This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia'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 B‑class 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 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 B‑class This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating 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 B‑class 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 B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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 B‑class High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy B This article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. 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.

I think the current version is much more preferable to previous versions. However, I do have concerns over the length of the lead. The second and third paragraphs comprise about 214 words out of a total of about 381 in the lead, or approximately 56%. Per WP:LEAD, I think those two paragraphs would be more appropriate to beef up the currently very brief "Legal status" section of the article instead, leaving a short summary in the lead. Gabbe (talk) 18:05, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't object to that, but make sure if you summarize the paragraph in the lead that you keep it balanced. I do not even want to touch the article now after what happened.--Jorfer (talk) 23:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stray animals, sick/injured animals, unwanted animals are all routinely put to death. This is generally called euthanasia. Even animals slaughtered for meat is supposed to be humane and may be considered to be euthanasia. The article, as written, addresses only human deaths. 173.66.64.90 (talk) 01:12, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is why the top says "For mercy killings performed on animals, see Animal euthanasia".--Jorfer (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The major problem with this article is that it misuses the term "physician assisted suicide" and "voluntary euthanasia." Physician assisted suicide is not the same as voluntary euthanasia, which is illegal in America. (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year4.pdf?ga=t) This link is a report on the Die with Dignity Act in Oregon, it clearly states that euthanasia is illegal, and is not the same as assisted suicide. The article is locked, though. These are major errors that need to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conundrumbandit (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It clearly states that only active euthanasia is widely illegal, the term "euthanasia" in its legal context is not used for what in other contexts is called passive euthanasia. Withdrawing life support with patient consent is considered voluntary, passive euthanasia in a non-legal context, but it is legal throughout the US as you can see by reading the reference.--Jorfer (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the following recently added paragraph from the lead here in order to discuss it:

Euthanasia was exploited on a widespread scale by the Nazis during the Second World War under Action T4, a euthanasia programme that sought to exterminate "lives unworthy of life" as part of their "racial hygiene" concept. As a result at least 200,000 physically or mentally handicapped people were killed by medication, starvation, or in the gas chambers between 1939 and 1945.

The connection between Action T4 and Euthanasia is not trivial and uncontested, see for example the section "Action T4#T4 and euthanasia", as well as the perennial and quite lengthy discussions on Talk:Action T4. If we are to include a mention of Action T4 and its connection with euthanaisa in the lead of this article it must be thoroughly sourced and should include all relevant positions on the topic. Gabbe (talk) 10:21, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - Action T4 isn't accepted as euthanasia in the current sense. As such, it seems an error to present it as if it is in the lead. - Bilby (talk) 10:29, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I came across Action T4 quite by chance whilst translating articles for the portal on the Elbe Sandstone Mountains and, specifically on the Sonnenstein Death Institute. Since it was actually called the "Euthanasia Program (Action T4)" and appears to be the largest (and only?) example of a state using euthanasia on a mass scale, it seemed entirely appropriate to me that this article on euthanasia should mention it, both in the lede and in the main body (referenced, of course), in order to maintain balance and be complete. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:42, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There's no doubt that Action T4 was referred to as "Euthanasia" by the Nazis, nor is it disputed that Action T4 was the largest programme of its kind. What is disputed is whether Action T4 was a form of euthanasia or not. Gabbe (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, it seems quite reasonable to include that in this article and highlight the different standpoints, for and against, taken by the authoritative sources. --Bermicourt (talk) 14:54, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't agree more. Gabbe (talk) 14:55, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that there aren't really a lot of different standpoints on this - Action T4, in the sense of the debate held now, is not considered to the euthanasia. Historically there is debate about whether or not action T4 and euthanasia share some basic concepts, and Action T4 has traditionally arisen in the slippery slope debate as a possible consequence of allowing euthanasia, but Action T4 and euthanasia aren't generally regarded as being the same thing. (Involuntary killing of healthy individuals for the sake of the state is generally distinct from voluntary or non-voluntary killing for the sake of the patient). - Bilby (talk) 15:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst I agree that few, if anyone, would support euthanasia as practised by the Nazis, I'm not sure the sources are universal in dismissing their actions as not being "euthanasia". The Oxford Dictionary definition of euthanasia comes close to it and as recently as the mid-nineties, the memorial site themselves - hardly likely to be proponents of what was committed there - published a book called "Nazi Euthanasia Crimes in Saxony". Either way, all I am saying is that the subject is relevant and, if there are differing viewpoints, they should be exposed here in a balanced and unemotive way (reflecting the sources). --Bermicourt (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The issue isn't one of support, but one of definitions - few, if any, would define euthanasia today in such a way as to include Action T4 as euthanasia. That the term was used to described Action T4 at the time is clear, hence its use elsewhere, but this isn't the same as saying that it is euthanasia. I don't see a problem with raising it, as Action T4 is, as I mentioned, pointed to as a possible outcome of legal euthanasia, but I wouldn't want to conflate the two, and the distinction would need to be clear. - Bilby (talk) 16:52, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What I certainly realize is: those who say that Aktion T4 is not euthanasia are those who support euthanasia, therefore they are trying to white-wash the term. But actually, just to mention only one detail, Aktion T4 was judged in Nuremberg based precisely on the legal fact that euthanasia was not legal in Germany then. Some people here said that the killing of patients made by the Nazi-Germany is different than modern euthanasia because it has different intentions, but that is a superfluos and naive claim. It is also well documented that nazis used also such sort of intentions to get a positive public opinion for their programs included the euthanasia one, they even made a movie and their porgramm were partially supported by the euthanasia supporters in America and England. Actually nazis refered to the killing of patients as being a mercy death. Of course their claimed intentions do not denny their really doings and interests (racism, economical, etc.) But back to the present, is not solely me who have good reasons and proofs to warn that modern euthanasia is also implemented in favour of less sacral interests than those claimed by their supporters. So I think one can not define nothing by considering solely its ideal intentions but one should consider its related facts. The objective perspective applies not only to realize that nazi euthanasia was an euphemism of and indeed killing of patients, but a favtual aproximation should also be applied in order to consider and to define the modern so called euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 23:20, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]