Langbahn Team – Weltmeisterschaft

Talk:Euthanasia: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Richiez (talk | contribs)
Extended confirmed users
3,281 edits
→Euthanasia as euphemism for murder: new try to formulate my point
Line 74: Line 74:


In summary, I think the overview should be formulated so that it covers most uses of the term. [[User:Richiez|Richiez]] ([[User talk:Richiez|talk]]) 11:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
In summary, I think the overview should be formulated so that it covers most uses of the term. [[User:Richiez|Richiez]] ([[User talk:Richiez|talk]]) 11:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

:@Bilby. Yes, I get that motive is part of the definition of euthanasia. I was trying to explain to others that euthanasia is not automatically murder because it depends on the applicable law. Moving on, I suspect there is a debate over Nazi euthanasia programme partly because they muddied the official intent to legally end the lives of those suffering from incurable conditions by [illegally] sending other categories of perfectly healthy people to their deaths. So they committed both legal (and later illegal) euthanasia as well as murder in the same institutions. Those are the facts based on a) German law at the time and b) the definition of euthanasia here. As well as explaining that, it is also entirely reasonable to mention at least 3 "points of view" in the sources that have arisen over whether the Nazi programme was or wasn't euthanasia. I don't think we can dismiss the view that what the Nazis did was euthanasia as a "fringe argument" much as we may not like them or what they did. They themselves called it euthanasia, they authorised it pretty much along the same lines as the modern definitions. It was only in scale, scope and associated abuse that it differed from today's legal euthanasia. Hence, there is this 3rd argument from pro-euthanasia authors that what the Nazis did ''was'' euthanasia and that we should not call the modern approach euthanasia, because the word's become tainted. We should expose, not hide, these facts and viewpoints in as balanced a way as we can, however much we (including myself) don't like aspects of them. --[[User:Bermicourt|Bermicourt]] ([[User talk:Bermicourt|talk]]) 12:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Revision as of 12:16, 16 December 2012

The Geneva Declaration - Not the Hippocrates Oath

Who are the suicide researchers really? Why are they researching so much, but never uttering a word of sentiment? Where are they? Who are they? What are their "respects"? What are their definite current affiliation? Are they fit to do suicide research? Is their integrity in place for the research to be conducted properly? This may also be added as aspect of suicide and the relevant research!!!
As the psychologists have something similar (to the Geneva Declaration for med. doctors, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Geneva , The Declaration of Geneva), all that it now takes is the question: "are you conducting your research and other work concerning suicide issues according to your professional ethics?" under one or more lie detectors as they have duties to answer it truthfully! Even if you get suspicions that they are relating to a "weird" interpretation of their prof. ethics, you can "narrow" your question and be more specific toward the ethics concerned! Good? LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 12:07, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! This talk page is for discussing specific ways of improving the article. It is not a discussion forum on the wider topic of euthanasia. I'm not sure what, precisely, you are asking regarding the article. Could you please clarify your question? Gabbe (talk) 15:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi to you as well! I want to highlight the strict requirements on these "researchers", whoever they may be in entering a sensitive question like this and to issue demands as to their professional ethics and their explicit duties toward humanity with the people they are supposed to help! You can't plausibly help a person into life ("saving a person") only for this person to enter torture! If they are suffering and they don't ask for help and certainly not from a self-declared Jesus Christ, then they are to be left alone, to their own private person! They have nothing to do with these (suicidal) people! You understand what I'm saying? Well, this is my message for now and that I demand this to enter the article as well, as much as "these hard research concerns" (of... ohhh... getting to know/must get to know, as by compulsion toward hate, maim and sanity-assassination). I think we'll meet in understanding in some time, at least! Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 23:11, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested body for improvement under "Euthanasia debate"

By request of a user (MrADHD(?)), because I think both this user deserves it and the young in general, I renew the problem of not having the two sides (pros and cons) of discussion properly presented:
Header: Background for the Intellectual Defence.
The intellectual defence for the pro-assisted suicide side is: to be serious toward people who want the possibility to die because they suffer the most grievous pains. Now, after paying empathy to these people in pain, there are some common points like what possible hidden motives can the pro-side possibly have? Are we not supposed to be real about pain and therefore people in pain? Isn't a very painful life awful? And the arguments continue for the pro-side on this note, all very plausible and direct. So, who is the opposition? Who are they? Let's see!
I also like to remind the contributors of the serious issue at stake here and that giving this article the necessary attention and efforts may relieve a lot of people, at least mentally. I hope you care!
Because of accusations of "promotion/soapbox", I've had one list "that's elsewhere on the Internet now".
The fact here is that the debate actually holds (by duty toward balanced debate) the above sentiments on the pro-side and thus DOES NOT at all represent a WP:SOAPBOX. Mind still the seriousness of the article, please. This discussion is also a subject to political discussion and the article needs to reflect this by exactly holding these sentiments of the pro-side or else the article merely becomes an idiot listing of "moving objects", without the foundation for reasoning. Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea (talk) 23:24, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I'm sorry, I still don't understand what you mean. Please state, as concisely as you can, which specific changes you would like to make to this article, and which reliable sources you would use as attribution. Gabbe (talk) 09:07, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Because of limited time, I can't do this! You will have to get it from other people or be VERY patient! I've seen as duty to supply defence for the pro-side here because of the seriousness, but I'm also "well into matters" and that time isn't abundant like that. I hope for your understanding. Cheers! --LFOlsnes-Lea 11:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To be true, it is a complete mystery to me what you want. I suggest that you take your time for it and create the addition that you want on a draft page in your own workspace. When finished, you can post a link here to that page. Then we can have a discussion about it. Is that okay to you? The Banner talk 17:59, 24 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Psychologically vulnerable patients

Psychologically vulnerable patients and the elderly have to rely on others to live functional lives. They have been almost programmed by society to feel as though they are “useless burdens on younger, more vital generations.”(Quill) The reason that this issue can result in a long argument is, because if society allowed the option of “self-deliverance” then these patients who already feel helpless would wonder why not take advantage of it. They are being given the choice to remain completely dependent on someone else or to relieve this person and at the same time ultimately comfort themselves. Resisting this choice may even be seen to others as selfish (Kluge). It is society that it making them feel as though they are burdens and if in addition to this, they also allow assisted suicide then they are basically saying that these certain patients can “live if they wish but the rest of us have no strong interest in their survival”(Quill). --72.175.184.239 (talk) 05:55, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This talkpage is not a discussion forum, so what changes to the text of the article do you suggest? The Banner talk 12:53, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Euthanasia as euphemism for murder

Appears to have been normal practice in the third reich. Euthanasia still appears to have a very negative meaning in many countries including UK and Germany - any special reason why it is not mentioned in the overview? Richiez (talk) 22:25, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion here: Talk:Euthanasia/Archive 3. But in fact, what happened in the Third Reich had nothing to do with euthanasia. The Banner talk 00:00, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Richiez: What changes are you proposing to the article? To mention Aktion T4 in the lead? Gabbe (talk) 09:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I came across this when looking at the Liverpool care pathway article. From the media coverage it would seem that Euthanasia in this context is used as synonym for voluntary manslaughter. Richiez (talk) 15:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While you're obviously entitled to it, that's just your opinion. The word manslaughter occurs in neither article. Both are simply talking about one form of euthanasia that they expect their readers to understand as such. To call it manslaughter is original research, POV and unacceptable. HiLo48 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Euthanasia is a procedure which may, or may not, be legal. In other words, depending on the law, it may or not equate to manslaughter or murder. The use of euthanasia in Nazi Germany was actually legal for a period of time, although it continued to be carried out illegally after Hitler revoked the law. And however abhorrent the Nazi use of euthanasia was, both in scale and breadth, as well as the fact it was abused to eliminate people for non-medical reasons, it is still part of euthanasia history and should be properly covered in this article. Currently it receives a mention, but instead of focussing on the facts, most of that section is POV material arguing that "it was not really euthanasia". That is only one of several views in the literature. The section needs a balanced re-write and, IMHO, the subject should be mentioned in the lede because of the scale and notability of it. But in view of the sensitivity of this subject, we probably need to agree a better form of words here first. --Bermicourt (talk) 16:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That section is certainly POV. It should be removed after being edit warred in. ArtifexMayhem (talk) 17:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The history of the section is unimportant. What is needed is better factual coverage and balance. That's clearly not going to be easy, but removing it entirely is not the answer. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As discussed previously, what occurred in Germany was not euthanasia in the sense of what the article is discussing. Covering it is important, as it heavily influenced the euthanasia debate that followed. But portraying it as euthanasia is also an error. The article on Action T4 is the correct place to cover the history of what happened. Here is the correct place to cover it in relation to euthanasia in general. - Bilby (talk) 22:05, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Akton T4 is generally counted as involuntary. According to most definitions of euthansaia, and certainly all approches currently in use now, that is murder. However,
I think: a) voluntary euthanasia is suicide; b) both non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia are murder. In these 3 cases, the only difference is that euthanasia is supposely committed to relieve suffering. During the 3rd Reich, there was a period, acordding to what I read, on which there was a phenomena of mass non-voluntary euthanasia (murder), which should be indeed mentioned in the article. It was kind of a part of one of the darkest periods in history. By the way, what is "POV"? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my efforts? 23:19, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just what you describe above! POV = Point Of View or the way you look at things. The Banner talk 23:22, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To distinguish between euthanasia and murder, the fundamental difference today is based on intent. If the intent is to relieve the patient's suffering, then according to the currently available definitions, it can potentially be regarded as euthanasia. However, you are correct in saying that most definitions also regard involuntary euthanasia as akin to murder, and that is well established in the literature. But while some (although not all) will argue that all instances of involuntary euthanasia are murder, this doesn't mean that all instances of murder are involuntary euthanasia.
In regard to Action T4, it is not generally regarded as having been conducted in order to end suffering but instead for reasons of eugenics. Eugenics is tied up with the early euthanasia movement, but post WWII the two went in very different directions. Accordingly, sources regard Action T4 as murder, not as involuntary euthanasia, as the intent didn't match the definition of euthanasia, and instead it is believed that the euthanasia term was used to hide the reality of what went on with Action T4. - Bilby (talk) 00:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between euthanasia and murder is not intent. The same euthanasia procedure may be murder in one country and legal killing in another because the former bans it and the latter has legalised it. The fact that some people regard all euthanasia as murder is POV. Aktion T4 was legal - and thus not technically murder - whilst Hitler's law was in force. To say it was not euthanasia is POV - there are at least 2 opposing views: a) it was euthanasia, and so is the procedure legalised in countries today, and b) it was euthanasia, but what we do today is not - a view held by pro-euthanasia authors who want to distance today's practice from the Nazis. However, if we look at most definitions, what the Nazis did under Aktion T4 was initially euthanasia. It was only when they started to kill people for non-medical reasons - i.e. being gypsies and Jews - that they strayed outside the normal definition of euthanasia today. We need to capture that because it is probably the source of confusion and hence disagreement here. --Bermicourt (talk) 08:35, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're discussing whether or not the act is legal, which is also relevant, but euthanasia isn't simply defined as killing another person. If that was all the definition was, then all forms of killing someone would be euthanasia. The important part in the definition of euthanasia is why someone killed another, and that is where the intent comes in. It has to be done in the interests of the person being killed, ideally to end chronic suffering, and arguably with their consent (or at least not against their wishes).
In terms of the major literature, there are not two opposing views in regard to Action T4. The literature argues that Action T4 used the term "euthanasia" to justify killing for the state as part of a eugenics program, with only very fringe arguments, from extreme anti-euthanasia viewpoints, arguing differently. It is clearly connected to the early euthanasia movement, and is an important part of the historical discussion of euthanasia, but it is an error to regard it as the same thing as what is discussed today when we talk about euthanasia, and it would be a serious error to present it as the same thing. I've got no hassles with seeing that part of the article developed, but it needs to be kept in the context of the euthanasia debate. - Bilby (talk) 09:20, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all opinions, I will try to formulate my original point more precisely. My main concern is that the definition of Euthanasia given in this article does not correspond to actual usage of this term in this article: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2161869/Top-doctors-chilling-claim-The-NHS-kills-130-000-elderly-patients-year.html and similar newspaper articles given as source in the Liverpool care pathway article.

I am not British so I was hoping to get some opinions from UK to see if they think this covers normal British usage of the term Euthanasia. Its interesting that the overview has a quote of the British House of Lords which seems to be so far away from usage of the word in newspapers.

Something completely different, Euthanasia is also frequently used to describe the killing of unclaimed animals in shelters. In many cases (differs by country) the animals are perfectly vital and killed simply because nobody wants them or there are laws that such animals must be killed. I do not think that this is covered by the definition given in the overview.

In summary, I think the overview should be formulated so that it covers most uses of the term. Richiez (talk) 11:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@Bilby. Yes, I get that motive is part of the definition of euthanasia. I was trying to explain to others that euthanasia is not automatically murder because it depends on the applicable law. Moving on, I suspect there is a debate over Nazi euthanasia programme partly because they muddied the official intent to legally end the lives of those suffering from incurable conditions by [illegally] sending other categories of perfectly healthy people to their deaths. So they committed both legal (and later illegal) euthanasia as well as murder in the same institutions. Those are the facts based on a) German law at the time and b) the definition of euthanasia here. As well as explaining that, it is also entirely reasonable to mention at least 3 "points of view" in the sources that have arisen over whether the Nazi programme was or wasn't euthanasia. I don't think we can dismiss the view that what the Nazis did was euthanasia as a "fringe argument" much as we may not like them or what they did. They themselves called it euthanasia, they authorised it pretty much along the same lines as the modern definitions. It was only in scale, scope and associated abuse that it differed from today's legal euthanasia. Hence, there is this 3rd argument from pro-euthanasia authors that what the Nazis did was euthanasia and that we should not call the modern approach euthanasia, because the word's become tainted. We should expose, not hide, these facts and viewpoints in as balanced a way as we can, however much we (including myself) don't like aspects of them. --Bermicourt (talk) 12:16, 16 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Quelle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special%3ADiff%2F528297114