Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:42, 25 July 2011

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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. Medicine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

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)

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)

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

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

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, but scale back 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 was above quoted in order to deny any comparisson between nazi euthanasia and other euthanasias. Certainly Lifton has done an historic investigation centered on the Nazi euthanasia programm but not on euthanasia itself, his comments on other versions of 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 (for instance in the United States and in England), where Dowbiggin has 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 investigated the history of modern euthansia movement, they also dedicate long chapters to analyze the similarities and differences with the nazi euthanasia version, including the perception about nazi euthanasia program that has had the own euthanasia movement over time, which goes from hold up and silence until gradual distinguish due the adverse public opinion. 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 eugenics 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 AktionT4-nazi-euthanasia or to dispatch it as solely an "euphemism", in order to whitewash the propagandistic definition currently announced by its supporters. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 20:06, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep No history of euthanasia is complete without adequate coverage of the Nazi use of this technique, however much we might wish it had never happened. Whilst it is true they used it to excess and that modern proponents of euthanasia distance themselves from it, these are not good reasons to hide or water down the facts. It is important for posterity to understand what the Nazis did under the name and (by dictionary definition) practice of euthanasia, not least to help ensure it does not happen again. It's needed for balance. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:53, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

The Nazis did not use a euthanasia "technique", as you put it. You seem to miss the point that they used the word as a wikt:euphemism to cover up state murder. If paedophiles misuse use the word "love" to cover pederasty, should we therefore have a large section on pedophilia on the page on love? You are just playing into the Nazi's (and people who would like to see the false link between surreptitious state murder and euthanasia promulgated alive) hands. Jabbsworth (talk) 06:47, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Bermicourt I agree with you, I have detailed and referenced my position. You also marginally mentioned the topic of definitions and dictionaries in relation with euthanasia. Then I would like to add some words about. Surely you are aware that using "euphemisms" is a practice used by the euthanasia supporters and movement, and not only by the nazis. For example, the promotion of euphemisms as a tactic, is something that you can read openly confessed by the well known euthanasia supporter Derek Humphry. By the way, actually in the respective history section we will have to deal with this topic. Historians have pointed out that words and definitions were a big concern and a characteristic of the euthanasia movement, mainly after the WWII, and specially in the 60s and 70s, but still today. As the historians have also stated, this concern is also part of the strategies and tactics the euthanasia movement have used to dissolve the public ressitance against euthanasia (see Ian Dowbiggin, Wesley J. Smith., Shay Joshua Lavy, etc.). And surely Bermicourt, you are also aware, as some authors also have pointed out, that it can not be assumed a definition of euthanasia as it was a fact, because definitions and words are at any rate controversial and represent points of view. An Dutch euthanasia practioner and promoter openly admitted: "The definitions build the road to euthanasia ... definitions are not neutral." (Dr. MAM Watcher cited by Wesley Jay Smith). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:22, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

• Keep I agree with the comment above, 'No history of euthanasia is complete without adequate coverage of the Nazi use of this technique,' and 'are not good reasons to hide or water down the facts'. It is difficult to escape the facts, euthanasia has a history, where I can disagree with the above is 'modern proponents of euthanasia distance themselves from it' - I know some who support euthanasia for the same reasons as it was used by the Nazi's, they also support the use of it on the same schale, the article cannot decide who reads it, however we can ensure the truth is tbere, even when it is a four letter word. --Hemshaw (talk) 21:44, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
• Keep While it still suffers from weight problems, that will be improved as the history section is expanded - we haven't even hit the 1903's yet, much less the 1960's - and it is an important part of euthanasia history. (I agree it was not euthanasia, but it still heavily influenced the euthanasia debate, and should't be ignored). That said, it currently takes up almost half of the lead, and there it is a case of undue weight given that it is a lot less of that in the article, and of very limited value to the modern debate. We will need to rewrite the lead to better balance things, as Action T4 has far too much prominence there. - Bilby (talk) 22:50, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

• DumpIf anyone really needs to prove that anything the Nazis did was invert all known reason, this isn't the place to do it. A conversation with a doctor about the long road ahead isn't the same thing as eugenics. Peter S Strempel | Talk 04:07, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Remove. T4 was "mass murder", not euthanasia, as I showed by including the quotation of the BBC source. This is not the genocide page. Jesanj (talk) 20:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That is just one source and is just an article on a Newspaper. The most relevant scholar historic works on euthanasia dedicate chapters to the nazi euthanasia program (read my comment above) and they does not dispatch the thing saying it was solely a genocide, but actually they also highlight strong similarities with the euthanasia as it was defined by the euthanasia movement of the time. In my comment I cited three scholar works and its respective arguments to support my position (keep). -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:46, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

And please stop arbitrarily deleting the content passing over the efforts of numerous editors in reaching a collective consensus here. And notice that the majority have expressed strong arguments to keep the contents. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 22:03, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

• Comment. The issue is inherently straightforward, but hugely emotive and unless we can find a way forward between the various factions it will get in the way of a decent article. Let me try and summarise the key points if I can:

The Nazi regime supported the concept of "lives not worth living" i.e. incurable mentally- and physically-handicapped patients.

They also supported the elimination of groups they deemed undesirable on race (e.g. Jews, gypsies) or other grounds.

They introduced a "Euthanasia Programme" for the former which deliberately used euthanasia (they also called it "mercy killing").

Euthanasia was carried out legally, but note: a) there was no patient consent, b) controls were poor and c) death certificates were falsified so relatives were unaware of the true cause of death

The programme widened until euthanasia was being practised, illegally, on the second group (Jews, etc.)

The programme was officially halted due to protests led by the Catholic Church, but continued illegally and massively expanded

The use of euthanasia ceased at the end of the war and remained illegal in the west

Today, one or two European countries have introduced euthanasia legally, but this time with patient and family consent and careful legal controls. It is only used for patients with incurable diseases

Because actual practice is so different today, some proponents of euthanasia are uncomfortable with the Nazi connexion and wish to break the link. But there are different views: some say that the Nazis did not practise euthanasia; others have said that today's "mercy killings" are not euthanasia and that another term should be found.

The job of Misplaced Pages is surely to present the known facts including the Nazi practice of euthanasia in history and how it expanded way beyond its original remit as well as the facts about today's practice of euthanasia in certain countries and how they differ. All major points of view should also be discussed, including the differing views on the Nazi programme and on the current programmes. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Bermicourt, the only possible connection between the policies of Nazi Germany in '39-45 and euthanasia would be the aspect of non-voluntary euthanasia. The ? of whether T4 = or ╪ euthanasia should go there, if anywhere. Jabbsworth (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Aktion T4 would be closer to involuntary euthanasia, rather than non-voluntary. However, in terms of today's debate, it wouldn't be classified as either. Hence the focus on historical significance. - Bilby (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it was a mix of non-voluntary euthanasia (NVE) (in the case of babies and young kids) and involuntary (IVE). But basically, it was neither, because both NVE and IVE are aimed at alleviating suffering and done in the interests of the patient, whereas T4 was simple, outright extermination, or murder, or genocide (even though the much quoted case of the first little boy and his parents is used to link it to NVE). I ask again, just because the Nazis tarted up their murdering with a nice word, does it mean that their ploy has earned them a place on this page, and if so, how much of a place? Jabbsworth (talk) 00:30, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I have cited historic works that investigate deeper the similarities and differences within nazi euthanasia version and other historical euthanasia versions. And here the nazi euthanasia program is mostly included in the historic section, due also the most prominent historical studies on euthanasia do include the thing there. But as you mentioned some claimed differences within nazi euthanasia and current euthanasia practices, then here it deserves some words about it. It can not be assumed as a fact a priori that current euthanasia is being solely voluntarily practiced, it can not be a priori assumed that the medical-legal controls are protecting the patients from abuses, it can not be assumed as a fact that euthanasia is solely practiced legally, it can not be a priori asummed that all the euthanasia movement is only interested in non-voluntary forms of euthanasia or based in the same interests, as well as it can not be a priori assumed that euthanasia is not being used or promoted for other interests than the claimed patients's benefit. Those things deserve a more serious investigation. But summarizing, we can not a priori assume and post that euthanasia is that "good thing" that some dictionaries and supporters claim to be. The rpoactice of euthanasia needs and deserves more investigation to be objectively represented here. But as I mentioned, the current section on nazi euthanasia-aktiont4 does deal mainly with an historical approximation more than with comparing it to current euthanasia practices. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 21:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Please stop making "wall of text" comments. Thanks. To answer your point: if you have experts authors to support the view that there is some sort of link between modern day concepts of euthanasia and T4, then produce them. So far, you haven't. Dowbiggin et al only supply very tenuous links. As for the historical links between what we understand to be euthanasia (good death) and the mass murder of unwanted people, you are drawing a long bow there, and, I suggest, pushing a personal barrow, such as when you carpet bombed the Action T4 talk page with the statement, in bold: PEOPLE ARE BEING MASSIVELY AND COERCITIVE KILLED UNDER THE GUISE OF EUTHANASIA Jabbsworth (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The most relevant historical scholar works on euthanasia dedicate chapters to the nazi euthanasia program, whatever if they think or they do not think that current definition of euthanasia is comparable to the nazi version. That is your point as a supporter of euthanasia but not the criteria of inclusion of the sources. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:11, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Proposal for Aktion T4 in the lede

Old text:

New text 1 (shortest):

New text 2 (longer):

I prefer "New text 1" as it is the shortest and most to the point version, without hiding the horrible facts. Night of the Big Wind _talk 23:17, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

But WHY should the "origins of the use of the word in Nazi Germany" be elevated to the lede? Think what you are suggesting. Why should the lede carry details about the misuse of terminology during this short period of brutal fascist history; what relevance does it have to the actual topic of real euthanasia? Jabbsworth (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

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

Above should be retained, its a specific 'test case' that led the fascists down the road to the euthanasia of the disabled. In this case the parents campaigned for the euthanisia of their own son,it was a turning point and also a key case in the history of euthanasia. It could perhaps then state that the Nazi government later used the euthanasia campaign to justify the killing of millions.

As the topic prior to this has a number 'Keep' votes the German campaign should remain as it is, it is an example of state approved euthanasia, its part of the history whether we like it or not.

A line of thought is to be found in modern society is from young people who express the view that the elderly and disabled, should be euthanised, the cost of sustaining and prolonging life is cited. There are also factions who feel that those with long term illness, or health issues where costs are higher than the tax returned should also be euthanised. We may not like to hear such support for those measures - the debates are current. I feel it is important that article remains neutral.--Hemshaw (talk) 01:14, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Is there any proof that it were indeed the parents who freely and voluntary initiated this legal challenge? Or were they pushed/threatened by Nazi's? In the last case it can be a legal cover up of an already planned mass murder... Night of the Big Wind _talk 01:25, 23 July 2011 (UTC) The nazi's were more often creative with the truth!

Some sources claim expressively that it was a sort of trial balloon used by the nazis to mesaure the public opinion reaction. It seems those involved in the nazi euthanasia program took advantage of that chance. And surely there were not lack of other appropriate chances as actually the sources accounts many similar petitions of euthanasia, before and after the euthanasia of that little boy. Surely the eutha-nazis just chose the best one chance which fitted the best for their interests. It also can not be understodd without considering the propaganda campaign pro-euthanasia happening at early 20th century in Germany, but also in the United States, in England and in other countries around. As Ian Dowbiggin and other authors have showed, bills and propaganda pro-euthanasia were similar around the world and appealed to similar arguments and emotions; Germany was not an exception. Certainly it is also a documented fact, that initially the nazi children euthanasia required the consent of the parents, which was in some cases voluntarily achieved but certainly other times it was ignored or coercively achieved. Then, perhaps we have to extend the question enunciated by NotBW, namely to extend his question in time, space and scope. It seems life alway wants to live. So perhaps we have to suspect if every so called "voluntary" "decision" to die, is indeed the result of certain concomitant external pressures, therefore nothing to do with a true decision but with a real alien-control: real alienation. At least, a NotBW compatriot, the philosopher Baruch Spinoza justly enunciated that suffering is opposite than acting. Then perhaps that is the true question: to turn suffering into action instead of turning suffering into death. But for the particular case related to this article, let me find and provide the source I have mentioned for the the "trial ballon". -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Interesting. This creates a whole new problem. For sure the trial has his place in Aktion T4. But I can not immediately say that is should be used for euthanasia. And if we use it, where to use it. Night of the Big Wind _talk 03:08, 23 July 2011 (UTC) Think I'm gonna sleep over it.

If I did not read bad, the thing is already described in the Aktion_T4 article. Here some of the promised sources referring on the euthanazist murder of the little boy Knauer:

-- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:21, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

As the debate above is still live, this proposal is surely premature. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:23, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

The The early euthanasia movement in the United States section on the page is peppered with observations and qualifications from a non-medical anti-euthanasia activist, Ian Dowbiggin. If this is not changed by someone, I'll have to tag the section as unbalanced. And glancing further down the page, I see that he is quoted all over the place. This is completely undue weight. There are a lot of expert medical opinions that feature nowhere in the article. Bilby has started to roll it back, and I encourage him to continue. Jabbsworth (talk) 00:39, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Bilby, who (I believe) edits from a Christian perspective (correct me if I am wrong; your user page does mention an extensive interest in Christian science fiction), has now inserted further references to Dowbiggin , and this, combined with ClaudioSantos's efforts to equate all euthanasia with murder, makes the page badly biased in one direction. The page is becoming a real mess again; not enough editors at work here, and too many pushing barrows. I see that euthanasia is now linked, mostly via conservative anti-euthanasia activist Dowbiggin, to Darwinism. This is one of Dowbiggin's pet theories and it's now presented as fact here. Moreover, there are now sentences containing anti-euthanasia editorialising, such as "(Dowbiggin noted, however, that Ingersoll did not adequately distinguish between a right to die and the "notion that in certain circumstances it might be right for some individuals to die")."

I'll have to tag the article as POV until there are extensive revisions. Please note that tags are not to be removed until there is consensus. Jabbsworth (talk) 02:42, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

1. ^ BBC Nazi Genocide Timeline
2. Hope, Tony (2004). Medical Ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 10. ISBN 0192802828.
3. Hope, Tony (2004). Medical Ethics: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press. p. 10. ISBN 0192802828.

• 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