Jump to content

Talk:Non-voluntary euthanasia/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Spina bifida pic

IE is used in the modern world (Netherlands) only for children born with severe forms of this condition. It is absolutely appropriate to have it on the page. ► RATEL ◄ 23:18, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've removed the picture, as it didn't seem like the ideal choice. The image showed anencephaly. My understanding is that this is likely to have resulted in a stillborn birth, and the life expectancy of someone suffering from this disorder is counted in the days, with the child never reaching consciousness. Thus it would be a case of withdrawal of treatment rather than euthanasia. - Bilby (talk) 23:48, 27 April 2010 (UTC)
If you can find a better one, replace it. Readers need to get an idea of the severity of conditions that lead to IE. ► RATEL ◄ 00:00, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, I certainly agree - it is important that readers understand that the Netherlands legislation is in relation to very extreme cases, as otherwise they could misinterpret its intentions. I've removed the picture for now, and I'll see what can be found: however, the problem we face is that involuntary euthanasia is in relation to extreme suffering or quality of life issues, rather than extreme deformity. Thus illustrating it with a deformity is a tad problematic, as it isn't really the criteria being used - unless we're looking at historical cases (Sparta always springs to mind). - Bilby (talk) 11:06, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm trying to get permission from someone right now to upload a photo of a child with severe hydrocephalus who only lived a few weeks. That should suffice. Hydrocephalus and severe meningomyelocele are the reasons the Dutch docs use for IE. ► RATEL ◄ 14:34, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
I was looking for one of those two as well: they're the main two identified by Verhagen and Sauer's research. btw, there's an interesting response to Verhagen and Sauer, if I can remember who wrote it again, that questions if those two conditions represent significant suffering in the sense that the principle referred to. - Bilby (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

There are a lot of people against IE. I'm not sure the article is the place for describing it. The Groningen protocol may be a better place. ► RATEL ◄ 23:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually, upon checking it seems it is already there. :) It wasn't against involuntary euthanasia in particular, though, just querying what counts as extreme suffering. However, it may be worth having something that states that there is opposition to the Netherlands legislation here, simply for balance, but that's something for later consideration. - Bilby (talk) 02:00, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Murder

As Ratel said the only Netherlands is the only country where involuntary euthanasia is allowed. It is a fact that there at The Netherlands: euthanasia hasn't be decriminalized but it is still considered a murder although under certain circumstances unpunishable for the physicians.[1]. 190.25.109.145 (talk) 05:02, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Your source does not back up what you are saying. I would suggest that you edit the Wikipedia version in your native tongue (there is a Spanish version for instance), because much of what you write is difficult to understand properly. ► RATEL ◄ 10:09, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
False Ratel, the source back up what I'm saying. See by yourself:

"...The Committee is well aware that the new Act does not as such decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide...The new Act contains, however, a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person"

UN - Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Netherlands.[2]

190.27.99.85 (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
And your point is .... ? ► RATEL ◄
What is exactly your question? 190.25.104.148 (talk) 02:48, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I already changed for the better the wording, based on the source. But Ratel has not answered yet. What is exactly his question? 190.25.192.2 (talk) 17:03, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
Before I remove your edit again, I'm going to explain why. Firstly, if you want to make comments about the Groningen Protocol, please make it on the appropriate page, not in the lede paragraph to this article. And if you want to start a section in this article about involuntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, you can do that in a new subsection within the page, but again, not in the lede. Ok? ► RATEL ◄ 23:39, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm not commenting the Groening protocol. In the modern world, euthanasia is not only a medical situation, but a legal situation. The Netherlands is just an example which I used because the article already refered to it. I made a correction, see the new look. 190.27.152.60 (talk) 00:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll try one more time. This article is ONLY about involuntary euthanasia in general. If you want to insert data about the Groningen Protocol or Euthanasia in the Netherlands then you must do that in the appropriate place. You cannot insert general comments about euthanasia or euthanasia in the Netherlands on this page. Ok? ► RATEL ◄ 01:24, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
But, you Ratel was the one who inserted data about Groningen Protocol, thus about euthanasia in the Netherlands, in the definition of this article. My edition goes on the legal point of view which is also part of the modern definition of ANY euthanasia. From the introduced legal point of view: involuntary euthanasia is just a case of euthanasia, Groningen Protocol is an example: it was based on the general Act on euthanasia. So far, as you can read, my edition refers to the Groningen Protocol in the same way your edition does, it means as an example; actually a relevant example, because it is perhaps the only real existing example of not-punishable involuntary euthanasia on the world. Then, see the new improvement of my edition. 190.25.97.110 (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
This page is not about "ANY" euthanasia and this is not the right place to make general comments about euthanasia. In addition, and without wishing to insult you, your command of English is poor and your sentences are malformed and difficult to interpret. Once again, I urge you to edit the Wikipedia version in your native tongue (home language). ► RATEL ◄ 04:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
1. Don't you understand that from the legal point of view which I introduced, involuntary euthanasia is a sub-case of euthanasia??
2. The sentences I put were taken almost literally from the source, as anybody can read above. Perhaps you don't understand the source, is it?. 190.25.97.110 (talk) 04:15, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to understand your point here. If you want to say on the page "Most euthanasia is illegal" then this is the wrong page. Go say that at Euthanasia and the law. ► RATEL ◄ 05:33, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Seems that you Ratel realize that: in the modern world, thus in reality the concept and the definition of involuntary euthanasia are not separable from its medical point of view. Why dont' you realize that in the modern world, thus in reality the concept and definition of involuntary euthanasia are not separable from its legal point of view? or are you suggesting me that you're going to make another wiki-article called "Euthanasia and Medicine" and then you're going to remove here and to move there your edition which refers to "medical situations"? If so, I don't agree. 190.25.97.110 (talk) 07:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I really, really wish you'd stop editing the English wikipedia. Your edits are often nonsensical, incomprehensible, misplaced and tendentious. I hope other editors help me to revert your recent changes. You seem to ignore 3RR, I'm trying not to. ► RATEL ◄ 08:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
You Ratel are not giving any argument but you are just accusing. As any body can see,my edition is almost literally based on the source. Don't you undertsnad the source? Do you think that United Nations (the source) is nonsensical and tendentious? Therefore I asked for an editor assitance, please don't delete my edition until then. 190.25.99.55 (talk) 16:10, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
I also had trouble understanding your wording. I would ask you to get consensus here before adding the content back to the page. --TeaDrinker (talk) 17:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The wording is almost literally based on the source. Tell me what is exactly the point you don't understand so I can improve the thing. Because just deleting is not a help. 190.25.80.226 (talk) 01:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Since you really want to see this addition, why don't you wait until you get a consensus. Otherwise edit warring will get you blocked and no one will get to read what you want seen in the article. - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:11, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Ok. But realize that the guy who is deleting is not helping. Just telling the wording is wrong, when it is almost literally based on the source, that is blatant. Is it a valid reason to delete an edition that Ratel and TeaDrinker are unable to understand the source? perhaps they are unable to understand a legal concept. Why they don't answer what is exactly the point they don't understand? Until a consensus I will assume that the definition of involuntary euthanasia should not include its legal point of view but neither its medical point of view. Until a consensus please don't add any of those editions because they could be misplaced as Ratel suggests.

190.25.80.226 (talk) 01:33, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Tell us in simple words what information you are trying to add to the article. It seems to me that you are keen to say that involuntary euthanasia is murder except for instances when it is legal. Is that right? ► RATEL ◄ 01:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
ANY CHANGES YOU WANT TO MAKE should be discussed here for CONSENSUS. If you continue to edit war and POV push you may find yourself unable to edit. Please stop now. - 4twenty42o (talk) 01:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I demand the SAME TREATMENT GIVEN TO EVERYBODY, or do you prefer to violate the Constitution and the International Law, discriminating me??. If my editions need consensus to be published then also the editions made by the others, for example the edition made by Ratel. Therefore: let us discuss. 190.25.80.226 (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Are you really making a legal threat? Or am I misreading this? - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:20, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I demanded my rights and demanded not to be discriminated. do you think it is a legal threat? 190.25.80.226 (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I am making the good faith assumption that you are not. However if you continue with this you will be reported for edit warring. No one is discriminating against you. But you are POV pushing and wikilawyering. Removing sections because you cant have it your way is not how it is done. If you would like to make changes, discuss it and we'll get a consensus. This may take a few days but this is the accepted way of doing things. - 4twenty42o (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I accept your apologize. Let us discuss the thing. 190.25.80.226 (talk) 02:23, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Tell us in simple words what information you are trying to add to the article. It seems to me that you are keen to say that involuntary euthanasia is murder except for instances when it is legal. Is that right? ► RATEL ◄ 01:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Answering Ratel: In the modern world, involuntary euthanasia is illegal everywhere. Involuntary euthanasia everywhere is defined as a crime, as a murder. But, in the Netherlands (your example), under certain conditions the physician is not punishable if he or she practices involuntary euthanasia. But it doesn't mean involuntary euthanasia is now legal in the Nertherlands, but it means involuntary euthanasia remains illegal, still a crime, a murder, also in the Netherlands. These are basic legal concepts. From the legal point of view there is a difference between legalizing euthanasia and declaring not punishable the euthanasia under specific conditions. The Groningen Protocol (your example) is an example: it is not a law, it is a kind of agreement between the pysicians and the Prosecution Office.

"...The Committee is well aware that the new Act does not as such decriminalize euthanasia and assisted suicide...The new Act contains, however, a number of conditions under which the physician is not punishable when he or she terminates the life of a person"

UN - Concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee : Netherlands.[3]

The legal point of view is not separable from the definition of involuntary euthanasia. For example, it is a fact that if anybody practices an involuntary euthanasia in the Netherlands, then he or she will be prosecuted, unless he or she was a physician, and even in this case an investigation will be followed until a judicial decision. Shortly? Read my edition and also read the source.
Therefore, the medical point of view is not separable from the definition of involuntary euthanasia but also the legal point of view is not separable from the definition of involuntary euthanasia. 190.25.80.226 (talk) 02:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I have read and re-read this like 9 times now. Maybe it is just me, but you are not making any sense to me. What I am reading appears to be redundancy at best. Please try to understand that I am not trying to make fun of you. I am truly confused by all of this. What I see is that you disagree with the legal and medical definition being in the same article. Does anyone understand this? - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:00, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Answering 4twenty42o: Yes, you are confused. Actually I was trying to put the legal definition on the article and Ratel deleted it again and again. Ratel is the one who claims that the medical definition should be in the article but not the legal definition. Does you understand this? 190.25.80.226 (talk) 03:06, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
OK I am beginning to understand your point. I am not sure how the legal definition is relevant though. I understand now what you wish to add but my question is why? What bearing does Dutch law have on this article?? - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
1. It is relevant because every involuntary euthanasia refers to specifics legal situations, actually concerning a crime, be it punishable or not punishable. Why do you think involuntary euthanasia is by definition and "obviously" a medical situation but not a legal situation? why do you think th legal definition is not relevant but the medical one yes?
2. Well, the Groeningen Protocol was introduced in the definition of involuntary euthanasia by Ratel, not by me.
3. Groeningen Protocol was mentioned as an example that in the modern world, involuntary euthanasia refers to some specific medical situations.
4. But Groening Protocol is also an example that in the modern world, involuntary euthanasia refers to some specific legal situations. Groening Protocol is based on the Dutch Law. In fact is a relevant example because the Groening Protocol is unique around the modern world.
5. In my edition, I refered to Dutch Law and Groeningen Protocol in the same way that Ratel refered also to the Groening Protocol: as an example. He used it as an example of the medical definition, I used it as an example of the legal definition.
190.25.80.226 (talk) 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
To the anonymous editor: I suggest we formulate a sentence for the legalisation section stating that IE is currently illegal in all countries except under certain specific circumstances in the Netherlands. However, we also need to state somewhere that IE actually does occur frequently in the form of "terminal sedation" also known as "continuous deep sedation". eg PMID 19854611 ► RATEL ◄ 03:32, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I am not convinced that it belongs in this article. I do however think that your addition would have merit in the Groening Protocol article. - 4twenty42o (talk) 03:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Why not? arguments? 190.25.80.226 (talk) 03:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I do not see where the legal definition has any bearing on this article. I believe that you misunderstand the purpose of the article as well. However, following the spirit of reaching a consensus, if you can reach a consensus I will not object. I do believe by now my objection is noted and I simply ask that before you make any more changes other editors have a chance to chime in. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Means that you will not involve in the discussion? I have to ask because: as far as you are not giving any argument, then, how can we discuss and reach a consensus? 190.25.80.226 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
I told you that my objection is that I do not see what your addition has to do with this article. my exact statement was:
" I do not see where the legal definition has any bearing on this article. I believe that you misunderstand the purpose of the article as well. However, following the spirit of reaching a consensus, if you can reach a consensus I will not object. I do believe by now my objection is noted and I simply ask that before you make any more changes other editors have a chance to chime in. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC) "
That means that I disagree for those reasons. That is my objection. Period. Further I do not believe that you understand English well enough to honestly make this argument, as you keep talking in circles to both myself and Ratel. That is not intended as an insult. I speak quite a bit of Greek but would be sorely out of place editing Greek Wikipedia. I strongly believe that this all makes sense to you and thats wonderful. But until you make sense to me you will not get me to accept your changes out right. However if the community believes that your addition has merit, I will accept that and move on. - 4twenty42o (talk) 04:36, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I already realized about your empty opinions. It means empty of arguments and sources. Not trying to insult you, but how can we reach a consensus with someone who only says: I do not see where the legal definition has any bearing on this article without giving any argument to support that claim? or that is your argument? that you just don't see? You should provide at least a reliable source which demonstrates that in the modern world, the legal definition of involuntary euthanasia is NOT relevant to define it as a whole, and also should provide a reliable source which demonstrates that in the modern world, involuntary euthanasia has nothing to do with some specific legal situations. Or it is your-own-opinion the criteria to add or to delete info in this wikipedia? 190.25.80.226 (talk) 05:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


Block !!

I'm not going to comment on anything here except 190's behavior. I'm leaving it here instead of at his talk page because he jumps IPs too often. OK. 190, I don't really care what your beef is with this article, but you need to learn how Wikipedia works. You don't get to introduce a change to an article, and then demand (through edit warring) that it stay until there is a consensus to remove it. You don't have the sole right to decide what the right or wrong version is. When someone reverts your work, you discuss it. And when no one agrees with you, you seek dispute resolution. Your determination to continue edit warring is what got you blocked, and since you won't stay blocked, I've protected the page so you can't edit it for two weeks. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
But the thing was already clear!!! I'm not editing the article since we are discussing here since a lot of minutes ago!!!! 190.25.80.226 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

The Discussion again

Answering Ratel:
1. It is a fact that involuntary euthanasia by definition refers to some specific medical situations. Groening Protocol being just an example, as Ratel quoted.
2. It is a fact that involuntary euthanasia by definition refers to some specific legal situations, indeed: exceptions of punishment. Groening Protocol being just an example as I quoted.
3. Therefore, the legal definition must be included in the definition part as the medical definition.
4. And you are wrong Ratel, I tried to explain, but lets do it again: involuntary euthanasia is illegal everywhere. It is illegal and defined as a crime also in the Netherlands. But the physician is not punishable under certain conditions. There is a difference between legal and not punishable. For example: in some cases one could be not punished although commited a murder, for example selfdefense, but it is still a murder and murder remains being an illegal crime, and even an investigation will be initiated anyway by the prosecutor.
190.25.80.226 (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
190.. I believe it is time for a wiki break. You are being awfully repetitious now. Give us some time to consider your questions and take a break man. Go out and smell the flowers. - 4twenty42o (talk) 05:46, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

End of war

IP 190.*, it is time to give up. Admins will block this and other euthanasia pages for longer and longer periods if you do not stop this warring around this issue, as happened at Action T4. I have made it clear in the article that IE is not legal, that it has legal as well as medical dimensions, and that should satisfy you. If you absolutely must have some other point made, come to my Talk page and discuss it there rather than disrupt this page. Thanks. ► RATEL ◄ 06:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Page semiprotected for 72 hrs

This page has been semiprotected (no anonymous edits) due to the anon IP's vandalism spree, for the next 3 days. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:17, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Involuntary euthanasia versus non-voluntary euthanasia

Regarding euthanasia, one typically ([4], [5]) distinguishes at least three different situations:

  1. Voluntary euthanasia, where the consent of the patient is given
  2. Non-voluntary euthanasia, where the consent of the patient is unavailable (for example, in infants and certain comatose people)
  3. Involuntary euthanasia, where the consent of the patient is available but not given

This article muddles the issue but conflating the latter two. I suggest moving most of the information here to Non-voluntary euthanasia, while simultaneously creating a new article on Involuntary euthanasia. Any objections? Gabbe (talk) 12:18, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

No, not okay. Your first link is to an essay written by a nurse, and the defs you quote are derived by her from a defunct Christian website. The other page is not from a peer-reviewed publication either. This is a medical topic. Find sources at PubMed (Medline). ► RATEL ◄ 13:42, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

This is the preferred defn: PMID 12693180 --> "non-voluntary (when patients are incompetent) and involuntary euthanasia (when patients are competent and made no request to die)". Both could be handled within this article. ► RATEL ◄ 13:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
I agree, the refs I provided are inadequate. If that's the problem I could certainly find more reliable sources. However, I still think the topics are too distinct for them to be lumped together like they are in this article. For one, while non-voluntary euthanasia has its proponents (for example Peter Singer), involuntary euthanashttps://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Talk:Involuntary_euthanasia&action=edit&section=7ia is more universally opposed. If you insist on treating the two in the same article, could we at least change the title to Non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia (as per the article you mentioned)? Gabbe (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
The problem, as I see it, is that the term non-v. euthanasia (NVE) is rarely used. IE is the usual term. IE as you define it does no exist in the world today, or do you have examples? ► RATEL ◄ 14:23, 2 May 2010 (UTC)
Are you sure it's the usual term? For example:
  • the Australian Medical Association [6]
  • BBC's page on ethics
  • A 2006 article by Manninen (doi:10.1136/jme.2005.014845, "not involuntary active euthanasia, as I have heard some describe it,")
  • The American Medical Association [7] (also adding that "it is difficult to imagine a merciful assistance to death ever occurring against a competent person's will.")
etc. all prefer definitions more or less in line with the one at the top of this section. Which reliable sources use "involuntary euthanasia" in the sense that "non-voluntary euthanasia" is defined above? Gabbe (talk) 16:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm referring to the medical literature, eg PMID 11766225 . There, NVE and IE are used interchangeably, when NVE is used at all, and IE by your definition would be simple murder, much as the Nazis used in WWII. The BBC defines it as something that would occur as a mercy-killing, so unusual as to be vanishingly rare. I cannot find "non-voluntary" in dictionaries either, only "involuntary". The point I am making is that IE is the term usually used in the medical and other literature for what you now want to define as NVE. Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. ► RATEL ◄ 23:17, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Example of usage from medical lit.: "Deliberate termination of life of newborns (involuntary euthanasia)" PMID 17929034

There are many more too, but I found PMID 17703700, which does support the definition you propose, so I am not going to oppose the change. Go ahead, but fix all the links and add a new section to the main switchboard page, Euthanasia. ► RATEL ◄ 23:33, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've done the move, and will spend more time tidying up any mixups in other articles. Gabbe (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Deleting sourced contents

TickleMeister is trying to delete the following content, which was already added and discussed and worded by consensus months ago:

Although effectiveness of these legal restrictions has been brought into question, as it has been argued that the Netherlands have seen the gradual introduction of more lax legal restrictions since euthanasia was first legalized and there are still a significant percentage of cases of euthanasia practiced illegally ergo violating even the current legal permissions.<ref>LA «PENDIENTE RESBALADIZA» EN LA EUTANASIA EN HOLANDA («SLIPPERY SLOPE» AND EUTHANASIA IN THE NETHERLANDS), Javier Vega Gutiérrez e Íñigo Ortega, Cuad. Bioét. XVIII, 2007/1a, [http://www.aebioetica.org/rtf/04-BIOETICA-62.pdf]</ref>

That section goes about that debate and this is precisely one point of view in that debate. Why to delete it? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 16:46, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

I like to know who are you referring to in your comment "This version was discussed months ago with other users and we got a consensus. Instead editing warring, deleting sourced contents just go to discuss page." Who is we and when was months ago because you are only a few days active on this article. Eddylandzaat (talk) 20:47, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

See here, for example: [8] when precisely that content was moved by Bilby from involuntary euthanasia article to this article. And at any case, you are not giving any reason to delete that content now. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 21:28, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Aha, so you and PepitoPerez2007 are the same person? Eddylandzaat (talk) 21:43, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Let me ask for third time: the reason to delete is??? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
TickleMeister pointed out in his edit summary that it is a non-peer-reviewed medical journal in a foreign language, and he linked to the content guideline page WP:MEDRS. You yourself have been deleting sourced statements, or making them vanish into the footnotes on the grounds of "repetition". Xanthoxyl < 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
But I also linked the guidline page which states that a cite in foreign language is allowed [9] and I pointed out clearly that WP:MEDRS does not applies to this section as it is not a section on biomedical info, but firstly a legal debate and even a debate on ethical and other aspects. Therefore Why to delete a well sourced claim of that debate if that would be WP:POV? and of course it is worst POV and worst unbalanced as excatly the other side it is now repeated twice. Meanwhile, I will restore the deleted sentence, sourced now also in an english text taken from the journal of medical ethics. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 23:52, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • We don't use low quality primary sources from non-peer reviewed journals when we have excellent secondary sources available. You are guilty of digging up iffy sources to push your fringe POV here, and you have done that under various identities for several years it seems.

My recent changes include a removal of this source, as per consensus, and I also removed Gillon study editorial [10], which does not state that euthanasia in Holland is "out of control" but ends with a question, asking whether or not there is a slippery slope in Holland and asks for more study. It is therefore not a useful source here. TickleMeister (talk) 02:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Letr me quote. The first paragraph of Gillon says: "...two staunch opponents of euthanasia ... conclude ... the practice of voluntary euthanasia remains beyond effective control..." and in page 4: "... what is shown by the empirical findings is that restrictions on euthanasia that legal controls in the Netherlands were supposed to have implemented are being extensively ignored and from that point of view it is surely justifiable to conclude ... euthanasia in the Netherlands is in poor control; and in particular, that as well as voluntary euthanasia, which is explicity illegal, involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia are also being carried out, despite their remaining illegal...".
So, I restored the paragraph TickleMesiter removed, as his reasons do not apply. That paragraph says precisely what the sources state, and notice that this paragraph concludes nothing about slipery slope as neither the sources do, but this paragraph, as well as the sources, deals with effectiveness of legal resrictions on euthanasia whic is an aspect of the slipery-slope debate. I wonder and hope TickleMeister is not instigating an edition war again but we would find a solution here. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
The "out of control" statement is in another study referred to by this editorial. You cannot use the editorial as a source for that. If you want to use that, I suggest you find out what the study is named and source the statements to that. The editorial concludes, as I stated, that more study is required. TickleMeister (talk) 07:06, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Easy, I will correct the cite, so it is not necessary to delete it as you also recognize the study actually exists. But I understand that wikipedia allows secondary and tertiary sources and an editorial compiling and umarizing is actually a seecondary source, reliable and verifiable. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 07:12, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Dubious sources

I see you now have the (re-inserted) sentence correctly sourced (even though it is still ungrammatical and clumsy). However, it is a poor source. It is a paper written by employees of the Lindeboom Institute, which describes itself as working "within the Christian tradition" and "finding its authoritative direction and inspiration in de (sic) Bible." This sort of source is not mainstream and does not belong in the encyclopedia, at least not without clear qualification. TickleMeister (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The editor of Journal of medical ethics[11] also support that statement, and he agrees with those authors. Actually it is a study by those authors published in that peer-reviewed journal. I remember that the wording was made by User:Bilby. And, how did you determine that mainstream point of view is that legal restrictions on euthanasia are effective in Holland and that euthanasia is under legal control? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 08:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
He does not "agree with those authors". See section on misuse of editorial below. TickleMeister (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Gillon editorial misuse

User ClaudioSantos has repeatedly inserted a cherry-picked comment from an editorial by Raanan Gillon [12]. Gillon does say that the (religiously-motivated) Lindeboom study is justified in concluding that Dutch legal guidelines are sometimes being ignored, for instance by acceding to euthanasia requests from patients when palliative care would be an alternative, but he also counterbalances this with opinions from other studies —featured in that edition of the journal— that find that this actually represents a recognition of the growing importance of the patient's wishes. In other words, even though palliative care is an option with some conditions, the patient is sometimes allowed to choose euthanasia instead, for their own personal reasons (e.g. a wish to avoid inevitable suffering and loss of dignity). So simply to quote one side of Gillan's complex editorial comment here is an abuse of a source. In actual fact, Gillan concludes his editorial by stating that a properly designed study that takes the subtleties of the situation in account would be required before concluding that there is a slippery slope in Holland. So the use of the editorial should either be disallowed, or all the arguments allowed in, both sides if the debate (which would grossly breach wp:WEIGHT considerations, in all likelihood). The entire slippery slope section has become overweight, off-topic, and coatrack-y. It is now a soapbox for an opponent of any form of euthanasia to air his strident views, in my opinion. How do other editors feel? TickleMeister (talk) 15:59, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

TickleMeister, now the section is longer than some weeks ago because you actually inserted more and more paragraphs, 3 or even 4 as anyone can verify, all of them repeating arguments pro euthanasia and against slippery slope claims. Attending your concern about Gillion, in my edition I wrote that according to this author: it is a question if slipery slope is happening in Holland; but another user deleted that sentence when he/she reworded the paragraph. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:12, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
The phrase "it is a question if the slippery slope is happening in Holland" is not in any way adequate as a counterbalance. This will all have to be addressed in the new article. TickleMeister (talk) 01:23, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
TickleMeister, as you are so concerned in counterbalancing, can you explain me what is the counterbalance for the last paragraph of that section which you inserted? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
This editorial is not a research on his own. It summarizes the three papers in the magazine. As source it is completely useless. In fact the editorial also set some question marks at the first article, written by "staunch opponents"... Eddylandzaat (talk) 02:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I support removal of comments from an editorial. There are many, many good studies we can draw on in this debate without resorting to equivocating editorials. TickleMeister (talk) 01:14, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
It seems that for you TickleMeister, "good studies" are those which support your own point of view. For example, you demanded sources wrote not in spanish (althoug allowed by WP policies) and based on a peer reviewed source, when I provided one, then you just reproached that its authors are christians (argumentum ad hominem) and allegedely "fringe". Moreover, until now every study you inserted in the article supports one point of view, your point of view and you made it overweighted to that side and you always try to delete each sentence against that point of view, although being sourced in verifiable, reliable, peer reviewed sources as you demanded. So it seems you delete just using each excuse you find or even without using any excuse but just deleting because it is against your own opinion on the topic. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 06:12, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not going to argue with you because you do not seem interested in consensus and keep reverting to your version despite the objections of others. TickleMeister (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
In that case I like to submit Medische beslissingen rond het levenseinde bij jonge kinderen (june 2006) what is a very balanced story by a Christian doctor. Eddylandzaat (talk) 01:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
And Holland Doc: Als we het zouden weten is useful as background source for the dilemma's the doctors face with treating, not-treating or stop treating. Eddylandzaat (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Dispute about text, advice needed (picture)

ClaudioSantos and me are the main participants in a dispute about the best text for the photo showing hydrocephalus

ClaudioSantos' text: 

Severe hydrocephalus. Infants like this can be subject to non-voluntary euthanasia in the 
Netherlands if the parents decide it and the doctor agrees.

My text: 

Severe hydrocephalus. Infants like this can be subject to non-voluntary euthanasia in the
Netherlands if the parents decide it is the best choice for their child and the doctor agrees.

The contested part is is the best choice for their child. Claudio claims it is a point of view and not neutral. I don't agree with that.

As a Dutchman and formerly living in Groningen (!) I have followed the discussion closely about the [[Groningen Protocol]. Luckely I don't know how it feels when parents have to decide that the best option for their child is to let it die, actively or passively. I sincerely hope that nobody here knows how that feels. Even if the parents came to that horrible decision, there are many hurdles to take before doctors can start acting. It is not a case of deciding on monday and on tuesday the child is dead. Consultation with social workers is necessary (with peer review). If they advice positively, consultation with several doctors (and peer review) is necessary. In the whole process the parents are under scrutiny about their decision. Only is the whole process is completed the doctor(s) get permission to act.

It is a terrible decision to make and it angers me to see is disqualified as POV. Time to get some independent advice on this mattter. Eddylandzaat (talk) 13:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

If "euthanasia" is the best choice is a point of view not a fact as it is presented in the photo. If the parents really believe it is the best chpoice is also a non verifiable fact but a claim. And of course if death is better than life is a non verifiable fact at all. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:57, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Have you ever been in the situation to be able to make a proper judgement about it? Or are you just plain against it? Eddylandzaat (talk) 20:26, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
You already told us that you don't know how it feels to be in that situation, so ask yourself your own question: are you able to make a proper judgment about it?. But if I truly understand and feel in my own flesh how hard is that situation, it has nothing to do with Wikipedia's policies. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
Wrong. You are referring to Talk:Groningen Protocol but article is about "active ending of life on infants". True, I don't know how that feels, because I have no kids myself. But I have seen the suffering of my granny. Worn out after 96 years in this planet. Unable to walk, stand or even turn in het bed. Unable to sleep because of the pain. Incapable of talking with her voice (but she could communicate with her eyes nd by squeezing your hands). Four of her kids asked the GP to end her suffering but he had to refuse because it was still illegal at that time. Eddylandzaat (talk) 20:33, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Although religious editions can not be ignored in a section which goes precisely on a debate about euthanasia, at any case actually I haven't made any religious editions neither tendentious. So you better refrain your non encycolpedic comments against me. These sort of images perhaps illustrates that medical diagnosis ("severe hydrocephalia") but it does not illustrate a non-voluntary euthanasia article. Actually it is tendentious because it is trying to force a favorable opinion justifying non-voluntary euthanasia, as these images were inserted by an user [13] which used these pictures precisely in that way and for that purpose in a debate about euthanasia in other discussion page, thus trying to justify non-voluntary euthanasia as he said [14]. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 16:40, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The fact that a banned user placed an inappropriate picture on this page which was later removed does not change the fact that "if the parents decide it is the best choice for their child" is not a POV. Any opponent of euthanasia would obviously disagree with their decision as to what was best. I have to assume a blindspot in English grammar has left you confused over what the caption actually means. Xanthoxyl < 14:46, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I think we do not have to discuss the caption as it is a recognized fact that it is an inappropiate picture placed by a banned user, so we can take that picture out of the article. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 00:15, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I was referring to the inappropriate spina bifida picture, which was already replaced a long time ago! Xanthoxyl < 11:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Like other here, I oppose the removal of the picture. It is most appropriate. These are the only sorts of persons subject to non voluntary euthanasia, so a picture of an exemplar is apposite. TickleMeister (talk) 02:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I oppose the removal too. That the user that placed it is banned, says nothing about the picture. It is appropriate. We might rephrase the caption:

Old caption: 

Severe hydrocephalus. Infants like this can be subject to non-voluntary euthanasia in the 
Netherlands if the parents decide it is the best choice for their child, and the doctor agrees.

New caption: 

Severe hydrocephalus. Infants like this can be subject to non-voluntary euthanasia in the 
Netherlands. But only when the parents decide that this is the best choice for their child, and 
the medical team agrees.
The main change that is isn't "the doctor" who has to agree, but the medical team. There is always a second opinion requiered and also approval of social care workers (or how do you call them in English). So most of the time the case will be put on the table on a team meeting. I hope it is now more clear that a doctor never can decide single handed about euthanesia. If he does, it will be murder. Also that parents of a child have to take the initiative to start the procedure and they have many hurdles to take before approval is granted. If someone takes an easy way out, it will be dicovered and permission refused. Eddylandzaat (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Please not that I'm not a native English speaker. I'm originally from the Netherlands. Eddylandzaat (talk) 03:39, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
I do not agree. Those are not the only patients candidates for non'voluntary euthanasia but that isa picture of candidates to be killed by doctors who will not become prosecuted because of Groineng Protocol. But non-voluntary euthanasia is not restricted to that protocol. Actually non voluntary euthanasia is world-widely illegal and punished as murder, so surely is more appropiate to include a picture of a doctor sentenced in a trial. ClaudioSantos (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
For BLP reasons, pictures of living individuals are not acceptable here. BTW, I cannot understand the second sentence in your comment above. If I am having trouble understanding you, others may be too. TickleMeister (talk) 07:16, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
Oh it is easy to understand my point: it could be a picture for the groening protocol but not for non voluntary euthanasia. Groening Protocol has its own article.Candidates for non voluntary euthanasia are not restricted to that sort of candidates allowed by Groening Protocol. And non voluntary euthanasia is widely practiced around the world illegaly, so groening protocol is a very rare case, non representative of current non voluntary euthanasia. For example, should be inserted a picture of one of those cases not covered by Groening Protocol but widely practiced, with a caption saying: "this is a candidate for non voluntary euthanasia. if doctor euthanasies this patient then should become sentenced as murderer under every legislation"; that would be more representative. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 08:28, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Doctor "will face charges of murder"

This clause, added to the pic text by user ClaudioSantos against the wishes of several other editors, is pure wp:OR. It is opinion. It is unsourced and fails wp:V. Common sense tell you it is not even true, since the euthanasia of severely ill infants with a terminal prognosis goes on all over the world, all the time. The Dutch have merely attempted to codify it. TickleMeister (talk) 16:08, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Take a look in Legality_of_euthanasia. There are enough examples of places where euthanasia is illegal and punishable as homicide. In some places where it has been partially decriminalized, still non-voluntary and involuntary euthanasia remains illegal and punishable as homicide, for example Colombia[15]. Then the caption "in other countries the doctor will face charges of murder" is well founded and is not an opinion as TickleMeister opines. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
There is an important distinction between something being illegal and something being enforced. It is true that in parts of the world such acts are illegal, but this does not entail the further claim that those performing the act will face charges. They may, but not necessarily will. - Bilby (talk) 22:33, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
It is a fact that in other places than Holland, it remains not just illegal but a punishable offense, a crime, which should be prosecuted and judged by criminal law, usually as homicide. Thus it is "something being enforced" by law, as it is a crime in those places. For example, Australia, Colombia, etc[16]. So, it does entail further claim that those doctors performing the act will face criminal charges. --
There are many acts which are technically illegal, but are not enforced. You are entitled to argue that it should be enforced, but this does not mean that it will be or that it is. Going from "it is illegal" to "will face charges" is too big a step, and is not necessarily the case. - Bilby (talk) 23:38, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I'm not arguing that if euthanasia is illegal in those places then it is a crime there. Notice that the affix which I added to the caption, also does not argue that. What I am saying is that actually in other countries than Holland, such an act is a crime therefore the doctor will face criminal charges. And it is a well sourced fact [17] that non-voluntary euthanasia is a crime in other countries than Holland, like in Colombia, or Australia, or Mexico, etc. Therefore the affix is not an opinion but a well sourced fact. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 00:01, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, but do you have the idea that non-voluntary euthanasia is legal in The Netherlands? In that case you are hopelesly wrong. Under certain circumstances and guidelines non-voluntary euthanasia doctors can perform it without legal consequences. But it is still not legal. Only voluntary euthanasia is legal. Eddylandzaat (talk) 02:20, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
Bilby is right. The phrase "will face charges" is conclusionary and presumptive. I have changed the wording to "Infants like this can be subject to non-voluntary euthanasia in the Netherlands —the only country where is it legal— if the parents and doctor decide it is the best choice for their child" — which has the same meaning without the presumptive bias. TickleMeister (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
As it was reverted again, I've changed it from "will face criminal charges" to "may face criminal charges" as a possible compromise. The law allows for the possibility of charges being laid, but whether or not an individual faces them is a decision for the prosecutor. - Bilby (talk) 03:58, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

What is the use of the extra and incorrect phrase In other countries the doctors involved may face criminal charges. The legal status is explained in the article. It makes clear that doctors who screw up the Groningen Protocol may face criminal charges. So not only in elsewhere, but everywhere docters may face charges. That's why a US-based, or Spain-based or Russia-based doctor just won't tell what he has done. Nobody can control that so the slippery slope is far more likely in countries where it happens secretly...

I suggest to remove the phrase mentioned before as it doubles information and is incorrect. Eddylandzaat (talk) 19:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

it was already discussed above. Read the discussion. It does not doble nothing, and Now the caption is more representative of non-voluntAry euthanasia as this is the topic of the article, not groening protocol. --ClaudioSantos (talk) 22:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
I agree, Eddy. It is a phrase inserted by someone who wants to make sure everyone understands that this action may be illegal outside Holland, but it is quite unnecessary. The article text makes it perfectly clear waht the situation is legally. Bilby? TickleMeister (talk) 01:13, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
We already discussed it, and I accepted the changes proposed by User:Bilby, and even you TickleMeister did not raise neither commented any concern with that edition proposed by Bilby, but just mutilated the last part of the phrase. Now you are changing arbitrary the consensus we already got and you deleted without any discussion all the phrase; you first delete and then ask. Therefore I will restore the phrase as it was proposed and edited by Bilby. I was the one who said at the very first time that the picture was superfluos. it is clear that groening protocol is a form of instutionalized non-voluntary euthanasia, so what information is adding that picture? this is not the article about groening protocol and groening protocol is not representative of the situation of non-voluntary euthanasia. Therefore I proposed that if the picture was going to stay then at least we should change the caption to make it more representative. TickleMeister, you are the one involved in making even more unbalanced the article, you merely inserted more and more paragraphs pro-euthanasia and against slippery-slope claims until that section became too large and then you claimed it was too large to split it in a new article. A new article which, just two minutes after you created it, an user proposed for deletion (!!)[18][19]. Precisely and explicity, that user used some sentences from the last paragraph you added to that section, in order to exemplify it was POV[20]; precisely as I said when you added that paragraph. TickleMeister, you also deleted each phrase that you think is against euthanasia. That is WP:POV and it seems that you are not looking for any consensus but merely trying to force your own opinion. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I think Bilby was trying to satisfy you with his wording, but that he agrees with Eddy and me that the entire phrase is better omitted. Bilby? TickleMeister (talk) 14:58, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I was offering it as a compromise to end the edit warring - if it doesn't work as a compromise then we need more discussion. I'm a tad neutral on the topic, but I don't think it adds much - without it the caption still states that this is only possible in the Netherlands, leading one to assume that it isn't legal elsewhere. - 15:00, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
It is not the article about euthanasia in the Netherlands so it is not a representative picture and not a representative caption. And as Eddy said: non-voluntary euthanasia is not legal in the Netherlands, and the caption does not states that. Just keep the caption with: "In other countries the doctors involved may face criminal charges of homicide" as Bilby proposed to stop warring. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
Is in neccessary to make a remark about legal or not? It is illegal everywhere, but under certain conditions not enforced in The Netherlands. To but the legal status correctly in it you have to make a far longer story in the caption. But the article itself explains the legal status and consequences. I don't think it is needed at that place! Eddylandzaat (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Non-voluntary_euthanasia/Archive_1&oldid=791887768"