Talk:Dignity in Dying

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This is basically an Advertisement for Dignitas and its tax-avoiding sattelites in Switzerland[edit]

Michael Irwin runs this organisation and escorts old ladies who are 'tired of life' to one of Dignitas owner Minelli's clinics in Switzerland for a huge fee. Irwin was struck off in 2005, but the liberal democrats have put one of their 'leadership trainees' in charge of DID. The article is biased and unsourced beyond any acceptable level for isn't actually about 'medicine' (it is about legalising physician assisted suicide) and isn't really a wiki page, I moot for deletion.79.74.104.190 (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)twl79.74.104.190 (talk) 19:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

No, it is worst than that. For the false idea of 'Dignity in Dying' is nothing short of clever Public Relations for an outfit that makes a killing out of killing - the old, sick and disabled. All this wrapped up in bogus 'Right To Die' BS. And yet, what is there to prevent such a policy being used to cut costs within an already over-stretched NHS? Unless there is a real attempt at a balanced report, should not this one-sided article be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.186.220 (talk) 20:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Alleged Polls[edit]

Unless you link to the actual polls, it isn't evident that they simply do not show any of the things you suggest. What is this, free advertising? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.74.104.190 (talk) 19:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

The source from the BHA clearly states the result of the poll. You may not agree with the source IP, but please offer some evidence to contradict them rather than simply deleting the source or entering your own editorial into the article. Thanks. Dolescum (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Dignity in Dying wikipage[edit]

I think this article can be expanded to explain a bit more about the DiD organisation and its aims within the context of the current debate on assisted dying legislation in the UK. Any thoughts or objections before I give it a go ? Miltonkeynesman (talk) 20:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Well no-one replied so I did change it today 15/12/2010. I hope no-one is offended. Any feedback welcome. Miltonkeynesman (talk) 20:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

EXIT[edit]

Well now, the whole 'History' section is a somewhat abbreviated version which conveniently leaves out the whole history of the changes to and from the name 'EXIT'. I know DiD would prefer these events to be forgotten, or now not known, but they are an integral part of the history of the organisation, and Wikipedia should not be the instrument of some Stalinist revision of history. I doubt any printed source can be referenced, and libel laws would need to be negotiated, but I am sure for example - the publication of 'A Guide To Self Deliverance' June 1979 - June 1981, which resulted in the membership growing at 1,000 a month to 10,000; the replacing of 11 of the 12 strong committee by an EGM on 18th October 1980; the trials of the Secretary Nicholas Reed and Mark Lyons for aiding and abetting suicide and the guilty verdicts on 30 October 1981; and the eventual overthrow of the radical Committee by instituting a postal vote, should be covered. See http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/october/30/newsid_2465000/2465183.stm. Nicholas Reed went on to found the Friends of West Norwood Cemetery

[In fact I see that 'A Guide To Self Deliverance' itself gives a calendar of its publishing history, but it is probably not in any libraries]

89.168.82.5 (talk) 12:54, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

 Done. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

Name change source justification[edit]

I am editing the history section slowly and have found inconsistency between sources. The book by A.B. Downing and Barbara Smoker 'Voluntary Euthanasia' lists the switch from 'Voluntary Euthanasia Legalization Society' (VELS) to 'Euthanasia Society' as happening in 1960 while the Kemp source (p. 154) lists it as changing to the 'Euthanasia Society' at the 1955 AGM citing a document "CMAC/SA/VES/A.11 AR 1955, p. 4", a document in the Voluntary Euthanasia Society Archives held at the Contemporary Medical Archives Centre, Wellcome Institute for the History of Medicine, Euston Road, London (as cited p.56 in Kemp).

I'm leaning towards trusting Kemp more on the grounds that it is a more up-to-date scholarly source published through a university press based on archival research rather than a publication made by people sympathetic to the goals of the society. I will also contact Dignity in Dying to confirm that the chronology in the article is correct. Until I find a second source that backs up the Downing/Smoker date or until someone gives me good reason to act otherwise, I'm going to stick with Kemp's dating when in doubt. Any objections? —Tom Morris (talk) 11:21, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

POV tag[edit]

Much of the article appears to be written from a POV pro-euthanasia stance, but I have specifically tagged the "Arguments and opposition" section because it most obvious here. Looking for a balanced presentation of the "case against", I found that it continues to promote Dignity in Dying's point of view, in essence their defence of typical opposing arguments. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:56, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


Are counter-arguments regarding the general issue of euthanasia even neede here? Shouldn't the article just be an outline of this specific group? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.5.19 (talk) 08:37, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
Actually you have a point. This article is a bit of a WP:COATRACK in that it should just be about Dignity in Dying, but much of it is about the case for euthanasia. If you could take that out, you wouldn't need the counter-arguments. That said, even if the article were trimmed back to facts about the organisation, it probably should say something about what they believe in and their history will also record their stance, so it still needs to be balanced with text that indicates that their POV was and is highly contentious, has a lot of opposition and is against the law in UK. --Bermicourt (talk) 13:09, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
As the editor who has primarily expanded the article, I should give some reasons why it is written like this. I certainly did not intend for it to be a WP:COATRACK. If you are discussing a political campaigning organisation, it isn't coatracking to explain the positions they hold and how exactly they hold that within the back-and-forth of political debate. I tried very hard to write in a neutral way based on the sources I could find.
'Neutrality' doesn't mean that on articles about groups advocating something, we exclude their point of view. The whole point of having an encyclopedia entry on such organisations is to let people learn about their views and the views of their opponents. Plenty of articles about political groups are utterly boring in that they spend hundreds of words blathering on about their legal structure of the organisation (which, quite frankly, nobody really cares about) and never actually discuss the views that the group has.
Do feel free to improve the article though. —Tom Morris (talk) 17:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Liverpool Care Pathway - additional section[edit]

You should update to include the shambolic roll out of this DoH 'End of Life Care Pathway' or at least a link to a separate page on it. Also, the article states "Additionally, a person can also state in their advance decision what life-sustaining treatment they do wish for, although doctors do not ultimately have to respect that request." Several cases of well informed people having advance decisions REFUSING the LCP and its off licence doses of drugs that kill in combination, which were totally ignored. This means the LCP is indeed compulsory - you can't get out of it, and it is therefore 'involuntary euthenasia' ie manslaughter in UK law. 212.139.111.77 (talk) 22:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)Dr Lofthouse22:38, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

The DWP and its' latest cost-cutting[edit]

Thankfully, the assisted killing bill has now been totally rejected by MPs. Had it not, how long before IDS might have consider this solution? Then again, with the number dying after being declared 'Fit For Work'... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.44.109.185 (talk) 21:22, 11 September 2015 (UTC)