Talk:Euthanasia/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Montana & other Fact corrections

For those with Super Powers here... Montana has made assisted suicide legal through a court decision made by Judge Dorothy McCarter. The state legislature is now in the process of setting it in a statute, but there are ABSOLUTELY NO SAFEGUARDS OR BOUNDARIES ON WHO OR HOW!!! You may make your death request by phone and recieve your lethal prescription by mail. Also, Oregon and Washington have only leagalized assisted suicide, not full-fledged euthanasia.

definition of "terminally ill"

Hey Folks, I believe the greek prefix "eu" could also mean "true". Here it is presented as "good", but I'm not sure that is accurate. See "Eukaryote", etc... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgunn11235 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

jorfer, I undid your edit bc you actually made the introduction more biased. "terminally ill" is a well-defined expression, meaning "having an incurable illness." Like you say, the illnesses that we call incurable will change over time, but this does not mean the definition of "incurable" changes. Thus "terminally ill" is perfectly neutral and preferable to your edit.

Likewise, the end to suffering is crucial to our understanding of euthanasia. Check out some definitions to confirm this. Under your edit, the death penalty would be euthanasia so long as it's done by lethal injection. This is not how the term is understood, precisely for the reason that the death penalty is not considered an end to one's suffering.

Whether euthanasia is voluntary or involuntary is not relevant to its aim to end suffering. A dog is put down -- euthanized -- involuntarily. Nonetheless this is done so to end its suffering. Thanks, --Kangaru99 21:51, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a very good point you bring up that euthanasia is obviously to end one's suffering, but what about times where ending one's suffering was not ther decision? Like if a family member decides to have a doctor take you off life support, but you didn't ultimately want to be taken off life support (but did not have the ability to tell your family member what you truly wanted); how can someone really decide when and how one's suffering should end? I do not believe this is a legal question, involing injection and what not, but more of a moral issue, the deepest issue to face when dealing with euthanasia. Kcutie (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Terminally means for the rest of someones life so when you use the term terminally ill you are speculating their will be no significant medical breakthroughs relating to that disease. When I said involuntary I was refering to Action T-4. No matter how the term is understood, it needs to include all types of Euthanasia so the term "often" needs to precede terminally ill and an end to one's suffering.--Jorfer 22:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

You're making two points here, let me address each one separately if thats OK with you. First, you bring up the possibility that medicine might advance such that a person who is told he is terminally ill in 2007 might actually be treatable in 2009. While this is possible -- and interesting -- I think it's a point that really belongs in "arguments against." You'd also need to make sure you could find sources to back up the point! Your other point, which refers to Action T4, is not really sound. As the article Action T4 points out, the understanding of euthanasia in that context isn't the one we hold now. --Kangaru99 22:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The potential for the development of cures is already in the arguments against section under Necessity. Since the terminally ill can be a subjective term, it is preferable we not use it in the introductory sentence. That being said, I left it in there in the compromise as this pro sided term is balanced by the second point. Those that support voluntary euthanasia would like to distance themselves from Action T-4 but those against it associate Action T-4 with Euthanasia so putting often next to terminally ill and relieve suffering includes Action T-4 in Euthanasia which is anti sided but is balanced by the use of terminally ill.--Jorfer 22:34, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

jorfer, your edit is definitely appreciated, but your newest one makes the mistake of claiming a totally unverified fact: namely, that euthanasia is "usually" done by lethal injection. "Usually" is a tough word because you'll need to back it up with some sort of statistic showing that euthanasia is more commonly done via lethal injection than via any other method. Furthermore, your additions of "often" and "presumably" aren't really necessary here. If euthanasia is not painless, and it is not done to end suffering, then it isn't euthanasia at all! --Kangaru99 22:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the above concerns, your edit resulted in a very awkward sentence. I certainly don't want to get into an argument over the ethics of euthanasia, nor enter an editing battle, but I really do believe your edits are harmful rather than helpful to the introduction. I hope you don't take offense, I'm just trying to make a good article. Kangaru99 22:30, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

jorfer -- in the interests of 3RR i didn't revert your edit; instead, I left one of your "often"s in there. If you get the chance, do me a favor and review your sentence: "Euthanasia... is the practice of terminating the life of an often terminally ill person or animal in a presumably painless or minimally painful way often for the purpose of limiting suffering." If you read that out loud, I think you'll see it's just plain old bad English. Personally, I don't have any strong feelings about euthanasia, and so I'm very interested in maintaining an NPOV. I'm concerned that your opinions on the subject might be clouding your judgement. Kangaru99 23:02, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I tend to be centrist on this issue myself due to the good arguments presented by both sides which can be viewed in the arguments for and against section. I want to see NPOV in this article just as much as you and that is why I am editing it this way; to keep the first sentence from being slanted towards the pro side which is where it stands now.--Jorfer 00:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Painless or minimally painless needs presumably in it as no one that has been euthanized has come back from the dead to tell us how painful it is. Second, for the purpose of ending suffering is true most of the time, but it also might be done for financial or malicious reasons (like the possibility Mr. Schiavo wanted to get rid of his old wife so he could marry a new one). Gauging intentions is inevitably POV.--Jorfer 00:11, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep persisting on this issue. Motives are hard to gauge (was Kirvorkian doing it to limit suffering, for attention, or from some sick desire?). Nobody that has been euthanized has come back from the grave to tell us how painful it is and the term Euthanasia has still been used on killings outside the terminally ill as is reflected by the wordnet definition here so putting often simply reflects this.--Jorfer 17:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey Jorfer, this will be my last note on the issue. You still haven't addressed my main point, which is that your edits result in an awkward and poorly written sentence. It reads: "Euthanasia... is the practice of terminating the life of an often terminally ill person or animal in a presumably painless or minimally painful way often for the purpose of limiting suffering." While it's great that you want to contribute to wikipedia, you'll have to trust me when I tell you that's not a good sentence. I'm not talking about the ethics of euthanasia, I'm talking about the English language. Next, you argue that your edit is a good one because of the online dictionary "wordnet." First of all, wordnet is not a reputable source. Secondly, on the very page you link to, more reputable dictionaries (eg Merriam-Webster), offer an almost identical definition to the one we had before you edited it. In fact, "wordnet" is the only definition on the page which gives so much as an ounce of credence to your edit. Finally, wikipedia does not look to dictionary.com for its articles. Here's what the encyclopedia britannica online academic edition says in its first sentence: "act or practice of painlessly putting to death persons suffering from painful and incurable disease or incapacitating physical disorder." I hope these points will help us reach a resolution, but understand that by resolution I mean you not editing the first sentence. I'm not talking about a compromise. If we're unable to do that, we can try consensus building or the mediation of an admin. But in my opinion, this is such a straight-forward issue that that shouldn't be necessary. Kangaru99 18:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough but encarta has a better definition as it is more complete.--Jorfer 18:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Though I disagree with the common use of painless (as apparantly does the editor who added presumably) as it implies an ideal death that in reality cannot be achieved, I agree the encyclopedia needs to reflect the widespread use of the term in definitions. Minimally painful is more neutral, however, and is used in websters. The previous use of both seemed to be the best solution. Second, terminal illness does not cover all of Euthanasia and should be added to as do many definitions.--Jorfer 18:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Kangaru99, there's more to "terminally ill" than merely having an "incurable" disease. It happens that I have three incurable diseases, but no one would call me terminally ill. One of them (to give you an example) makes my joints overly flexible and therefore prone to injury. It occasionally causes pain (especially when I dislocate my elbows) -- and it is 100% incurable, using either existing or reasonably foreseeable technology -- but if I said that I was "terminally ill" from hypermobile joints[1], then everyone would laugh at me.

On the other side of that coin, my mother died from breast cancer, despite the fact that it is a curable disease (i.e., more than half of patients similar to her case are entirely cured of it). The common man-on-the-street use of "terminal illness" is the definition 2b at http://m-w.com/dictionary/terminal -- which I would summarize as "a disease that is expected to cause death fairly soon" -- and the common legal standard is the one used by local hospice organizations (typically six months in the U.S.). In the definition of terminal illness, what matters is only that (within the limits of human knowledge and available technology) the individual patient is dying as a result of disease. WhatamIdoing 17:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right that "having an incurable illness" isn't a sufficient definition for terminally ill. It was my mistake for hastily defining "terminally ill," but if you review the above conversation you'll see it isn't really relevant to the discussion. I was at that point merely trying to say that "terminally ill" is a well-defined term, and is neutral. Kangaru99 18:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I looked it up and terminal illness turns out not to be a well-defined term as you persist. Just look here to see the different definitions given. An ambiguous term like this one is the last thing we need in the introduction so I replaced it with Encartas terminology for now. It is no wonder that Britannica and Encarta do not use it.--Jorfer 19:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Such an important point - definitions are used in law - in the UK , the General Medical Council have no definitiion of 'terminally ill'. The Department of Works and Pensions uses a definition which containes the phrase 'incurable' (insufficient, as pointed out above. Everything here is left to 'consent'. Which is difficult too, as most people who are living with cancer are prescribed powerful drugs on wich theyare advised not to drive operate machinery - how can any 'consent ' to be Euthenased be valid. For patients who do not have the mental capacity to give consent, the decision is made by the practitioner treating them, in their 'best interests'. With NHS budget cut backs, we have now reached the stage in the UK where elderly people who are not terminally ill, and not in pain at all, are given sedatives and powerful painkillers that supress respiration just to get rid of them. This is all done under the guise of 'caring for them' - some 90 elderly people were killed in the Gosport War Memorial Hospital in the last decade - none of them were in any pain, they were just too expensive to keep there, despite each one holding a valid National Health Service entitlement. The practitioners responsible have not been charged, because the wording of the law is all important - you cant be lax with phrases that define what is lawful and unlawful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.26.183 (talk) 17:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The 'Association of British Insurers' define 'terminal illness' as follows:- 19 Terminal illness Overview Terminal illness is an illness which meets all the following conditions: -The illness cannot be cured. -It is expected to lead to death within 12 months. The model definition contains an exclusion for HIV and AIDS. This exclusion – shown in brackets in the model definition below - should not apply if the policy pays out on death. Model Definition Terminal illness Advanced or rapidly progressing incurable illness where, in the opinion of an attending Consultant and our Chief Medical Officer, the life expectancy is no greater than 12 months. [AIDS is specifically excluded and not covered under this definition.] Glossary -incurable Cannot be cured by medical treatment and/or surgical procedures used by the National Health Service in the UK at the time of claim.

This nebulous definition confuses 'curable' with 'treatable' - many forms of cancer are 'treatable', and would extend life by more than 12 months. The NHS for example, provide Chemotherapy for Stage IV Non Small Cell Lung Cancer, but the average life extension afforded by this is a mere 2 weeks. It is true, the GMC do not have a definition of 'terminal illness'. Sadly, in the uk, this lack of clarity in definition is, as in America, leading to wholesale murder of the inconvenient elderly and disabled patients - at the Gosport War Memorial Hospital for example, where some 90 patients who thought they had been admitted for 'rehabilitation' after falls and strokes, were placed on doses of morphine only suitable for 'terminal sedation', despite being in no pain whatsoever. The definition is everything in law. Quite how anyone involved in this area of medicine can claim to have formed any moral viewpoint on something that is not defined, I dont understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.59.30 (talk) 20:45, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Complications of euthanasia and PAS

I have added text from a reputable Dutch study published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal looking at the complication rates for euthnasia and PAS. I have not been able to find any other studies of this size (649 patients) and reliability - are there more out there? --Claud Regnard 13:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

I recently added the {{unreferenced}} tag to the article, because I see alot of uncited statements, and alot of the {{Fact}} tags. The tag will be removed if sources are cited for the article. –Sebi ~ 02:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Films, etc.

Can anyone tell me why the anti-execution film, Dead Man Walking, is in the euthanasia list? Why is Igby Goes Down?

Would someone like to scan through a few links and remove anything that's about execution and suicide instead of euthanasia? I don't watch television or movies, so I don't know anything about these except what's on their wiki pages (and therefore someone with more information should make the changes), but it looks like this list has bloated into "anything about death" instead of "euthanasia." WhatamIdoing 01:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Films, etc.

The film Dead Man Walkingdoes deal with the issue of euthanasia as there is an instance of this in the film that leads to the murder charge and therefore the execution in the end so i feel it is relevant to the topic. That is my personal opinion though. user:Bcremin 14:10 19 June 2007

OR Template

Does this section actually add anything to the article. It's just a list of films and books that may cover the topic of euthanasia in any small way. Surely this qualifies as original research. If any of the examples are specifically about euthanasia, and secondary sources can be found that discuss this, the text could be of use if expanded. I'd suggest deleting this section in its current state but won't be bold as i'll probably be reverted if I do it without discussion. What do other editors think? 212.140.167.99 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

1st Sentence.

I shortened and simplified the 1st sentence of the article. I prefer this version because it is clear and concise. It is, in my opinion, neutral. This version was in place until recently, in the early summer. --Kangaru99 23:40, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

References

Somebody needs to go through the article's inline citations and properly cite them using {{cite web}} or some other citation template, instead of just presenting the URL or one of those large [1] links ([1] meaning the big ones like [2], and not like ). There are also a few notes in the article that need to be placed under the Notes header, rather than the References header. I would do some of these, but I'm quite busy right now and don't have the time. Sebi _[talk] 03:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of "Influence of various factors on opinion regarding euthanasia" section

This section was totally redundant, so I deleted it. It consisted of mostly US policy (entirely covered later in the article and in the separate article "euthanasia in the US"). The rest was religious policy (entirely covered -- word for word -- later in the article).--Kangaru99 20:06, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

absolutist or proportionalist

helloo. is euthanasia under an absolutist or proportionalist ethical approach? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.168.36.199 (talk) 23:53:45, August 18, 2007 (UTC)

Euthanasia in the arts...

People have expressed concern that this section was worthless, which in my opinion it was. See also wiki policy on lists & trivia sections. Only a handful of the referenced works actually dealt with euthanasia, and even those weren't adequately explained.

Rather than delete the section altogether (which I would also support), I've replaced it with a few sentences talking about euthanasia in the arts. It's not particularly impressive and it ought to be improved upon by someone who's more of an expert than me. But it's a start and offers a little structure. One thing that's not acceptable is to revert the section to the way it was.--Kangaru99 18:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

That is great, but why not Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows? It is revealed in the book that Albus Dumbledore suffers a deadly curse from the Gaunt ring Horcrux he had worn and is told by Severus Snape that he has a year to live. Dumbledore wants Snape to kill him when the time comes so that he may not suddenly die from the cancerous curse, which leads to the event of Snape euthanizing Dumbledore in the previous book. Can you add that as well? --Angeldeb82 19:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Art has been used in recent times to market either involuntary euthanasia or to portray a society where the disabled are increasingly scorned and thus their death is okay: The 1993 film Swing Kids shows a major character who is a great swing musician, but who is scorned because of his walk-related disability. (He later commits suicide and his death is scorned by another character because of his disability.) This is a much less known portion of the Nazi death machine than the concentration camps; thus, the addition of this film (preferably art or a link) would add historical balance.

The Nazi posters showing the disabled as costing too much money would be a good addotion. Also, the Nazis had film work where the disabled were visually portrayed as worthless. Wikipedia has a copy of this poster at their Action T4 article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_T4.Victorianezine (talk) 12:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Getting rid of people because they cost too much, with little or no disregard for their interests, as the Nazis did, is not euthanasia. I don't think that poster belongs in this article. David Olivier (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Islamic policies

Under the section of "Islamic policies" is stated that "a Muslim who commits suicide is not even given burial rights". That must be removed or edited since, because every Muslim deserves and gets a proper burial, no matter who he was, how he lived or how he died. This is so for Sunni Muslims, but I don't know how it is this with the Shi‘ism. xeryus 20:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Moral implications of involuntary - NPV

Current article contains the following sentences: 1. "Involuntary euthanasia is conducted against someone’s will and equates to murder." 2. "This practice is almost always considered wrong and is rarely debated.[citation needed]"... 3. "One recent example of non-voluntary euthanasia is the Terri Schiavo case."

I propose eliminating this section entirely unless there is a reliable source for categorizing euthanasia as voluntary or involuntary/non-voluntary. Additionally, the section is not written from a neutral point of view, as it essentially says that the Terry Schiavo case was equivalent to murder, a position far from universally accepted (including by the courts). The statement that the practice is almost always considered wrong has no source, and I would dispute that this is the case; the moral issue on euthanasia seems to track more closely with the means (paragraph above) than with the issue of consent. (For example, the controversy is greater with active euthanasia than with passive; this is despite the fact that I think most people would agree that active euthanasia can only be performed with explicit consent.)

Accordingly, I propose to delete the "Euthanasia by Consent" section in its entirety unless someone can prove that this is a generally accepted categorization of euthanasia. Sbamberger 02:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Islamic Policy

this is slightly off topic, but if muslims believe that suicide is so morally wrong, why is it that there are suicide bombers that call themselves islamic?? Sniper201092 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

XD! I have no idea. Dokuhebi (talk) 21:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Something about their death being a side effect rather than the intent I think...--Bisected8 (talk) 20:50, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

First "Suicide bombing" is a recent concept in the Islamic world and the majority of Muslims oppose it. Second those who believe in it do not use or accept the term "suicide bombing." At most they see it as like a "suicide mission." Granted Wikipedia does not differentiate a "suicide mission" from "suicide bombing", which is a defensible position but not universally accepted. Anyway Bisected is right that their own death is seen more as a side effect as it was with suicide missions. Although many to most take the view that their death is caused by their enemy and they are therefore martyrs. In any event suicide is highly verboten in Islam and even factoring in suicide-bombing Muslim nations tend to have very low suicide rates. (I'm not necessarily pro-Islam, I just don't favor disparaging it in crude or uninformed ways)--T. Anthony (talk) 07:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

To claim that the death of a suicide bomber is a "side effect" of his mission is nonsense. He deliberately causes his own death. The only "side effect" is that innocent bystanders are caught up in this terrorist activity, and suffer injury or even death.

I agree that Islam should not be disparaged "in crude and uniformed ways," but I think it needs to be held to the same rigorous standard of schoarly inquiry as any other topic. The suicide bombers claim to be devout Muslims performing the will of Allah, and that by blowing themselves and others up, they gain an eternal reward in paradise. Condemnations of their activities by other Muslims are few and far between. Absent such condemnations, we must not permit anyone to make fatutous statements that Islam universally prohibits suicide.

John Paul Parks (talk) 04:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

"burial rights" should be changed to "burial rites". 78.147.145.33 (talk) 09:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Done! But you could have changed it yourself, by clicking the 'edit' link at the top of that section. Eve (talk) 13:46, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually he couldn't since the page is semi-protected.--Jorfer (talk) 23:18, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The statement that Muslim policy forbids suicide is far too categorical, and it is simply not credible, in light of the suicide bombing attacks that are taking place, and which result not only in the death of the perpetrator, but innocent bystanders as well. Any statement that purports to state the view or position of all Muslims is inherently suspect, moreover, because Islam has no central teaching authority that settles disputes among the various factions.

John Paul Parks (talk) 03:53, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Passive euthanasia

• Has anyone written about "passive euthanasia", i.e. e.g. the alleged practice of sometimes withholding antibiotic when an old man catches pneumonia? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:54, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Restored missing reference

Back in October, an edit with a summary "deleted incorrect statement referring to physician assisted suicide as aggressive voluntary euthanasia" removed a reference that was also used elsewhere. The edit itself seems to contradict the rest of the article, but I just put the missing reference back. Rl (talk) 15:45, 27 November 2007 (UTC) Sage

Slight wording Change.

I changed medically-assisting death to:medically-assisted death Picer (talk) 09:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Canada comment

"In Canada, patients have the right to refuse medical treatment, although even with their personal consent, their physician is unable to assist the patient with suicide." I could be wrong, but this seems as though it was just thoughtlessly tossed into the History section, rather than meaningfully added to the article itself. Maybe it should be moved to a more appropriate section and a citation might be nice too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.216.19.200 (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that; I removed it. What you said seems completely accurate. That is why this page is semi-protected.--Jorfer (talk) 22:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

hello, i have recently been doing euthanasia in my GCSE religious studies classes, and was told the correct deffinition of euthanasia is "mercy killing or gentle death". however in this article it is said to be "medically assisted death". i was just wondering which of these terms if either is correct. i realise due to the controversiality of this issue you have to be careful and sensitive with your wording, however i would much appreciate an answer. thank-you for the time you gave up to read this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.199.209 (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

This wording was selected as it is more neutral than common definitions. Many definitions use the term usually or especially when describing it in terms of mercy killing. This signifies euthanasia's use outside the original context it was created in such as the killing of people with non-debilitating diseases or the case of involuntary euthanasia like the T-4 program. All definitions seem to describe it in terms of a painless death, but despite the use of this by reliable sources, it is bias to say that euthanasia is painless as this is impossible to verify. Take a look at this for several definitions of the word.--Jorfer (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ASSISTED SUICIDE

I am doing a biology term paper on assisted suicide. and when i came to wikipedia for some reference, i noticed that there is no information on assisted suicide and that it is redirected to euthanasia. 'BUT EUTHANASIA AND ASSISTED SUCIDE' are different!!! In euthanasia, the patient's final blow is received from the doctor. right? so then in assisted suicide, the final blow is made by the patient themselves. IT IS NOT THE SAME AT ALL, so saying that assisted suicide deserves to be a complete separate article. when i have time i would like to imrpove more on the artice once i get more facts down, but i so not think it is fair that euthanasia is given all th crdit for assisted suicide.t he redirection should be removed. thx =] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jb pride (talk • contribs) 00:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but Euthanasia and assisted suicide ARE the same thing. In both Euthanasia and assisted suicide, the doctor tends to always "land the final blow". I believe you're thinking of suicide.

DaveBF (talk) 20:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No, in assisted suicide, the final blow is made by the patient themselves; see Assisted suicide. However, in e.g. the Netherlands the rules are the same.--Patrick (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

In the UK, it is unlawful for anyone to aid or abet an act of suicide, which is why Euthenasia by doctors with the patients consent is illegal. HOWEVER, murdering patients without consent, where it is expedient financially to get rid of them, goes on every day in the National Health Service, where failing NHS hospital protect their jobs by keeping waiting lists down, by terminally sedating the old and disabled under the guise of 'pain relief', even if they are not in any pain! Search Google for the Gosport War Memorial Hospital, and you'll see how disgusting UK Law is on this point. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.77.59.30 (talk) 20:50, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed Physician-assisted suicide.--Patrick (talk) 22:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

if u look up Dr. Kevorkian and his assisted suicides, you will see that his last charge was called euthanasia because he injected the drugs himself. but ususally ur not supposed to because its assisted suicide there fore they are not the same thng. as i have said b4. im correct. =] 72.229.222.147 (talk) 15:29, 20 June 2008 (UTC) Megs

"Assisted suicide" is a loaded term designed to appeal to emotions over facts. The American College of Legal Medicine, the American Public Health Association, and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Care Medicine have all stopped using that term because it is offensive and inaccurate. Cancer patients would prefer to live, they are not suicidal, they do not have a choice. Value-neutral terms such as "aid in dying," "patient directed dying" and "death with dignity" should be used instead. Also, euthanasia refers to someone else administering the lethal medication, whereas aid in dying means that the terminally ill patient self-administers the medication. Glc219 (talk) 23:56, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Suicide?

According to the wikipedia suicide page, suicide is "Suicide (Latin suicidium, from sui caedere, to kill oneself)" Now, euthanasia is assisted. So by it's own definition it is contradictory. It's not killing one SELF if someone is assisting it. I don't know what to call it. Assisted death? Voluntary assisted death? I don't know. But it beats the definition of suicide.

In the same vein, the suicide infobox doesn't quite fit in here. Lihaas (talk) 20:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

If I kill my aunt with the assistance of my brother (imaginary case, just for the argument :D), it remains an aunticide despite the assitance. I don't see why killing oneself with the assitance of someone else wouldn't be suicide. In any case, it seems just a language quibble to me. The difference between voluntary euthanasia and assisted suicide is mainly formal. In both cases, I request to die, and someone helps me getting what I want. Whether I push the button or someone else doesn't prevent the two cases being in largely the same. David Olivier (talk) 21:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Incision versus Injection

The first part of the article read "Euthanasia is... the practice of ending a life, usually through lethal incision" and, after some research, I am nearly certain that this was a careless mistake, the proper sentence being "Euthanasia is... the practice of ending a life, usually through lethal injection." I have changed the article accordingly.

This is such a substantial change, though, that I wanted verification here; if I'm incorrect, please fix it.

Sten for the win (talk) 13:47, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Euthanasia protocol

It should be clearly pointed out that the "muscle relaxant" agent is the component that causes death. Moreover it should be listed in which way death occures (heart failure or by paralysing the lung muscule).

I think the discussion in the "lower part" of this section is not at the right place. It discusses ethical issues while this should be a section about the protocol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.176.115.55 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Death with Dignity is NOT euthanasia

Currently a search for "death with dignity" incorrectly redirects to the euthanasia page, instead of to the Oregon Death with Dignity Act page or to a separate death with dignity page. Euthanasia allows anyone to administer the lethal medication, whereas death with dignity is specific that only the terminally ill patient may self-administer the medication. The Oregon law and the Washington ballot measure, which use the term "death with dignity" exclusively, do not permit euthanasia as it is defined here. Glc219 (talk) 23:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Terminology and possible merge

Some references which clearly establish the differences, if any, between euthanasia, assisted suicide, aid in dying, death with dignity (obviously a partisan term), etc., would be helpful to avoid arguments. If there is no one universal definition for a term, it would be helpful to document that so individuals don't try to "correct" the usage to conform to one particular definition. Terms that redirect to this article should certainly be defined in this article.

The article assisted suicide split off from this one in December 2007. At least as currently defined by this article, assisted suicide is a particular form of euthanasia - voluntary and active. Some people seem to consider this to be the same as aid in dying, which is what Oregon calls it, and reportedly some NGOs. It's unclear to me whether it should have its own article, given that there is significant overlap in the two topics - for example arguments for and against. -- Beland (talk) 16:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The current definition that we have for euthanasia is 'the practice of ending a life in a painless manner'. I'm pretty sure that this definition is not correct as it could refer to say even execution, which aims to be painless although perhaps that is intended to be the meaning. Wiktionary's def. is:

1. (archaic) An easy death, or the means of bring about such a death.

2. Now specifically, the practice of killing a human being or animal, especially one suffering greatly or with poor quality of life, as when suffering from an incurable illness or condition.

Going by this definition, it would include assisted suicide. However, I'm not sure whether or not it deserves its own article. However, both the section we have and the article on it isn't very good so maybe it would make more sense to have them together for the moment? And there is also another article on consensual homicide although there is a slight difference between that and assisted suicide. Stinkypie (talk) 13:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Gears of War

One of Gears of War 2's main characters deals with this topic via his wife, could someone add that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ZServ (talk • contribs) 17:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Ensuring End of Life Care

Ensuring end of life care involves ensuring the terminally ill that they will be taken care of worry free. This includes taking the burden away from a dying human being, instead of enticing them with an easy way out. A book by Michael Manning called "Euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide: killing or caring?" is a great reference on how to solve the problem by a less controversial way. Ensuring end of life care to the terminally ill and providing protection to those in their most vunerable state should be the number one issue. Nearly all pain can be eliminated and - in those rare cases where it can't be eliminated - it can still be reduced significantly if proper treatment is provided. It is a national and international scandal that so many people do not get adequate pain control. Kateblogger (talk) 05:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments, but how does that impact the article? David Olivier (talk) 14:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Recent South Korean Case

A landmark court ruling legimitizing limited application of Euthanasia was handed down recently, and has been challenged by a local hospital. This has certainly stirred media attention in Asia, but I don't known if is notable enough for inclusion in the article? Any advice? (AFAIK, this is the first of such cases in history in that S. Korea, and among the first in Asia) Unabashed Fornicator (talk) 04:27, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly notable enough for Euthanasia and the law. Put it in that article.--Jorfer (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2008 (UTC)