The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. Ifconsensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
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.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Euthanasia is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
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.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.
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.[1]--184.152.68.50 (talk) 00:11, 27 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
References
^Deak, C., & Saroglou, V. (2015). Opposing abortion, gay adoption, euthanasia, and suicide: Compassionate openness or self-centered moral rigorism? Archive for the Psychology of Religion, 37(3), 267-294.https://doi.org/10.1163/15736121-12341309
Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2017
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 14:38, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Edit warring aside, what is the issue (content-wise) with what was added? — nihlus kryik (talk) 14:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. GMGtalk 15:03, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. GMGtalk 15:17, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just... you know... usually it's best to have this discussion before reverting a few times, and not after. GMGtalk 16:06, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 16:19, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
...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. GMGtalk 16:54, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. RivertorchFIREWATER 03:15, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 07:08, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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 Bannertalk 18:13, 22 September 2017 (UTC)}[reply]
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 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 a n usual way to refer to an illegal dictatorship, yes illegal as they are illegal but a de facto government. 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 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 iackers’ stable dwells ...ClaudioSantos¿? 20:26, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please translate this edit in English? The Bannertalk 20:27, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. RivertorchFIREWATER 20:37, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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. I do agree my english does not fit your very computarize and robotic style though. Despite I am also proficient and expert in other languages like math and programming. Instead I prefer to answer, as Lenin did when he was asked about how many languages he knew: "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. But, by the way Rivertorch, 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. And, it seems you Rivertorch ignore that a claim about the competence of a person is an observation that cannot be challenged in the real life but before a court as it is presummed by the law. It is a serious issue despite you are probably used to the bad habit -surely learned from wikipedia standards- to think it is just irrelevant or a gently observation. Actually since competence is presumed by law, then challenging 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. You provide the 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.ClaudioSantos¿? 20:55, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Done. RivertorchFIREWATER 05:08, 4 September 2017 (UTC)