Talk:Euthanasia

Euthanasia debate

In a recent psychological study in Belgium, it was found that people's disapproval of adult euthanasia is predicted, beyond religiosity, by endorsement of collectivistic values (loyalty and purity) and low flexibility in existential issues, but not by prosocial, empathetic inclinations and care-oriented values.--184.152.68.50 (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017

Header: The 1949 New York State Petition for Euthanasia and Catholic Opposition

Line: Catholic religious leaders criticized the petition, saying that such a bill would "legalize a suicide-murder pact" and a "rationalization of the fifth commandment of God, 'Though Shalt Not Kill'.

Minor Edit/Typo: Change "Though" to "Thou" Linda Schoenmann (talk) 02:48, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Done. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Activism

Unfortunately User:ClaudioSantos has decided to but some personal POV in the lead. I guess he never ever read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section. And now he is editwarring too. The lead is not the place for activism, as it should be a summery of the article. But istead of adhering to a neutral article, he accuses me of bad faith... The Banner talk 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Edit warring aside, what is the issue (content-wise) with what was added? — nihlus kryik  (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Besides potential WP:NPOV issues. See MOS:LEAD. Content in the lead should not be "stand alone". Rather, it should summarize material that is extensively covered in the body of an article, usually to the point where the lead itself would not require citation, in all but a few situations. GMG^talk 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I know it shouldn't go in the lead. But the current sentence: "Those who are against euthanasia may argue for the sanctity of life, while proponents of euthanasia rights emphasize alleviating suffering, and preserving bodily integrity, self-determination, and personal autonomy" seems unbalanced towards pro-euthanasia. While the wording on his edit could be better, I believe there is a problem there. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I've simplified things a bit, since A) the article seems to be broader than simply killing to prevent suffering, and B) the summary of the debate did seem gravely over simplistic. It would probably suffice to simply state that the debate is ongoing, and direct readers to the body. GMG^talk 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Works for me. — nihlus kryik  (talk) 15:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes the paragraph should not extend on the arguments supporting euthanasia as it was doing. Truncating the arguments against euthanasia to "sanctity of life" is oversimplisic and does not cover what is even said about in the main article. There is an undue POV if the arguments supporting euthanasia in the LEAD are more extensively described and summarized -yet oversimplistic as well- while arguments against euthanasia are reduced to a couple of words not refleccting the nature of those arguments. So I do agree on taking both of them out of the lead. ClaudioSantos¿? 15:32, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Just... you know... usually it's best to have this discussion before reverting a few times, and not after. GMG^talk 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I was quite willing to give you a new chance after your extended break here. But you are showing the same behaviour now that gave you blocks and a topic ban in the past. Removing all the warnings does not help at all. The Banner talk 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You, The Banner, were warned a lot of times to disengage of me as your conduct has crossed the line of harrasment, so you were explicity invited to leave to other people worry about if there were really something wrong with my edits or "behaviour". But don't worry, I don't really matter of cleaning my talk page of your royal merciful chances. Now I will enjoy my lentils. ClaudioSantos¿? 16:46, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

You know GMG, if there was a war and if I could agree and also disagree with nemo auditur propriam turpitudinem allegans then at any rate certainly here the casus belli was not other foolness but the very euthanasia. ClaudioSantos¿? 16:50, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

...I... am a comparatively simple fellow from the country. But I do know that immediately taking things to the talk page and trying to reach a middle ground (rather than trying to have a conversation via edit summary) is usually the best solution, and meeting accusations of bad faith with more accusations of bad faith usually just wastes time at best. GMG^talk 16:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I agree that the lede is much better now that it limits the polemical nature of euthanasia to a brief neutral statement and that the lede now avoids hand picking or omitting the many motivations for support/opposition. Shabidoo | Talk 18:29, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

De facto vs legal

As an user is reverting then I had to ask myself: do we really need a discussion on basic terminology? Ok, let's start the abc lesson then: please go to the very article in wikipedia De_facto: "Latin for "in fact", describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally authorized". So I think it is pretty clear that de facto and legal are opposite terms. So saying something like de facto legal has no sense unless you would like to say it is illegally legal. I wonder if the user just wants to claim that euthanasia in some places is de facto practiced by doctors although beyond and thus against the law, like in a sort of doctatorship. I would agree if they just put that in the article in that clear way but surely it will rain a hurricane of complains and appeals to POV, etc. So I just erased the de facto legal sentence. ClaudioSantos¿? 01:46, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding "de facto" in its context here. The phrase "de facto legal" isn't especially elegant, but neither is it oxymoronic, as you suggest. Consider something that is technically illegal but generally tolerated by authorities, i.e., something that rarely leads to prosecution. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Illegal is illegal. As you confirmed de facto is meant as illegal, be it technically or untechnically tolerated or simply impossed by the force, be it by the force of everyday bad habits, but still illegal. De facto is a well known latin term commonly used in the legal context as ilegal in opposition to de jure which means preciselly legal. At best one could argue that every legal act is de facto as it is a fact but not every de facto act is legal. So at best de facto legal would be equivalent to a simply legal. Insisting to keep the sentence de facto legal -which is contradictory in its own terms or at best a redundant way to say legal- is certainly stubborn and ludicrous. At least it is a laughable term and not only by some of my jurist collegues. But should I plead for wikipedia against being pointed out as the clown of the town once again? At any rate, I can even laugh better as obstinacy is tying euthanasia to a latin term habitually tied to dictatorship as already noticed. ClaudioSantos¿? 03:51, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

But what is false and misleading is to say that euthanasia is legal in Japan, where it is not legal and I do not see any source claiming it is legal de facto or such ridiculous statements so I will take that out. ClaudioSantos¿? 03:56, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

The situation in Japan is that it is de facto legal, as long as you stick to the rules. When you don't stick to the rules, you will get prosecuted. The same in the Netherlands: stick to the rules or get prosecuted. In both countries it is not fully legal but because of the lack of prosecution it is in fact legal (= de facto legal). The Banner talk 07:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

See also: Legality of euthanasia The Banner talk 07:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Your WP:OR interpretations of the law, misuse of legal terminology and misreading of WP article are not reliable sources. wP article on legality of euthanasia in Japan says: "The Japanese government has no official laws on the status of euthanasia and the Supreme Court of Japan has never ruled on the matter". In The Netherland there are laws ruling euthanasia, that is quiete different and even quite sad.ClaudioSantos¿? 13:04, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Please, stop cherry picking and read the whole section. Clear enough that euthanasia is de facto legal, as you will not get prosecuted as long as you stick to the rules. Reading a full section of an article is not WP:OR but your dubious reading again raises the issue of WP:CIR. The Banner talk 18:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)}

The term de facto legal is never used in that article, it is a WP:OR -and very dubious- interpretation you do of the article. You must provide a source calling the legal situation of euthanasia in Japan as de facto legal or simply claiming it is legal. I will not discuss your evident lack of knowledge and expertise on the legal subject because I have exahusted and stressed all my guffaws for today. Of course, those with the minimum competence on the legal topics, do know that lack of prosecution does not imply legality, and I can quote a single evident example: impunity. Or as mentioned before: de facto government is an usual way to refer to an illegal dictatorship. Yes, illegal though. I would agree if you say that euathanasia is de facto practiced with impunity and it looks as a dOctatorship in some places. But you might start to yell. At any rate, and summarizing: not any reliable source is claiming euthanasia is legal in Japan. And of course I will not refer about your rabid insinuation of my overall competence, that is presumed by law, leaving aside my different diplomas and my scholar career. And about your "advices" to me, demanding from me to do this or not to do that, we already know my laugh that I can also address to my own diplomas whenever I want, as I prefer my lentils. For the rest, Goethe in my personal way: The dog that in the doctors’ stable dwells ... ClaudioSantos¿? 20:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Could you please translate this edit in English? The Banner talk 20:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

OK, that was a little snarky. What I was about to say before I got the edit conflict notice was this:

There's absolutely no reason to personalize this content dispute. I'm sure the implication about your competence was intended as an observation, not an attack. I share The Banner's concerns. With every comment you post to this page, you make abundantly clear that you are far from fluent in English. That is no reflection on your character or intelligence, but it does mean that you need to take extra care when editing the English Wikipedia and that you should be more willing to listen when multiple editors are telling you that you're incorrect. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 20:37, 22 September

I have presented scholar thesis, scholar articles and also legal resources -also before high international courts- in english: all passed and praised, what a shame!. I do teach at university level for english speakers at a native english country. Nevertheless I do agree my english does not fit your very computerized and robotic style, though. Despite I am also proficient and expert in other languages like math and programming. Instead I prefer to answer and think, as comrade Lenin did when he was asked about how many languages he spoke: "only one, just dialectics". And certainly dialectics versus binary logic, coming from the ruling logic of the market, that is the common and ruling denominator in all languages including english. And, it seems you Rivertorch ignore that a claim about the competence of a person is a very serious issue despite you are probably used to the bad habit -surely learned from wikipedia standards- of thinking that it is just an irrelevant or a "gently" observation (even if followed by snarky yells). Actually since competence is presumed by law, then a challenge to it must be proved with evidence before a judge, therefore it is an attack (otherwise why to involve a judge?). But as you said, that all is irrelevant here, and I am not interested on deal with ludicrous comments, etc. Another user decided to take Japan away from the lede, so I am not the only one claiming this. Euthanasia is NOT legal in Japan. You provide counter-evidence based on reliable sources, claiming that euthanasia is "de facto legal" in Japan and that is all. Of course, I can also save some of my lentils for you as well, if you like or prefer so.ClaudioSantos¿? 20:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Indeed, euthanasia is not legal in Japan. But they have rules in place that prevent you of being prosecuted in cases of euthanasia. When you do not get prosecuted over euthanasia while it is still illegal, it is in common practise not illegal or de facto legal, as long as you stick to the rules. If it was fully illegal, there would not have been any rules or regulations, just jail. The Banner talk 07:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

"De Facto: This phrase is used to characterize an officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs that must be accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. [...] In this sense it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional." (From: West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2. 2008). Example: doctors are willing to impose euthanasia de facto and depict their own rules as if they were actual legitime laws that people must obbey. ClaudioSantos¿? 11:57, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my edit above which stated exactly the same... The Banner talk 17:36, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes, no problem. I am glad to confirm de facto legal is oxymoronic and euthanasia is not legal in Japan. I am glad you agree. Now...back to my lentils. ClaudioSantos¿? 18:50, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, no. In fact, you just approved the wording "de facto legal" with your quote... The Banner talk 19:39, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Ehm, no. In fact, de facto refers to something illegal as clearly the definition says. Do you need it to be highlighted? I would understand if you needed such an aid to read. Don't hesitate nor feel ashamed to ask for assistance. De facto legal is like saying "illegal legal". Oxymoronic. Of course, I understand all this is troubling you a lot. Keep the efforts on understand basic legal terminology!ClaudioSantos¿? 19:56, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

But when you look at the facts, you can see that although it is illegal it is allowed (and you will not get prosecuted over it) when you stick to certain rules. That is indeed oxymoronic, but the truth in real life. The Banner talk 21:29, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

• I'm... just going to note here that there has been probably entirely too much talk about editors and not about content. If everyone has reached a pretty steady impasse, then it may be time for the standard remedy. GMG^talk 21:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

  I do agree. As I agree that Japan (as an example of a country were euthanasia was allegedely legal) was took out of the lede by the very same editor who included it at first. ClaudioSantos¿? 21:21, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

I really can't stress this enough: comment on contributions not contributors. That applies to basically everyone basically everywhere, and the reason it does is that only one of the two actually ends up improving the encyclopedia. GMG^talk 21:23, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

• From Families and End–of–Life Treatment Decisions: An International Perspective [1] : In Japan, euthanasia is not authorised under law, but is recognized under strict conditions by case-law. In cases where euthanasia is allowed, the family has the option to ask the doctor to turn off life support. Ratel (talk) 23:19, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Well, I can say that in cases where specific wording is an issue, it's usually just better to use the wording the sources use. GMG^talk 00:10, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Yes. So we can say that in Japan euthanasia is generally illegal, but in specific cases it is legal. That would make it "de facto legal", IOW when you need euthanasia, you apply for it, and it is granted under certain conditions. (DE FACTO means "in deed", A term used to denote a thing actually done). Ratel (talk) 23:13, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Do the sources say that? Or does the source say something we're interpreting to mean that? I'm not totally paying attention here, so I'm not entirely sure what source in particular is being discussed, maybe you can clarify, but it seems like if the source used the words "de facto" then we wouldn't be having this conversation. If the source didn't, and instead said something more legally nuanced, then we may need to say something more nuanced as well. GMG^talk 23:51, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Source implies that, does not state that. Another source (Japan Times, 2017): Japanese law is vague on euthanasia. It neither permits it nor forbids it. Where is the fine line that separates it from murder? The 1962 Nagoya ruling laid down guidelines. The patient’s condition must be incurable. The suffering must be unendurable. Most pertinently ... the patient’s will must be known. Ratel (talk) 01:05, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Hopefullly this large quote from a scholar source is not too large:

"There are reasons, however, why it may be legally problematic to withdraw life-sustaining treatment. In Article 202 of the Criminal Code, participation in another's suicide is prohibited (see1). Withholding or withdrawing life-sustaining treatment, even with a patient's request may fulfill the criteria for a criminal act of omission as defined by this article. One possible interpretation is that Japanese law does not clearly guarantee relief from criminal responsibility for shortening a patient's life by an act of omission (Rothenberg et al., 1996). Some readers may feel that in Japan active euthanasia has been legal since 1962, when the Nagoya High Court established six conditions of justified euthanasia followed by Yokohama District Court’s four conditions in 1995 (Hoshino, 1993, 1996; Appendix C). This view is somewhat misleading. According to the Japanese statute, the constitution, the criminal and the civil codes do not mention euthanasia explicitly. In the Japanese legal system, each court judgment has binding power on future judgments in similar cases to some degree. However, even if the two judgments have set conditions under which active euthanasia is not illegal, it does not mean that these represent Japan's legal position in its entirety. In fact, they are not judgments from the Supreme Court. All we can say is that since there are precedent judgments that set conditions under which active euthanasia is not illegal, if a physician performs active euthanasia following the conditions laid down precisely, then the physician will very likely not be found guilty. However, such a verdict is not guaranteed and these conditions are almost impossible to fulfill. Moreover, the fact that no clinical or legal cases of active euthanasia have been performed so far strongly indicates that euthanasia is not “publicly permitted” in Japan. As described before, no current policy affirms active euthanasia and it has never been morally sanctioned by the majority of lay people or professionals in Japan. The characteristics of Japanese current law about end of life care have been briefly discussed. Active euthanasia is not permitted in practice. As well, the cessation of life support remains a controversial issue." (Akira Akabayashi, Social Science & Medicine. Volume 55, Issue 4, August 2002, Pages 517-527

ClaudioSantos¿? 01:53, 24 September 2017 (UTC)