Jump to content

Talk:Dignitas (non-profit organisation)

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

Created the page using material from this version of the suicide methods page, since it didn't fit there and I thought it should have an article of its own. It needs references, proper disambig etc. I'm working on it, slowly... Eve 20:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daily Mail is not a good source

[edit]

The Daily Mail has been quoted for the 'Criticisms' part of this article. The Mail is a sensationalist and extreme right-wing newspaper and not a reliable source. Would you cite the Weekly World News as a valid source?--217.203.162.8 (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source. 84.66.100.21 (talk) 03:10, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree - Right wing, yes, somewhat sensationalist in its tone, yes - but when it comes to fact-checking, the Daily Mail, as a mainstream newspaper (#5 in UK circulation) must surely be considered a reliable source.Princeofpointless (talk) 23:28, 4 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The Daily Mail is not a good source of information. The article comes from a third party source and reproduced in the paper and will be embellished. Despite being mainstream it does publish false and sensationalist articles like the other tabloids. Such examples are heard on the Chris Moyles show with the DJ denouncing false tabloid claims about him with some regularity. This is only one, there will be other and more significant examples. Just because it is the fifth widely circulated newspaper in Britain does not equate it being a reliable source for information, considering its a paper with more of a purpose to entertain rather than inform and uses simplified language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.242.104.151 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_23#Is_the_Daily_Mail_a_reliable_source My take is that it is ok to use but if anyone can find another source on this story that would help 194.83.139.177 (talk) 09:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

à propos

[edit]

"Establishing what happens now at Dignitas is very difficult as employees are required to maintain secrecy." This is quite an interesting remark. I wonder whether it's true. Sadly I don't find the quoted source trustworthy on this particular matter, as it stems from a blog that appears to be maintained by the executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition Canada. Being a Swiss Citizen myself I am also courious about the source of the alleged secrecy requirement. I don't think I know any law that would make this necessary. I'm actually convinced that the quoted remark is untrue, the reason being that my grandfather recently took his life and apparently the lady from EXIT told my mother quite a bit about her work. I doubt that things are that different with Dignitas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheseusX (talk • contribs) 21:46, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What did you expected her to say? "Sir, you have no idea what is happening. We don't care about anything but money and sometimes things get pretty ugly. You know that many times patients die in agony that can last 24 hours because..." (of course it is fiction - it is always good to explain)

The problem here is that Exit and Dignitas are making a serious debate turn into a question of money. Dr. Kevorkian didn't charge for his work. --Justana (talk) 17:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how this reflection is supposed to back up the statement (apparently deleted in the meantime) I drew into question. Whether they accept money or not is a different question from the question whether they require employees to maintain secrecy. Most companies and even most foundations accept money (e.g. from clients or members); few forbit their employees to speak about the workings of the company/foundation (think of a supermarket-chain: the shop-assistants can talk as much as they like about their work).TheseusX (talk) 01:56, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References and Title

[edit]

I have added some references. The title for this section is incorrect- Dignitas are not a euthanasia group since this is not legal in Switzerland. The correct title should be, Dignitas (assisted dying group). Would contributers agree to moving the page to this new title? --Claud Regnard (talk) 23:47, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally agreed. In fact, 'euthanasia group' is pretty much the opposite of their mission, and is hardly an impartial title. -98.154.249.46 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]
The title is wrong, misleading and not neutral: Dignitas is an Assisted Suicide organization. Euthanasia means something completely different. How is an article title changed? AlexL (talk) 13:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Should not the correct title be: 'Dignitas (pro-murder group)'? For why is Wikipedia giving good Public Relations to a group that is almost Nazi in outlook? 78.145.4.176 (talk) 15:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Numbers don't seem to add up

[edit]

One part of the article says "Ludwig Minelli said in one interview [4] in March 2008 that Dignitas had thus far assisted 840 people, 60% of them Germans."

Another part states "As of October 2008, approximately 1000 British citizens had travelled to Switzerland from the UK to die at one of Dignitas' rented apartments in Zurich." (this is not referenced).

Of course, the first one is from March 2008 and the second one is from October 2008, but still it seems extremely unlikely to me that if in March 2008 Dignitas had helped 840 people, of which 60% were Germans (so at most a few hundred Britons), seven months later the number had been as many as 1,000. Sure it's possible that some of those Britons had chickened out (though if a significant part of them cancelled their plans, it should probably be mentioned), but overall it doesn't seem to add up.

DiamonDie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:55, 23 November 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Clarification needed

[edit]

What does "Afterward, Pratchett immediately announced that he had obtained applications from Dignitas, and is currently weighing his decision." mean? What does 'to obtain applications' mean? This is not a standard English construction, and 'Afterward' should be corrected to 'Afterwards'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.180.117 (talk) 14:17, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Exit?

[edit]

In the "Patient Selection" heading, a (new?) organization, called Exit, is referred to several times. Nowhere previous in the article is it explained what Exit is or how it is related to Dignitas. Does anyone know? gnfnrf (talk) 01:06, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations by Dignitas ex-employee ..WP:Undue

[edit]

The section was undue in that :-

  • Some of the horrors graphically described are also to be found in any place where there are terminally ill people. Working with terminally ill people is extremely distressing for any normal person and I can understand Wernli's feelings.
  • Refusal to discuss cases with the media is entirely appropriate in any medical situation, so I've removed the reference.
  • Re clothing etc., these have a very low second hand value. I presume relatives could have taken these back if they had wanted so again I've missed it out.
  • The Daily Mail is a poor source for emotive issues like this like, unfortunately it's the only one but I think it's best to minimise use.

I note Dignitas made poor use of their right of reply. Why it is relevant that Wernli left several years ago is beyond me but we can't speculate. JRPG (talk) 18:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria to determine if it is UNDUE should be the relevance it is given by sources including media, not on opinions on the case. The allegations made by this ex-employee were even mentioned by BBC[1]. Daily Mail is one of the most visited newspapers online, if an event is there mentioned then it deserves to be mentioned in the article. And as far as I know minimize is one thing but another thing is to completely delete the content. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
....Uhm. If you're referring to me, I really don't think I deleted the content, I shortened it in accordance with WP:BRD -as stated in the edit summary. No offence is intended, we both want a better article :)
The Daily Mail is well read but best avoided. See the advice at Wikipedia:Suggested sources.
Since I cannot imagine any organisation wanting to talk to the media about a specific patient, I didn't think the secrecy was WP:Notable, hence its removal. I don't think the BBC article contains anything at all I would object to. It's a better source but I wasn't aware of it until your post. Perhaps using it instead of the Mail is the way forward. Regards JRPG (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Exit as not wp:notable

[edit]

I have no idea what a snippet attached to a dead link is doing here. Most people have heard of Dignitas but not of Exit. Seems a bit like opportunistic (and very distasteful) wp:advertising If there are no objections within a few days I'll remove it. JRPG (talk) 16:15, 10 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dignitas and the modern Final Solution

[edit]

While the term 'Final Solution' might seem a little strong or direct to some, it does help to highlight some of the dis-information and BS used by this highly questionable/objectionable little group. For it is worrying that Wikipedia is putting all this effort into promoting a group with Nazi-like views. Also, why call it 'assisted dying', when the law calls it (what it really is) 'murder'? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.145.4.176 (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>>>>> Under Swiss Law, I understand it might be called "assisted suicide" http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/switzerland/. However since assisted suicide refers to a criminal act in Switzerland, and the actions of Dignitas are not criminal acts, a lighter rather than a heavier phrase seems entirely justifiable. There is no support to show that it has any similarities to Nazi concentration camps. The law does not call it murder. The phrase "assisted dying" has been used in such august publications as the British Medical Journal. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25149091 Rhetoric expressing opposition to the concept of assisted suicide is probably not appropriate on Wiki and would be removed. This article might clarify: http://ag129894.wordpress.com/2013/10/15/wikipedia-talk-page-assisted-suicide/. Parzivalamfortas 10:15, 22 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parzivalamfortas (talk • contribs)

Mental illness?

[edit]

I was told through correspondence with Dignitas that they have been unable to assist people with mental illness since 2009. There was a court case going on to challenge that, but I don't know how that resolved. At least around 2011 they were still unable to help people with major depression or paranoid schizophrenia, etc. I got the impression they could still aid suicide for dementia sufferers, so maybe they didn't class it as a mental illness. Can anyone clear this up?

- Elijah — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.111.61 (talk) 17:10, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

THANK YOU

[edit]

JAY AND I THANK YOU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.183.173.216 (talk) 02:05, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Dignitas (assisted dying organisation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:18, 20 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Information

[edit]

Have you got any information booklets you could send me Haymanp (talk) 07:10, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but this is not a website for Dignitas. It's merely an encyclopedia with general information on many subjects. You would have to contact Dignitas directly for information booklets. History Lunatic (talk) 03:44, 26 August 2017 (UTC)History Lunatic[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dignitas (Swiss non-profit organisation). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:38, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

non-profit members

[edit]

Say it again "non-profit members". Non-profit, really? Sorry, I don't like to weight the cost of death, but dignitas is simply a institution to make money! Simply compare what is the amount to dye: "exit" vs "dignitas". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.202.181.251 (talk) 00:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reading/review in Feb 2022

[edit]

I'm fairly ignorant of the workings of this platform, but trying to learn, so please bear with me and help if possible...

I am brought here because of the present re-interest due to Baroness Meacher's bill currently going through parliament and would a. like to be able to read everything in the article and b. for it to be as accurate as possible with reference to the ongoing debate.

I am getting a missing doc & not available return when I try to open Docs associated with note 15 - problems experienced by Dignitas and local people 'over the years' can this be fixed, can I fix it? Also would it be fair to mention here the massive majority when the Swiss canton that Dignitas exists in was polled as to allowing assisted dying for its own citizens and foreign nationals?

21% of people receiving assisted suicide in Dignitas do not have a terminal or progressive illness, but rather "weariness of life".[10] Is this representative of the fuller details? In the data table of the document noted, the 21% figure is actually labelled 'non-fatal illnesses' from where in the reference document is this inferred to mean 'weariness of life'?

Declaration of interest: yes, I am biased towards Dignity in living; Dignity in Dying, yes, I think 'Suicide' is an outmoded history laden term, with images of people hanging themselves, throwing themselves in front of trains, etc., yes I do know that the Law and debate in this and most countries uses 'suicide' rather than the modern term... (and encourages an irrational taboo, rather conveniently for the establishment)

Best, SoundFlyer — Preceding unsigned comment added by SoundFlyer (talk • contribs) 11:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable wording of reference

[edit]

Here's the wording of the 16th reference for this article (emphasis via boldface is mine):

Fischer S. Huber CA. Imhof L. Mahrer Imhof R. Furter M. Ziegler SJ. Bosshard G. Suicide assisted by two Swiss right-to-die organization's, example zalia cyrilia an African was suffering from cancer only paid 2000 to get killed. Journal of Medical Ethics. 2008; 34(11):810-4

For one thing, this paper is cited in reference #10, so this should just direct to that reference and cite the appropriate page; I'd make that change myself, but I don't wish to pay the $40 it would cost to download the entire text of the paper (rather than just the abstract) just to track down the page.

But the most glaring problem is the wording "only paid 2000 to get killed." Euthanasia is a crime in Switzerland (as it is everywhere, as far as I know). Assisted suicide is just that; the means of suicide are provided, but the act is performed by the individual, always.

This reeks of bias. Ormewood (talk) 19:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I eliminated this reference; it was redundant anyway, since it referred to exactly the same source as reference #10. I did find a copy of the paper; nowhere in it was any reference to "Zalia Cyrilia," so the note attached to the reference was evidently just some extemporaneous editorializing. Ormewood (talk) 19:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dignitas_(non-profit_organisation)&oldid=1216066400"