Talk:Declaration of Geneva
|WikiProject Medicine||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
|WikiProject Philosophy||(Rated Start-class)|
1. I cannot find a reference to the declaration as being "a formulation of that oath's moral truths that could be comprehended and acknowledged modernly." That should probably be changed to a quote from the WMA Manual of Ethics, pg 24  "to update the Hippocratic Oath for 20th century use."
2. A more neutral link of the original Declaration of Geneva than euthanasia.com should be considered if a copy of the original is deemed necessary.
3. Although a discussion of the meaning/importance of the revisions to the declaration may be useful, the final section of the page seems biased to the pro-life POV. The major criticism of the current version of the Declaration appears to largely come from the pro-life arena.
4. I think a return to an earlier version which delineates the history of the Declaration as a reaction to the Nazi atrocities and the text of Declaration itself might be better. With perhaps a discussion of its linking to the Declaration of Helsinki and the International Code of Medical Ethics .
Lakewhatcom (talk) 14:20, 22 March 2009 (UTC)
- The fact that the article has criticisms does not mean it is not neutral. Feel free to edit to indicate the reasons proffered for the deletions from the original declaration. Mamalujo (talk) 22:08, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I added reference to Axis atrocities and included a text of the original version.
Clarification re: content of oath
I should clarify that, upon sourcing and updating the oath's text, I didn't notice that the user who added it had noted that this was the original, outdated text of the oath. Now the article contains the current text, which recognizes that female physicians exist and doesn't suggest that the medical profession disallows abortion. In order to avoid conveying misinformation to the reader, I suggest that if the article contains the text of the oath (which user Agostinho.Sousa seems to oppose, so why don't you talk that out) it contain the current text; changes from the original can be explained in-text. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:03, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
- What excuse do you offer for quickly deleting the original text of this document - as it remained from 1948 to 1968? Do you seriously think that deleting it from wikipedia makes it vanish from history? Are you aware that the original version is still adhered to by a majority of the doctors in the world - a world that features a majority of countries in which elective abortion is illegal?
- I've now done a version which includes one text and reflects various revisions. It looks bad and is dumb, but is one way of dealing with a user who sees Wikipedia's sole purpose as the promotion of his political agenda, and at least keeps the reader informed about what the current standards of the profession are. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 03:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
Did anyone ever consider WP:PRIMARYTOPIC criteria here? A Google Books search indicates disambiguation is in order, it's obviously not primary topic WRT the Declaration of the Rights of the Child. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 15:24, 8 June 2013 (UTC)