Revision as of 20:11, 22 July 2011 editClaudioSantos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,148 edits →RfC: removal (or gross reduction) of Aktion T4 from the euthanasia article← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:18, 22 July 2011 edit undoClaudioSantos (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users3,148 edits →RfC: removal (or gross reduction) of Aktion T4 from the euthanasia articleNext edit → | ||
Line 89: | Line 89: | ||
*'''Keep''' Known experts in the field, such as ], point that can not be denied any comparisson between other versions of euthanasia and the nazi version. Dowbiggin have pointed strong similarities and dedicated a lot of paragraphs (chapters) to analize such similarities and differences. Robert Lay Lifton has done an historic investigation centred on the Nazi euthanasia programm but not on euthanasia itself, his comments on euthanasia are marginal and based on his personal non-academic opinion on euthanasia, for a change Ian Dowbiggin has made historic investigations on modern euthanasia movement and investigated exahustively the different conceptions around this term and its characteristics over time. He analizes historic and social contexts around euthanasia movement, its connections with eugenics movement, as well as the evolution of euthanasia definition, and so on, including there the analysis of the relationship between the euthanasia movement at Germany and the euthanasia movement at other countries. Also other authors in the field, like Neil M. Gorsuch and Shai Joshua Lavi, who also exahustively investigate the history of modern euthansia movement, they also dedicate long chapters to analyze the similarities and differences with the nazi euthanasia version, including the own perception of the euthanasia movement about the nazi euthanasia program over time, which goes from hold up and silence until gradual distinguish due the adverse public opinion as these authors state. These authors also mark the strong effect that nazi euthanasia program had in the evolution of the definition of euthanasia given by its supporters who, mainly due adverse public opinion, had to abandon explicit support to eugencis arguments and to non-voluntary forms of euthanasia, precisely because of its undeniable similarities with the nazi euthanasia version. So, experts in the field testify the very relevant role that nazi euthanasia programm has played in the modern euthanasia movement history whose effects extend to the current time. So, it will be undue lack of weight to erase any reference to Aktion T4 only to whitewash the propagandistic definition currently |
*'''Keep''' Known experts in the field, such as ], point that can not be denied any comparisson between other versions of euthanasia and the nazi version. Dowbiggin have pointed strong similarities and dedicated a lot of paragraphs (chapters) to analize such similarities and differences. Robert Lay Lifton has done an historic investigation centred on the Nazi euthanasia programm but not on euthanasia itself, his comments on euthanasia are marginal and based on his personal non-academic opinion on euthanasia, for a change Ian Dowbiggin has made historic investigations on modern euthanasia movement and investigated exahustively the different conceptions around this term and its characteristics over time. He analizes historic and social contexts around euthanasia movement, its connections with eugenics movement, as well as the evolution of euthanasia definition, and so on, including there the analysis of the relationship between the euthanasia movement at Germany and the euthanasia movement at other countries. Also other authors in the field, like Neil M. Gorsuch and Shai Joshua Lavi, who also exahustively investigate the history of modern euthansia movement, they also dedicate long chapters to analyze the similarities and differences with the nazi euthanasia version, including the own perception of the euthanasia movement about the nazi euthanasia program over time, which goes from hold up and silence until gradual distinguish due the adverse public opinion as these authors state. These authors also mark the strong effect that nazi euthanasia program had in the evolution of the definition of euthanasia given by its supporters who, mainly due adverse public opinion, had to abandon explicit support to eugencis arguments and to non-voluntary forms of euthanasia, precisely because of its undeniable similarities with the nazi euthanasia version. So, experts in the field testify the very relevant role that nazi euthanasia programm has played in the modern euthanasia movement history whose effects extend to the current time. So, it will be undue lack of weight to erase any reference to Aktion T4 only to whitewash the propagandistic definition currently announced by its supporters. -- <font face="Berlin Sans FB" color="#ffffff" size="2"><span style="color:black; text-shadow:orange 0.2em 0.2em 0.1em; class=texhtml">]]</span></font> 20:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 20:18, 22 July 2011
Skip to table of contents |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Euthanasia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Euthanasia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Euthanasia at the Reference desk. |
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. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute. |
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
{{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
A summary of this article appears in death. |
Archives | ||||
|
||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present. |
Edit request from Ronpanzer, 9 May 2011
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Stealth Euthanasia
Stealth euthanasia is a method used in the United States and imposes death without an official recognition of the procedure. Stealth euthanasia is often accomplished through the "Third Way" method of terminally-sedating a non-agitated patient continuously while assuring that no fluids are provided to the patient. Through terminal sedation, the patient dies through dehydration while in a medically-induced coma.
Stealth Euthanasia
- "Serving Patients Who May Die Soon and Their Families: The Role of Hospice and Other Services" by Joanne Lynn, MD; JAMA. 2001;285(7):925-932.
- "Responding to Intractable Terminal Suffering: The Role of Terminal Sedation and Voluntary Refusal of Food and Fluids" Timothy E. Quill, MD; Ira R. Byock, MD; and for the ACP-ASIM End-of-Life Care Consensus Panel.
- "Palliative Care: The New Stealth Euthanasia" by John Mallon.
- "Creeping euthanasia: In many places, it advances by stealth" by Alex Schadenberg.
- Stealth Euthanasia: Health Care Tyranny in America (Hospice, Palliative Care and Health Care Reform.
Ronpanzer (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
- Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That's hardly a reliable source, especially for such an inflammatory claim. The author (apparently you) notes in the foreword that the entire book is comprised of anecdotal evidence. As your username is the same as the author of the work you're citing, please read our guideline on conflict of interest. — Bility (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
AktionT4, historic section
I have deleted a quote dealing on current legislation in section dealing with the history of euthanasia. I've kept the argument while I just addded an argument dealing with the history of euthanasia. Those sources points the relation and confluencing within eugenics movemente, euthanasia and the nazi euthanasia porgram. At any rate the quote is unduly too long. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I desisted on the last changes. I prefered to add a new subsection dealing on the historic relation on eugenics and euthanasia, and I have quoted some sources. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
Eugenetics
I severly doubt the addition of the paragraph about eugenetics. Connecting those two seems rather dodgy. I suggest the removal of the entire paragraph. Night of the Big Wind talk 17:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I'm OK with that, but I think maybe a sentence or two from The Black Stork could be appropriate in the History section. I also don't think the sentences: "The origins of euthanasia in Nazi Germany commenced before the Second World War. The parents of a disabled child campaigned to euthanize him, the case was put before Hitler who agreed with the parents, this killing went ahead 25th July 1939" belong in the lead. Jesanj (talk) 18:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Numerous reliable and verifiable sources connect the history of eugenics with the history of euthanasia. If it seems "dodgy" for an user is not a relevant criteria to take out the paragraphs. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that eugenetics use euthanesia as a methode to reach their goal, does not make it part of euthanasia. Eugenetics is in fact not more then a breeding-program, like those used in farm-practices. Night of the Big Wind talk 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am not arguing but I'm just citing the sources, for example the Nursing History Review, which cites historic studies pointing a "longstanding connection between eugenics and euthanasia". -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Great, an incomplete book review. Very reliable (NOT!!) Night of the Big Wind talk 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your opinion is not the criteria of reliability. It is a reliable and verifiable source under the criteria of wikipedia. All the book from Ian Robert Dowbiggin is a long study dealing with connections between eugenics and euthanasia and the review of thta book made by the NHS can not be dispatched as "incomplete book review" just because you say that. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- True, it is not only my opinion that counts. But neither is your opinion. What counts is the opinion of "the community". The two of us plus all the others working on this article. Shall we put up a little vote? Night of the Big Wind talk 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, this has nothing to do with opinions. I provided reliable sources, actually a whole book from Ian Dowbiggin dealing with the history of euthanasia relating it with eugenics, and a review on this book at nursing History Review journal, that confirms that this author links euthanasia with eugenics history. You are providing nothing else but your own opinion. Reliability of the sources is not decided by voting. The authors and publishers of the sources provided are well known and reputable, those authors are also well known as experts on euthanasia and eugenics history and they are being cited by other scholars. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- It is all about opinion, this matter. It is the opinion of the community that is decisive if, and if so, in what form, it will be put in this article. Night of the Big Wind talk 00:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- No, this has nothing to do with opinions. I provided reliable sources, actually a whole book from Ian Dowbiggin dealing with the history of euthanasia relating it with eugenics, and a review on this book at nursing History Review journal, that confirms that this author links euthanasia with eugenics history. You are providing nothing else but your own opinion. Reliability of the sources is not decided by voting. The authors and publishers of the sources provided are well known and reputable, those authors are also well known as experts on euthanasia and eugenics history and they are being cited by other scholars. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:22, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- True, it is not only my opinion that counts. But neither is your opinion. What counts is the opinion of "the community". The two of us plus all the others working on this article. Shall we put up a little vote? Night of the Big Wind talk 21:58, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Your opinion is not the criteria of reliability. It is a reliable and verifiable source under the criteria of wikipedia. All the book from Ian Robert Dowbiggin is a long study dealing with connections between eugenics and euthanasia and the review of thta book made by the NHS can not be dispatched as "incomplete book review" just because you say that. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:09, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Great, an incomplete book review. Very reliable (NOT!!) Night of the Big Wind talk 20:40, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- I am not arguing but I'm just citing the sources, for example the Nursing History Review, which cites historic studies pointing a "longstanding connection between eugenics and euthanasia". -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- The fact that eugenetics use euthanesia as a methode to reach their goal, does not make it part of euthanasia. Eugenetics is in fact not more then a breeding-program, like those used in farm-practices. Night of the Big Wind talk 19:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- Numerous reliable and verifiable sources connect the history of eugenics with the history of euthanasia. If it seems "dodgy" for an user is not a relevant criteria to take out the paragraphs. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 19:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- This is very much undue weight, making an overly strong connection. Historically, the most that is being said is that some eugenics campaigners saw euthanasia as a means to achieve their ends, along with sterilization, and therefore supported it. That's worth a mention in the context of the debate and where some of the early support in the US came from. However, euthanasia is only related to eugenics by having some supporters in common - the amount that was included provided far too much weight on a connection that is not, in any way, fundamental to the concept. - Bilby (talk) 23:26, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- It can not be discussed if you do not provide any sources supporting your claims. And instead of delete you should improve. It seems you are deleting just because you do not like that connection to be shown, abut you kept a whole quote differentiating euthanasia and aktion t4 in a section that is not dealing with that but about history and there is not represented the authors who claim the similarities. What is a "overly strong connection" stated? In the section by now is just shown what some experts consider to be the relation between eugenics and euthanasia from the historic point of view. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
- You already provided the sources - they mention that some eugenics supporters also supported euthanasia. I'm not denying this at all. What I am denying is that it is worth two large quotes and multiple lines, when, as thing stands, the entire thing can be summarised accurately as "During the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century, some leading US eugenics supporters also argued for euthanasia, and were active in the Euthanasia Society of America". That's the connection you are pointing to. The relationship is that they either saw euthanasia as an excuse to achieve their own ends, or that they saw severe disabilities as cause for euthanasia. But that doesn't mean that the connection is any stronger than that. In terms of today's debate, eugenics is, of course, absolutely irrelevant. It warrants the equivalent of a historical footnote in the article, especially once the history section is developed, but little more. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think it is right to exclude information as it does not suite modern campaign aims by some. Opinion is not the issue, the facts are the facts, and euthanasia has connections to Nazi Germany, whether we like it or not see: Preparations for euthanasia in Nazi Germany 1938-1939, Michael Tregenza --Hemshaw (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Ehm, we are talking about the need for a paragraph about eugenetics in relation to euthanasia. Night of the Big Wind talk 01:57, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Agreed. Jesanj (talk) 02:02, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- I do not think it is right to exclude information as it does not suite modern campaign aims by some. Opinion is not the issue, the facts are the facts, and euthanasia has connections to Nazi Germany, whether we like it or not see: Preparations for euthanasia in Nazi Germany 1938-1939, Michael Tregenza --Hemshaw (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- You already provided the sources - they mention that some eugenics supporters also supported euthanasia. I'm not denying this at all. What I am denying is that it is worth two large quotes and multiple lines, when, as thing stands, the entire thing can be summarised accurately as "During the late 19th century and first half of the 20th century, some leading US eugenics supporters also argued for euthanasia, and were active in the Euthanasia Society of America". That's the connection you are pointing to. The relationship is that they either saw euthanasia as an excuse to achieve their own ends, or that they saw severe disabilities as cause for euthanasia. But that doesn't mean that the connection is any stronger than that. In terms of today's debate, eugenics is, of course, absolutely irrelevant. It warrants the equivalent of a historical footnote in the article, especially once the history section is developed, but little more. - Bilby (talk) 00:13, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- It can not be discussed if you do not provide any sources supporting your claims. And instead of delete you should improve. It seems you are deleting just because you do not like that connection to be shown, abut you kept a whole quote differentiating euthanasia and aktion t4 in a section that is not dealing with that but about history and there is not represented the authors who claim the similarities. What is a "overly strong connection" stated? In the section by now is just shown what some experts consider to be the relation between eugenics and euthanasia from the historic point of view. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 23:55, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
You have not contributed with nothing in the discuss page but just came here to delete.
Come on, Claudio, this is not a reason to start an editwar. Everybody can contribute on this article, participating or not participating on the talkpage. By know I have enough of it. The next time you add some of your POV or remove something that is inconvinient for you, I am gonna report you to get a topic ban for you! Night of the Big Wind talk 15:24, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- Oops, was ment for his talkpage. But I leave it here, because he will undoubtedly remove it from his talkpage. So let it be siad, and let ClaudioSantos be warned! Night of the Big Wind talk 15:38, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
- The Aktion T4 material is not at all appropriate for this article. References to euthanasia were deleted with consensus from the Action T4 page because it was even inappropriate there, so why has it come here? There are no experts in the field who consider what happened in Nazi Germany to be akin to actual euthanasia. Jabbsworth (talk) 03:36, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
RfC: removal (or gross reduction) of Aktion T4 from the euthanasia article
|
Numerous experts have agreed that the word "euthanasia" was appropriated dishonestly by the Nazis in WW2 (in the Action T4 program) to hide the wholesale murder of unwanted citizens. To therefore have a (large) amount of text on this page only promulgates that injustice, and acts to further the argument of anti-euthanasia activists, who want the equating of murder and euthanasia to persist in the public mind. Should we remove or vastly scale back this material? Jabbsworth (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
---
- Strong remove — This material was even removed as POV twaddle from the article on Action T4 diff, and was brought to this article by a tendentious editor who cannot bear to see it disappear from WP. As Professor Robert Jay Lifton, author of The Nazi Doctors has written: " concept is in direct opposition to the Anglo-American concept of euthanasia, which emphasizes the individual's 'right to die' or 'right to death' or 'right to his or her own death,' as the ultimate human claim. In contrast, Jost was pointing to the state's right to kill...". Jabbsworth (talk) 04:28, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep A short paragraph explaining how the Germans have misused the term as a euphemism for murder and a link to the full article are enough in my opinion. Night of the Big Wind talk 11:46, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Remove. I agree with Jabbsworth's reasoning. If kept it should be trimmed to a sentence or two, and removed entirely from the lede, to avoid giving it undue weight. Dawn Bard (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Keep Known experts in the field, such as Ian Dowbiggin, point that can not be denied any comparisson between other versions of euthanasia and the nazi version. Dowbiggin have pointed strong similarities and dedicated a lot of paragraphs (chapters) to analize such similarities and differences. Robert Lay Lifton has done an historic investigation centred on the Nazi euthanasia programm but not on euthanasia itself, his comments on euthanasia are marginal and based on his personal non-academic opinion on euthanasia, for a change Ian Dowbiggin has made historic investigations on modern euthanasia movement and investigated exahustively the different conceptions around this term and its characteristics over time. He analizes historic and social contexts around euthanasia movement, its connections with eugenics movement, as well as the evolution of euthanasia definition, and so on, including there the analysis of the relationship between the euthanasia movement at Germany and the euthanasia movement at other countries. Also other authors in the field, like Neil M. Gorsuch and Shai Joshua Lavi, who also exahustively investigate the history of modern euthansia movement, they also dedicate long chapters to analyze the similarities and differences with the nazi euthanasia version, including the own perception of the euthanasia movement about the nazi euthanasia program over time, which goes from hold up and silence until gradual distinguish due the adverse public opinion as these authors state. These authors also mark the strong effect that nazi euthanasia program had in the evolution of the definition of euthanasia given by its supporters who, mainly due adverse public opinion, had to abandon explicit support to eugencis arguments and to non-voluntary forms of euthanasia, precisely because of its undeniable similarities with the nazi euthanasia version. So, experts in the field testify the very relevant role that nazi euthanasia programm has played in the modern euthanasia movement history whose effects extend to the current time. So, it will be undue lack of weight to erase any reference to Aktion T4 only to whitewash the propagandistic definition currently announced by its supporters. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
- Misplaced Pages controversial topics
- All unassessed articles
- B-Class medicine articles
- High-importance medicine articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- B-Class Death articles
- High-importance Death articles
- B-Class law articles
- Mid-importance law articles
- WikiProject Law articles
- B-Class Philosophy articles
- High-importance Philosophy articles
- B-Class ethics articles
- High-importance ethics articles
- Ethics task force articles
- Misplaced Pages requests for comment