense" concept of euthanasia. More over: unless one of those authors pointed it, for this section of wikipedia article would be irrelevant that involuntary euthanasia is actually widely practiced on Earth at present, for example illegally, as statistics are enough large to claim this practice is not a rare exception instead what you think.

Bilby: I showed that context of Alexander's article is enough clear: author make not distinction between nazi euthanasia and other euthanasias. But I understood your argument: we should not assume what is the author actually thinkig, but we should only publish what he actually says. Well, precisely this author for sure quotes the word euthanasia, surely because he thinks it is an euphemism to cover murders. For sure you think that he is refering only to nazi-euthanasia, although for sure I think he is referring to every-euthanasia as he never makes a distinction between euthanasias. But what is also sure and clear is: author didn't write "nazi euthanasia" neither "euthanasia under nazi regime" as TickleMeister pretendes to edit. But author only wrote "euthanasia", so we should keep his words, we souldn't add anything else, precisely not any of our interpretations of that sentence. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

CluadioSantos, wikipedia works by consensus. The consensus is now in favor of Bilby and me. Unless others support your view, the page will be changed. TickleMeister (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

TickleMeister, you are talking about imposition or even about democracy instead of consensus, as it means all we agree instead of a mayority imposes over a minority, or am I wrong?.

Let me quote:

Consensus discussion have a particular form: editors try to persuade others, using reasons based in policy, sources, and common sense. The goal of a consensus discussion is to reach an agreement about article content, one which may not satisfy anyone completely but which all editors involved recognize as a reasonable exposition of the topic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Process

And wikipedia also claims for other policies like WP:NOR, but it seems you are trying to force to publish your own opinion and interpretation and to add your words to the author ones.

Let me quote again:

... If reliable references cannot be found to explain the apparent discrepancy, editors should resist the temptation to add their own explanation ...

— http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 05:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing OR with the problem of understanding what was meant by an author - it is original research to interpret the data, but we're not trying to interpret, just to understand what the author was saying, which is something we have to do with all sources. Clearly there are two ways of reading the quote. The first is that it is related to euthanasia as a whole, which is what appears to be the case when viewed on its own and is what you seem to argue for. The second is that the quote, especially with the quotation marks around "euthanasia" and the preceding paragraph, is describing what went on with Action T4. There is no question that the author later speaks out against euthanasia in the paper, but I don't think he is saying that Action T4 is necessarily an example of what is meant by euthanasia. From my reading, what he seems to be arguing for is a slippery slope argument - the acceptance of the principles that underlie euthanasia may lead to situations like Action T4, and thus we should resist the emerging euthanasia movement and the Hegelian attitudes to medicine, and instead invest in the care of the chronically ill.

At any rate, per TickleMeister, even if Alexander is referring to euthanasia in general with that quote, such a reference is to euthanasia as viewed in the 1940s, which is unlikely to be as relevant given the progression of the ethical debate since then. The debate is quite different today, with a focus on voluntary euthanasia as an extension of someone's right to choose, which is not what Alexander is discussing. - Bilby (talk) 07:20, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Bilby puts it well. Once again, I am in agreement with him. TickleMeister (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Even the texts written by other authors who claim euthanasia has nothing to do with Aktion T4 are outdated, for example written before euthanasia was legalized in The Netherlands, and before the Groening Protocol which legalized involuntary euthanasia for newborns. But this section is not a debate about euthanasia but a revision of different points of view some authors have written about the relation between euthanasia and Aktion T4. Bilby, the problem of understand what meant the author is a task and a right for the readers, the editors should " let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition." -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 16:33, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

The other commentators we use for that section are all writing from the mid-1990's or later, so they are probably referring to the current understanding of euthanasia. At any rate, people can only understand the text if it is given in context - with Alexander's quote out of context, I don't think readers can properly evaluate it. - Bilby (talk) 20:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is your opinion about euthanasia but section goes about authors opinions and texts. Whathever, let me quote again WP policies about your concern on 'readers couldn't evaluate properly the text':

An unpublished synthesis or analysis should not be presented for the readers' "benefit". Let the readers draw their own conclusions after seeing related facts in juxtaposition.

Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Compiling_facts_and_information

-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

it's ok - I'm pretty aware of the policy, but this isn't about OR. The thing is that you are also interpreting the text trying to understand what Alexander is saying, but that is the normal process, as we need to understand the sources in order to use them. I think, given the context of the quote, that it is a bigger stretch to interpret him as speaking about euthanasia in general as opposed to Action T4 specifically, in part because the quote is in regard to a description that is very much about Action T4. - 203.122.223.121 (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't agree in your interpretation of that sentence, based on the context and all the evidence taken from the text. That was already clearly noticed. But I'm not adding any word to the sentence written by the author. The author didn't write "euthanasia under nazi regime" but only "euthanasia", so let the author speaks by himself. Don't add words to him based on your own interpretation. Let the readers read the author and let them make a conclusion. That is the point and wikipedia policy about OR. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:18, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

This is where we hit last time - you just don't seem to see where I'm coming from, as this isn't about OR, but about properly reflecting what the author was saying. The full quote, (my apologies for the length, but we need the context), is:

What these activities meant to the population at large was well expressed by a few hardy souls who dared to protest. A member of the court of appeals at Frankfurt-am-Main wrote in December, 1939:

There is constant discussion of the question of the destruction of socially unfit life—in the places where there are mental institutions, in neighboring towns, sometimes over a large area, throughout the Rhineland, for example. The people have come to recognize the vehicles in which the patients are taken from their original institution to the intermediate institution and from there to the liquidation institution. I am told that when they see these buses even the children call out: "They're taking some more people to be gassed." From Limburg it is reported that every day from one to three buses which shades drawn pass through on the way from Weilmunster to Hadmar, delivering inmates to the liquidation institution there. According to the stories the arrivals are immediately stripped to the skin, dressed in paper shirts, and forthwith taken to a gas chamber, where they are liquidated with hydro-cyanic acid gas and an added anesthetic. The bodies are reported to be moved to a combustion chamber by means of a conveyor belt, six bodies to a furnace. The resulting ashes are then distributed into six urns which are shipped to the families. The heavy smoke from the crematory building is said to be visible over Hadamar every day. There is talk, furthermore, that in some cases heads and other portions of the body are removed for anatomical examination. The people working at this liquidation job in the institutions are said to be assigned from other areas and are shunned completely by the populace. This personnel is described as frequenting the bars at night and drinking heavily. Quite apart from these overt incidents that exercise the imagination of the people, the are disquieted by the question of whether old folk who have worked hard all their lives and may merely have come into their dotage are also being liquidated. There is talk that the homes for the aged are to be cleaned out too. The people are said to be waiting for legislative regulation providing some orderly method that will insure especially that the aged feeble-minded are not included in the program.

Here one sees what "euthanasia" means in actual practice. According to the records, 275,000 people were put to death in these killing centers. Ghastly as this seems, it should be realized that this program was merely the entering wedge for exterminations for far greater scope in the political program for genocide of conquered nations and the racially unwanted. The methods used and personnel trained in the killing centers for the chronically sick became the nucleus of the much larger centers on the East, where the plan was to kill all Jews and Poles and to cut down the Russian population by 30,000,000. (Alexander, 1949, p2)

Euthanasia in actual practice does not mean carting people off in buses, transporting them to gas chambers, killing them on mass with cyanide, and then cremating in an assembly line. The process called "euthanasia" under the Nazi regime did mean that, though. In his paper, Alexander spends the first seven pages describing various practices under the Nazis, and this is part of that discussion. He then spends two pages taking about how the same principles that led to these were apparent in the US at the time, and recommending that people don't take that path, but instead invest in the care of the chronically ill. This is a slippery slope argument. At one point later in the paper he states, speaking about all the practices he described in Germany:

Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in the basic attitude of the physicians. It started with the acceptance of the attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as life not worthy to be lived. This attitude in its early stages concerned itself merely with the severely and chronically sick. Gradually the sphere of those to be included in this category was enlarged to encompass the socially unproductive, the ideologically unwanted, the racially unwanted and finally all non-Germans. But it is important to realize that the infinitely small wedged-in lever from which this entire trend of mind received its impetus was the attitude toward the nonrehabilitable sick. (Alexander, 1949, p7)

That is very much in support of the slipperly slope argument, which seems to argue that these practices come from the same principles as euthanasia, but not necessarily that they are the same thing as the euthanasia being described in the US at the time.

I'm concerned that you're moving from the specific, (a discussion about what happened in Germany), to the general (a claim about all euthanasia). That's not the impression I get from the above - I read it as being a claim about what the Nazis described as "euthanasia" was (hence the quotes), not what it is in a wider context.

At any rate, I don't think we're getting anywhere again, much like what happened last time. I think the addition of the extra qualifier, stating that Alexander was describing was was occurring under the Nazis, would help provide the reader with better context by which to judge the text. I also think the quote, taken out of context, provides undue weight, as you need to read that quote in the context of the paper to see what he is saying. But having, I think, expressed my stance as well as I can, I'm going to step back from this again, as arguing in circles doesn't get us anywhere. - Bilby (talk) 23:09, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

So, would not you put quotes around the word "euthanasia" in order to remark that it is always a euphemism to cover murders? -- 186.28.47.34 (talk) 05:57, 26 December 2010 (UTC)