Talk:Compassion & Choices

Neutral point of view?

Seems to me this article thinks Compassion & Choices is doing a good job. Seems to me this article shouldn't offer its opinion. I'll edit it later if somebody doesn't beat me to it; I've just tagged it for now. Use of the word "effective" and the phrase "ensure a patient's right to a peaceful death" seem to be assuming things that can't be neutrally assumed. -Nietzscheanlie 02:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Seems like the the article is doing a good job to me too. 75.51.73.30 03:45, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that a further study of medicine and law (other than wikipedia) is necessary by those who write articles and comment on them.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.247.24 (talk • contribs) 20:29, June 4, 2007}}

Editing notes

Deleted two links to an organization not associated to Compassion & Choices --Compassionpdx (talk) 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Removed Primary Sources tag; article is sufficiently sourced. --Compassionpdx (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sections added

Added the History/Organization section and Controversy/Criticism section. I moved appropriate paragraphs into those sections. I removed references to Jack Kevorkian as he is irrelevant to Compassion & Choices. Also removed non-neutral language on Gonzales decision.Carlaaxtman (talk) 19:02, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hemlock Society

Wow! I just saw the page for Hemlock Society DISAPPEAR! They refer you immediately to the Compassion and Choices page. Poof, Hemlock Society has disappeared from the pages of history! Don't you think that we should know about the Hemlock Society, at least as a historical footnote? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeffgolin (talk • contribs) 05:15, 29 November 2008

That really is a major gap in information. I've filled it. Generally blogs are not WP:RS; the exception is when the blogger is a recognized expert in the field, and there can hardly be anyone more knowledgeable about the Hemlock Society than its founder. DavidOaks (talk) 17:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Information about The Hemlock Society is included in the "History and Organization" section of this article. It's unnecessary to place it in the opening paragraph.Carlaaxtman (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to set up a redirect for the search for "Hemlock Society" to the C&C page, but would be totally on board for doing that. However, I think that the citation in the History and Organization section is entirely sufficient for the HS information. Having it in the lede paragraph doesn't provide additional information to the reader. Could folks please make the case to the contrary, if it exists? Thanks. Carlaaxtman (talk) 23:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it is important to keep the predecessor group's name in the lede. The organization had a long history and I believe it is an important point which is helpful to readers, especially those who may only know of the former group. Mamalujo (talk) 23:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Anytime you want to make a redirect, it's the twelfth button from the left above your edit window, labelled "#R" -- but we don't want to do that, because Hemlock Society already has its own page (unless you wish to propose a merge of the two). The lead typically offers a precis of what's developed at length in the body of the article. For example, Planned Parenthood mentions Margaret Sanger in the lead, even though she hasn't been around for quite a long time, and even though lots of people in that organization would like to put a lot of distance between her and the present day organization. DavidOaks (talk) 00:02, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, David. Greatly appreciate your assist on the redirect edit button. One of these days I'll have the ropes down on this thing. Heh. Agreed on the reasonings for leaving Hemlock in the lede. With the explanations provided that makes a lot of sense. Appreciate you and Mamalujo taking the time to go over it. Carlaaxtman (talk) 22:15, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Sentence removed

Reductio ad Hitlerum = fail (Euthanasia was originally practiced by the Nazis...). I'm no supporter of euthanasia, but that sentence has absolutely nothing to do with the organization this page is about or any relevant current debate. Deleting. EDIT: Someone beat me to it.--Thud495 (talk) 19:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Refers readers to this talk page, and warns editors not to delete the tag until the dispute has been resolved. However, the editor posting the tag did not open any discussion. If there is no substance to the tag, I think it should in fact be removed. DavidOaks (talk) 02:04, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

relation to euthanasia

There is an ongoing effort to tie euthanasia to Compassion & Choices. C&C does not advocate for or affiliated in any way with euthansia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaaxtman (talk • contribs) 17:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, great. But the fact remains that a major euthanasia organization claims otherwise (that they list C&C in their directory is a verifiable fact; that the inclusion is appropriate is open to dispute). So what you need to do is follow that statement with "However, C&C denies any advocacy of euthanasia" (more elegant wording would be good). But it has to be sourced.DavidOaks (talk) 20:54, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

You're asking C&C to source something that it doesn't do. Euthanasia is not part of any C&C advocacy. It's not a part of the organization's mission or efforts. It doesn't appear on the organization website as part of the group's work. Carlaaxtman (talk)

Trouble is, other sources say it does have to do with euthanasia; the founder of its precursor specified that as part of its mission. Now, if C&C objects, all we need is an official communication specifying its objection (and I'd still want to know how to define euthanasia so that euthanasia administered by a patient and with a physician's assistance isn't included -- I suspect we have a problem with euphemism here). But even were such to be found, that's not grounds for obscuring the fact -- and this is a fact -- that it is seen by others as having to do with euthanasia. The subjects of articles do not get to dictate content. That would make for really unbalanced treatment. DavidOaks (talk) 19:56, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion of the article Euthanasia in the "see also" section does not in any way imply that C & C somehow endorses or advocates euthanasia. See also sections are merely a listing of related topics that are not already linked to in the article. First and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It is not a soapbox. Looking at it from a Wikipedia reader's perspective, one might expect there to be links to any related topics on this page. Again, "related topics" does not mean "other things advocated for (or against)" by the organization about which the article is written. I'd support David's proposal above, that the article specifically mention that what C & C advocates for is not euthanasia. But to keep the word "euthanasia" from coming anywhere near this article (and I wish I could assume good faith here, but to me that is what it looks like some editors are trying to do) is POV and possibly conflict of interest. Katr67 (talk) 20:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

David, I'm removing the sentence in question. You request a reliable source, but the sentence you're defending is not sourced. The citation at the end of the paragraph does not support all that is said in the paragraph, and it also does not appear to meet the standards of a reliable source on Wikipedia.

This article could use better sourcing in general. -Pete (talk) 07:35, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts; deeply divisive topics are expecially in need of accurate representation of all major views. I believe I've found some, and also adjusted the wording. The cat euthanasia belongs here, I think, despite the claims of supporters of aid-in-dying, as such policies clearly fall under the category of "good death," though of course C&C does not support all things which go by the name of euthanasia. DavidOaks (talk) 16:40, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm really fretting about this one; it seems to me the article will be misleading if we don't acknowledge the reason that aid-in-dying is controversial: people do class it with euthanasia, and people do fear that euthanasia represents a slippery slope. I've been searching unsuccessfully for an official statement by C&C declaring itself unconnected to euthanasia (and that would be tricky, as it would involve defining euthanasia in some way that didn't exclude aid-in-dying). All I've found is a statement by the founder of the precursor organization that explicitly states a goal of legalized euthanasia (though he distinguishes the Hemlock Society's work for those supporting what he calls "pasive euthanasia"). DavidOaks (talk) 17:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is a controversy and criticism section in the article. It seems to me that it's misleading to place opinion of the organization and aid in dying in general in the other sections of the article. Especially when there is no factual basis. "People" class lots of things..but that doesn't necessarily make them correct or relevant. The fact remains that C&C does not advocate or associate itself with euthanasia. It's misleading to categorize the organization otherwise outside of the "controversy" section. The founder of the Hemlock Society's quote is interesting..but not relevant. C&C is not the Hemlock Society. While it maintains some of the original concepts, euthanasia is not one of them.(Carla Axtman) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlaaxtman (talk • contribs) 20:47, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Humphry's view of the development of C&C from Hemlock is surely relevant to the section on the history of the organization. Now, when I ask how aid in dying can be excluded from the category of euthanasia, I am not arguing about the topic so much as trying to understand the position which motivates your edits. DavidOaks (talk) 21:04, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why Humphry's opinion is relevant outside of the 'criticism' aspect. His opinion isn't factual data about the organization and it's history. If the article is to be neutral, then factual information about the organization belongs in a different section than opinions about the organization. Factually, Compassion & Choices is not associated with, affiliated with or advocating for euthanasia. It is Humphry's opinion that the name was changed for "political correctness". Others would say it was changed because the organization evolved it's mission. Carlaaxtman (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)Carla Axtman

Excellent. Then all we need is a WP:RS stating that the name change simply evolved from a change in mission, and it goes next to, but does not replace, Humphry's view of the history of the organization. But I'm still not understanding the distinction you're drawing -- how is physician assisted suicide *not* a subclass of euthanasia? DavidOaks (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

This still doesn't adequately address the issue of why the opinion is not in "criticism" as opposed to "history". This is not factual information we're addressing--it's someone's opinion. We can certainly put up dueling opinions and include aWP:RS, but that doesn't solve the problem, it adds to it. Placing criticism and defense of the organization in "history" doesn't add to the factual nature and neutrality of the article and is misleading for readers who are in search of factual data. I'm not asking for an omission of Humphry's quote, merely that it be placed appropriately. Further, Compassion & Choices specifically does not advocate for assisted suicide. In fact, the organization has extensive information on the website (see Language Matters under the Press Resources section--right sidebar) which discusses this at length. Additionally, the Oregon and Washington laws advocated for by C&C specifically outlaw assisted suicide.Carlaaxtman (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2009 (UTC)Carla Axtman

(outdent) We've got two items going. First is the placement of Humphry's quote. It is an authoritative view of the history of the organization, rather than a general criticism. This is why it belongs in the section on the history of the organization, rather than in the general criticism section. Second is the relation of C&C to euthanasia, and now the term "assisted suicide" is in play. Most reasonable people would class the taking of one's own life as suicide, and getting assistance in the act as assisted suicide, and doing either of those things in response to a situation determined to be without remedy and unendurable as euthanasia. If C&C has specific statements refuting these commonly held views, by all means bring the citations forward -- they would absolutely belong here. But so do the well-cited views of others. C&C and its representatives get to run their own websites. They do not control Wikipedia articles. I still do not understand how the things C&C advocates do not belong to the larger category of euthanasia, or to the newly-intorduced class "assisted suicide." Please explain; your point here really isn't clear. DavidOaks (talk) 00:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

To address again the two items you're talking about, David: 1. The placement of Humphry's quote: We can argue whether it's from an authoritative source and I sincerely doubt we'd reach agreement. Humphry has never been associated with C&C. The organization is no longer the Hemlock Society and hasn't been for quite some time. If you believe that there should be a deeper understanding of Hemlock and what it stood for, then perhaps a new article on The Hemlock Society would be appropriate, and it can be linked to the C&C page. I think we can both agree however that it's an opinion and a criticism of C&C. As there is a specific and designated section of the article for "controversy and criticism", I believe that's the appropriate placement and context. I'm not asking you to remove the quote--merely to place it in an appropriate location within the article as to keep it neutral and informative. On the topic of listing C&C with euthanasia, I've already discussed at length the fact that C&C is in no way associated. But to address your other point on the taking of one's life, C&C advocates for terminally-ill, mentally competent adults to take medication themselves (this is all over the website, press materials, etc). There is no commonly held view that C&C is associated with euthanasia. If you have neutral citations (mainstream news pieces, articles), by all means please offer them. C&C's advocacy is for individuals who have no choice about dying--they are suffering and already going to die within 6 months, and take their own medication. The commonly understood definition of euthanasia is when a physician induces death through a lethal injection (see medterms.com). Assisting a suicide is helping someone die who wouldn't otherwise be dying. When reasonable people discuss this issue with a common understanding of the appropriate terms, they agree that C&C is in fact not properly categorized with euthanasia or "assisted suicide".Carlaaxtman (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I think that a big part of the confusion here is the definition of the term "euthanasia." I strongly believe -- and I am sure Carla will agree with me on this -- that the current lead section of Wikipedia's "euthanasia" article is incorrect, at least as a reflection of how the term is commonly used in the U.S. at the present time. David, if you are taking that definition at face value, I believe that is at the root of our disagreement, and is the place where we should focus our efforts.

"Euthanasia" as I understand it, and as I believe it is currently used in the world of palliative care and public policy, refers to an action taken by a doctor or other third party, not by the patient himself. An example of euthanasia would be when a doctor or a relative pours poison down an incapacitated person's throat. That may or may not happen with the patient's prior consent. The term "mercy killing" is a more or less apt description.

The kind of thing that C&C advocates for is fundamentally different. A patient must first be in a terminal state, where she is understood to be dying in a short amount of time; then she is evaluated to determine whether she is of sound mind and capable of independent judgment; assuming that she is, she is then empowered to make a decision about when and how she wants to end her own life.

When the time comes, she must actively drink and swallow the poison of her own free will; the doctor may play an advisory role, but the decision and the action are actively undertaken by the patient. That is why the action is not considered to be euthanasia, but something fundamentally different.

The term "assisted suicide" is also complex; as written into statute in Oregon (and I believe Washington as well), such an action is not considered suicide; suicide is a crime. Legally speaking, it's a choice about when to end one's life (which is already understood to be ending), not whether to end one's life. This is a nuanced legal definition, and I would agree that common usage does not draw the line so finely; so the use of the term "assisted suicide" requires some care depending on whether the context is legal or conversational.

Adding to the complexity of the issue, the use of all relevant terms has had a very swift evolution in the last 30 years or so in the medical world. So sources from 20 or 10 years ago may reflect a different usage than how they're understood now.

Does this make sense? David, do you disagree with any of what I"ve said above? (By way of disclosure: Carla is a friend, and we've had some offline discussion about this.) -Pete (talk) 08:22, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I certainly understand what you're saying, but the two of you are drawing distinctions which are not generally recognized. In that case, the best wikiprocedure would be to oepn up a section in the article on "relation to euthanasia" (which doesn't presently exist; there's only been this discussion-page exchange which started from the mere inclusion of a "see also" reference to a related subject). In that section, you could reasonably talk about "euthanasia" as C&C understands it, and set that beside the views who see the things which C&C advocates as belonging to the larger class. I've looked in every dictionary on my shelf (I've got a lot of them) and do not find that "euthanasia" is regularly understood to exclude the active participation or consent of the principal. Nor do I find anybody but aid-in-dying supporters distinguishing between aid-in-dying and assisted suicide. If these distinctions are important, they should be discussed in their own section. They are evidently not matters of consensus, and should not be treated as such in an encyclopedia article. The two of you are well along towards laying out the reasoning, though citations to relaible external sources would be necessary. Carla mentions that C&C has a section that lays out these distinctions, if I understand correctly. DavidOaks (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

David, you looked in every dictionary on your shelf, but you apparently skipped looking at your own source. I don't know what euthanasia.com, who produces it, or why we should consider it a reliable source. But leaving all that aside for a moment, here's how it describes euthanasia in its main pull-quote on the site:

“ We are committed to the fundamental belief that the intentional killing of another person is wrong. We have deep sympathy for those people who are suffering. ”

The intentional killing of another person. This has zero relation to what the Oregon law permits, or what C&C supports. -Pete (talk) 14:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

If C&C works from a definition of the activities it supports which somehow distinguishes them from both suicide and euthanasia, that definition should be cited here. However, it is authoritative only insofar as it controls what C&C means by the term. In a broader world, we get perhaps the most authoritative view from the OED: The Oxford English Dictionary Online (2nd edition, 1989) s.v. euthanasia: "A gentle and easy death ... The means of bringing about a gentle and easy death...In recent use: The action of inducing a gentle and easy death. Used esp. with reference to a proposal that the law should sanction the putting painlessly to death of those suffering from incurable and extremely painful diseases." Then there's this: BBCNews stated in its July 1, 1999 special report titled "A Euthanasia Glossary": "Euthanasia has many definitions. The Pro-Life Alliance defines it as: 'Any action or omission intended to end the life of a patient on the grounds that his or her life is not worth living.' The Voluntary Euthanasia Society looks to the word's Greek origins - 'eu' and 'thanatos,' which together mean 'a good death' - and say a modern definition is: 'A good death brought about by a doctor providing drugs or an injection to bring a peaceful end to the dying process.' Three classes of euthanasia can be identified -- passive euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide and active euthanasia -- although not all groups would acknowledge them as valid terms." Really, I'm losing track of what's being claimed here -- that physician assisted suicide is not suicide because of the role of the doctor, and not euthanasia because of the role of the patient? That's just not a reasoning that I can imagine most people agreeing to, and that would be the canon for accepting C&C's definition (which, BTW has yet to be brought forward) as definitive. DavidOaks (talk) 15:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph on euthanasia in the "Controversy and criticism" needs to go. As it exists, it does not mention any criticism of Compassion & Choices. It says that opponents have certain fears. The paragraph is cited to two sources, neither of which mentions Compassion & Choices, and neither of which appears to even come close to qualifying as a reliable source.

I don't see how the "euthanasia" category applies, either, but I don't personally think it's a huge problem for euthanasia to be listed under see also. It's unfortunate that the article linked is not in better shape, but that's not grounds for avoiding a link…fixing up the article would be the best approach.

From my perspective, the inclusion of the article about what unnamed opponents fear, which appears to be unrelated to C&C, is the one truly egregious problem with the article, and needs to be addressed as soon as possible.

Hope that clarifies things. -Pete (talk) 06:30, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Gave it further thought, and you've convinced me. There is nothing in the criticism section that refers specifically to C&C, and to go off on objections/concerns with its causes, in the absence of a specific mention, is close to, if not over the line into, WP:coatrack. Out it goes. DavidOaks (talk) 13:29, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

An issue of sources remains -- there really are none for the affirmative statements made about the organization and its work. Will tag. DavidOaks (talk) 15:02, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reconsidering. Yes, I think WP:COATRACK is a good concise description of what I was saying. And I agree there's plenty of room for improvement on the article overall, and look forward to working with you on it. Thanks David. -Pete (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Removed non-neutral section

I just removed the following section that was recently added. While some coverage of that campaign and the various issues may be warranted, it must be presented in a way that is neutral, and draws on a variety of reliable sources. As written, the entire section is sourced to a Catholic publication, which is a biased source in this context. In addition, the text makes claims that go beyond the source article (specifically, asserting as fact an accusation of bigotry that in the source article was merely attributed to a source). Also, the newspaper column referenced in the source article explicitly stated that the pro-I1000 campaign's actions fell short of bigotry.

I suspect this was covered in the mainstream Washington press. Seeking out those articles would be a good way to approach this subject matter, if it is to be included at all. -Pete (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Deleted section: Controversy

During a 2008 ballot initiative campaign that would legalize doctor-assisted suicide in Washington state, Compassion & Choices was accused of engaging in bigotry. Before the Church in any way began to respond to the intitiative Compassion & Choices stated that the Church "will be the enemy". The executive director of the Washington State Catholic Conference, Dominican Sister Sharon Park, stated, "Compassion & Choices is playing on emotion, fear and anti-Catholic bias.” The Seattle Post-Intelligencer's columnist Joel Connelly in a column on “Catholic baiting” concurred that they were "dispensing noxious stuff, at least to a chosen few of the secular faithful.” The group was accused of using the Catholic Church as a bugaboo, a “scare” tactic, targeting those living in an unchurched region.

Restored section. It is not surprising that an organization which is engaged in controversial work encounters oppostion. It is not surprising that the opposition will have a POV. It's well-sourced. But it IS a bit heavy handed, over-reliant on a single source. Recommend you find some more, and work towards balance that way. DavidOaks (talk) 00:49, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

David, I can see where you're coming from. A question for you, before getting into the details: do you think this article merits an entire section on the campaign, or would it be better to add the detailed account to Washington Initiative 1000 (2008), and merely summarize and link it here -- say, under a section called "Legislative advocacy"? (I'm rather inclined to approach it that way, but not totally sure what's best. So I'm curious what you think would be the best approach.) -Pete (talk) 01:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable and right -- the section as it stands is way out of proportion. A mention is probably necessary, but not much more (in my view, anyhow). Let me give it a try. DavidOaks (talk) 01:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tried to broaden the topic to conflict with the Church more generally, but there are lots more right-to-life organizaitons that have expressed opinions. I didn't follow up on the columnist's sources as you did. DavidOaks (talk) 02:00, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

This section still needs work (and as discussed above, should probably not be a full section in this article, but a mention with a link in the "Legal work" section). The following sentence (as of this writing, the final sentence of the article) is a problem:

"before any offical communication from the Roman Catholic Church had apppeared, Compassion & Choices stated that the Church "will be the enemy"."

There are several problems.

1. weight: is this claim significant enough to be included in the article, regardless of how well sourced it is?
2. context. In the context of a political campaign, identifying an adversary, or even referring to them as an "enemy," is a pretty commonplace thing. So even if somebody at C&C or on the I-1000 campaign said those words, quoting them in an article like this is questionable. Anyone with a basic understanding of the politics of this issue could have easily predicted that the Catholic Church would be a significant opponent; as was clearly borne out in the campaign. If there was a person who used a bit of language that may have been ill-advised hardly seems to help inform the reader about the organization as a whole.
3. attribution: the statement is in quotations, implying that the words were spoken. However, they are not attributed to any individual. If we knew who (allegedly) said these words, maybe we could take a stab at establishing appropriate context; but we don't.
4. sourcing: disregarding everything above, we simply can't include this sentence, because it is not an accurate reflection of what the source says. The source (a Catholic newspaper) does not assert that C&C made the statement; it merely asserts that one of its sources asserted that. Big difference. From the source article:

"[Sister Sharon Park] said that before the Church began to publicly respond to the threat of the assisted suicide initiative, pro-initiative campaigners claimed that the Church “will be the enemy.”"

This final point is the important one. The source article is written in a pretty neutral tone; it quotes sources from various sides of the issue, etc. On the whole, I think the source -- even though it's a Catholic newspaper -- probably qualifies as a reliable source. But we cannot go beyond what the source says. The article merely attributed the statement to one individual, which is not the same thing as asserting it as fact. Which, at present, is what's done in this Wikipedia article. -Pete (talk) 19:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(Re: 1) Certainly a controversy section belongs -- obviously there is controversy over aid-in-dying (or whatever term one prefers). Yes, I'd say this was a very public act, which reveals how the organization is regarded by the predominant right-to-life entity, and how it in turn regards that opposition -- very much a matter of encyclopedic interest. DavidOaks (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(Re: 2) It's unusually forceful, unequivocal. Deleting it feels like concealment.DavidOaks (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

(Re: quote from Park) Then that's the precise language to use. But disappearing the reference altogether is inapporpriate. DavidOaks (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

So let's tweak. DavidOaks (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

David, please take a look at this: Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Article structure. I don't think a separate "controversy" section is ideal. However, I believe the overall structure of this article needs some attention, so there may not really be a good alternative until we've addressed that basic issue. Anyway, something to think about.

As for the quote: have you read the source article yet? If not, I hope you will read it before we go much further. In the article, there's not a tremendous amount of weight placed on that quote. It concerns me that it's very precise and strong language, but is not attributed to any individual or given any context in the source article.

For what it's worth, I want to assure you that I'm not trying to erase the fact that the Catholic Church regards this organization's goals with a skeptical eye, or has been critical of its tactics. That seems like an important element to include in the article. My concerns are about the way it's presented, and the relative weight given to the issue. (Though as for the WP:WEIGHT component, it may be better to think about expanding the rest of the article, than trimming this part.)

As we agreed before, there is a need for general improvement to the article, which will make it easier to incorporate pieces like this. But in the meantime, I think it's important not to over-emphasize this one campaign (which was only one component of the organization's work), or the reaction of the Catholic Church. -Pete (talk) 21:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, familiar with the "controversy" section of the policy. We want to avoid concentrating all the negatives in a single place, leaving the rest a purely positive treatment of the subject. THe exception, however, would be where the subject is actually and notably controversial, as is -- I think -- the case here. Planned Parenthood for example, has a "controversy and criticism" section. Read the article too; maybe you're right, and the precise quote gets undue weight. However, in deleting it, we are perhaps reducing the visibility of criticism of the organization, and it would probably need supplementing with additional stories regarding other campaigns; the current matter is of course merely pars pro tota. DavidOaks

References

Deleted sentence on euthanasia group

In order to maintain article neutrality, I removed the sentence from the introductory graph which cites Compassion & Choices as a group affiliated with euthanasia (Euthanasia Research and Guidance Organization). Compassion & Choices does not advocate or support euthanasia as a part of their work. The listing in the first graph gives a false impression to the contrary. However, it's important that this article link to organizations and sites that reference C&C, so I moved the link to External Links, placing it under the the name "Right To Die Organizations Directory" which as far as I can tell is the name used by those who compiled the list. Carlaaxtman (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

This is an old, and it appears, unresolved issue. It is a documented and cited fact that the organization has been historically associated with euthanasia. It is a fact that it continues to be seen by relevant bodies as associated with euthanasia. It is not approriate to make that information go away. It is very much part of the topic. Now, it is very clear that you hold that the organization has nothing to do with euthanasia. If you can find a WP:RS that says so, you should add it as a qualifier -- not a replacement -- for the existing sentence. Euthanasia has not yet been authoritatively re-defined so as to exclude physician-assisted-end-of-life-choice, or whatever the preferred term is. DavidOaks (talk) 17:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

With respect, Compassion & Choices has never advocated or promoted or associated themselves with euthanasia in any way. There may be some organizations that erroneously list them that way. But the organization's advocacy is for pain management and legalized aid-in-dying. Euthanasia is listed nowhere on the organization's website as part of their work. After doing a search on the site, I can't find the word "euthanasia" anywhere in association with what the organization does. If you find otherwise, please advise. The common understanding of the term "euthanasia" is in reference to a physician or other individual administering a lethal injection in order to cause death (http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=7365). Aid in dying, which is part of the advocacy for Compassion & Choices is defined as "mentally competent, terminally ill adults to request a prescription for life-ending medication from their physician. This medication must be self-administered."(http://www.compassionandchoices.org/learn/glossary). The University of Washington School of Medicine, Department of Ethics gives two distinct definitions for "euthanasia" and "physician assisted suicide", specifically maintaining that they are not the same thing. (http://depts.washington.edu/bioethx/topics/pas.html#ques1) Karen Ward, RN has compiled a list of professionals and professional organizations that define the terms differently as well. <(http://www.northcountrygazette.org/articles/030106Differentiating.html). Please understand that I am in no way attempting to replace the sentence in question. I'm merely moving the citation to "External Links" in order to maintain a neutral article. Carlaaxtman (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please look again at your source. It notes that the term you have chosen as neutral is in fact biased. You need to get official statements from C&C that clarify their working definition of euthanasia. Those statements would be placed alongside of -- not replace -- the factual and documented circumstance that C&C is classed by an authoritative body as a euythanasia-supporting group. I appreciate your frankness about your role as an advocate. That's just not what Wikipedia does -- we cannot deny the fact that physician-assisted-suicide is generally seen as very closely related to euthanasia. Only in the context of the Washington and Oregon initiatives do I find the distinction you're drawing -- and those initiatives were authored by C&C (the BBC certainly draws the lines differently[1]) This is a problem WRT WP:COI. For the present, I won't insist on a rv, waiting for others to weigh in, but will reformat the external links list. DavidOaks (talk) 19:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Respectfully, the working definition of "euthanasia" for C&C comes directly from their own glossary, as listed on the organization's official website. In addition, the other sources I listed also specifically provide distinctly different definitions for the two terms. These are, as far as I can tell, unbiased, neutral sources having nothing to do with the Oregon and Washington initiatives, per se. As I understand it, this would be the exactly the type of sourcing that Wikipedia seeks in order to maintain information-friendly, unbiased articles. I've also come across another source, which I believe will provide further insight. A Feb 2000 study in the New England Journal of Medicine also specifically delineates the two terms: "The physician decided to administer a lethal medication in 21 of the cases of assisted suicide (18 percent), which thus became cases of euthanasia." (http://euthanasia.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=000190#answer-id-001266). Thank you so much for the reformatting of the External Links list. I am still struggling to get all of the formatting stuff correct. Appreciate your patience with that.Carlaaxtman (talk) 19:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Just reminding everyone that editwarring can get you blocked. Please discuss instead of continually reverting thanks. Katr67 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Looks like this discussion is heading toward something we can all work with. David, the link you provided lists 5 separate definitions from sources that appear pretty authoritative; the BBC definition is the only one that draws any connection between euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide. Even that one acknowledges that the connection was not universally accepted (at the time of its publication, over 10 years ago). So while I agree that the subject of euthanasia is not totally off-limits for this article, I don't believe it's appropriate to mention something so tenuously connected to the organization in the lead section. I think the external links placement is appropriate. -Pete (talk) 09:47, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm actually not convinced we've arrived at NPOV; what a quick search of web refs makes v clear is that anti-euthanasia groups see C&C as very much part of euthanasia advocacy -- they do not recognize the distinction between the actual administration of lethal drugs by patient as opposed to by physician, while that distinction is forwarded and emphasized by C&C and affiliates. That looks like strategic euphemism; if so, it's Wikipedia's role to make the fact visible, not to assist in it. One way of doing so is to create a breif subsection on the semantics involved, which would link to a better-developed discussion at euthanasia. DavidOaks (talk) 12:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

David, I agree that there is significant mindful disagreement (in some cases) and simple confusion (in others) about the proper use of 'euthanasia', and related terms. However, our guideline on reliable sources states unequivocally that we are to place the highest value on peer-reviewed scholarly publications. In addition, a reading of literature (both mass media and journal articles) shows a strong progression in the way terms are used over the last 30 years or so; in the 1980s, it was much more common to have a term like 'euthanasia' used interchangeably with 'physician-assisted suicide' in a newspaper article.

The shift in terminology is, I believe, something that has happened in order to draw out distinctions that ease discussion of these matters. I strongly agree with you that a clear elucidation of the history of the terminology is an important piece of the puzzle, and is an important area to focus our work on Wikipedia (and the euthanasia article seems as good a place as any to conduct that work). I think that's maybe the most valuable thing we could do, in terms of helping the reader understand this subject area.

Anyway, to the matter at hand: a discussion of the term 'euthanasia' does not belong in a two sentence lead section about an organization that has nothing to do with euthanasia, as defined by scholarly authorities. It may be that we should include some discussion of the term and how the practice of euthanasia and/or inconsistent use of the term relate to the organization. But it would need to be in a lower section. The article exists primarily to explain what the organization is and does; introducing misconceptions about it in the lead section, before its mission and nature have been fully exposed, serves only to confuse the reader. -Pete (talk) 17:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a quick note -- I've talked with Carla about how helpful it would be with all these articles to have an "umbrella" term that encompasses the full range of right-to-die and involuntary euthanasia.I just found this in the introduction to this published study: the term "medically assisted dying" is used as an umbrella term. I wonder if this could help in efforts to improve the articles on assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc. Take a look: http://pmj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/23/3/205 -Pete (talk) 22:07, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

WP not controlled by subjects of articles

This diff[2] is only one of many examples in the history of the article where terminology is adjusted to reflect what the organization prefers, or to suit the organization's preference for distance from the predecessor organization. Another example, the definition of euthanasia, where there's certainly a movement on to distinguish that term from physician-assisted-suicide, but no nonpartisan consensus for it). If the organization has a statement about its own policies or terminology, it belongs here, but it doesn't trump everything else, and the WP article cannot be an instrument for its image-management. At least one of the editors self-identifies as an employee/advocate of the org, and that's in itself not WP:COI but it's grounds for restraint and caution. What the article can't do is privilege a controversial organization's own account of their identity when wp:rs's offer a different view. DavidOaks (talk) 00:41, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the claimed sources, and maybe not reading well or carefully, but I'm not seeing that the action is about the terminology/usage[3][4][5] Can someone help me find that particular phrasing? I do see that they don't like the usage in the "Liebert" letter to the editor...DavidOaks (talk) 00:51, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The laws in Oregon and Washington advocated for by Compassion & Choices are about legal physician aid in dying. Both laws specifically state that the law is not to be construed as "assisted suicide". The Oregon Death With Dignity Act is ORS 127.880 s.3.14, which can be found here: http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ors.shtml. The Washington Law mirrors that statute. I will add the Oregon statute to the reference list in the lede for appropriate reference. On the Blick case (referenced above by DavidOaks), the case itself is about challenging the Connecticut state law on "assisting a suicide" not covering legal aid in dying. 96.225.229.49 (talk) 05:09, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great, 96.225.229.49; by all means include it in a section someone ought to write on C&C's efforts to reform terminology. But don't declare the language changed because C&C filed a lawsuit in two jurisdictions. You're drawing a distinction -- or rather, referencing and privileging a distinction C&C is working very hard to create -- that isn't generally recognized. That is just not how language works. A wp:RS (medical journal) views this activity as assisted suicide (as would any reasonable person looking at those two words). Common usage sees a very close relation to euthanasia. It is understndable that C&C resists these things for PR reasons, but WP is not here to assist them in PR-targeted euphemism nor to help them engineer the language, per WP:SOAP. DavidOaks (talk) 11:30, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the section in question is C&C's advocacy work, correct? They are advocating for law and policy about legal aid in dying. The two laws (Oregon and Washington) state that they are specifically not to be construed as "assisted suicide". Now we see that the Oregon Department of Health and Human Services uses "legal aid in dying" as their description of the law (based on reading the link provided two comments above). The Blick v. Connecticut case isn't about language, but about the criminalization of "assisted suicide" vs legal physician aid in dying. At the very least, the laws in place and the objective government entity using "aid in dying" would indicate that in fact the terminology is not only generally recognized, it's a part of the medical and legal vernacular. I agree that WP is not an avenue to assist an organization in a PR campaign. It's here to provide objective, factual information to inform readers. If C&C has conducted an education (or PR--I suppose depending on POV) campaign to change terminology and the law, government organizations and medical professional organizations agree with them (I can provide that information on the professional organizations if it's helpful), then why would Wikipedia not?Carlaaxtman (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a way to solve the issue is to create a section about the language/terminology discussion. It's clear that C&C does not see itself as advocating for assisted suicide. It's also clear that American College of Legal Medicine [6],American Medical Women's Association[7],American Public Health Association [8], Washington State Psychological Association [9],American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine [10] view allowing terminally ill, mentally competent patients to obtain a prescription to end their life at the time of their choosing--not suicide. Based on the position statements, they generally consider the term inaccurate and pejorative. It would seem under these circumstances that a different section is in order and that the terminology should not be in the lede. Carlaaxtman (talk) 16:58, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's right, a section on terminology would be good, so long as it's WP:NPOV. Clearly C&C sees the term "assisted suicide" as a problem, as they do "euthanasia," and they are clearly going at it energetically. As you recognize, Wikipedia is not an instrument for them to pursue that solution -- they're using the courts for that -- but it is a place to lay out the problem as it appears in the public arena...totally appropriate.

Meanwhile, it is simply a matter of indisputable fact that a good many people do not draw lines the way C&C wants them drawn, and the courts of Washington and Oregon have no authority over the language. A legal distinction between "legal aid in dying" and "assisted suicide" in any, or even all, American jurisdictions does not, and cannot, make the language of a medical journal dissapear. That would be pretty close to a definition of legalism. It's real simple -- most people understand the act of taking positive steps to end one's life as suicide, and they also understand making the means to do so available as assistance. That's not going away. So we can have a section on terms of art. But C&C gets to choose their terms on their site, not here. DavidOaks (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Information Source: Video

Hi folks... PBS has a "FrontLine" episode titled "The Suicide Plan" that mentions Compassion & Choices and other entities. If the link does not work try www.pbs.org and search for "The Suicide Plan". The following link was working 14 November, 2012: http://video.pbs.org/video/2304058290 Obbop (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Compassion & Choices. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.compassionandchoices.org/learn
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110717203058/http://www.compassionandchoices.org/act/legal_work/Blick to http://www.compassionandchoices.org/act/legal_work/Blick

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:14, 11 August 2017 (UTC)