Talk:Philip Nitschke

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group.

Death: Suicide Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Australia Low‑importance

	Australia portal Philip Nitschke is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Atheism Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Atheism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of atheism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AtheismWikipedia:WikiProject AtheismTemplate:WikiProject AtheismAtheism articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

For more information and how you can help, click the [Show] link opposite:

If you would like to participate, you can edit this article and visit the project page.

Quick help

Recent activity

To do

Join WikiProject atheism and be bold.

Add a userbox to your page ({{User WikiProject Atheism}} or {{User WPA2}}) and attract potential members.
Help with articles.
See this month's adopt-an-article.
Help out with this to-do list.

Be consistent

Use a "standard" layout for atheism-related articles (see layout style, "The perfect article" and Featured articles).
Add Atheism info box to all atheism related talk pages (use {{WikiProject Atheism}} or see info box)
Ensure atheism-related articles are members of Atheism by checking whether [[Category:Atheism]] has been added to atheism-related articles – and, where it hasn't, adding it.

Maintenance, etc.

Find sources for all positions of an article (see Citing sources and atheism references).
Try to expand stubs. Ideas and theories about life, however, are prone to generating neologisms, so some stubs may be suitable for deletion (see deletion process).
Watch the list of atheism-related articles and add to accordingly.
Always write for an encyclopedia.

Articles to improve

Agnosticism

Create

Articles on notable atheists

Expand

an atheism stub

Immediate attention

State atheism needs a reassessment of its Importance level, as it has little to do with atheism and is instead an article about anti-theist/anti-religious actions of governments.
False choice into False dilemma: discuss whether you are for or against this merge here
Clarify references in Atheism using footnotes.
Secular movement defines it as a being restricted to America in the 21st century.

Archives

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Philip Nitschke. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080724102031/http://www.censorship.govt.nz/news-archive-current-peacefulpill.html to http://www.censorship.govt.nz/news-archive-current-peacefulpill.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:21, 30 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

copyvio

Edit of 28 November:

In October 2015, the MBA agreed to lift the suspension but imposed 26 conditions, including that Nitschke no longer gave any advice or information to any member of the public, including patients, about how to take their life (direct vcopyvio bolded)

Source cited (Guardian):

In October the board agreed to lift the suspension but imposed 26 conditions, including that he no longer gave any advice or information to any member of the public, including patients, about how to take their life. Collect (talk) 13:30, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

First voluntary lethal injection

I'm having a bit if a problem with the claim:

"Nitschke was the first doctor in the world to administer a legal, voluntary, lethal injection, after which the patient activated the syringe using a computer."

My concern is that it seems contradictory. The cases Nitschke oversaw were unusual, but ultimately are classified as assisted suicide. In this case, he set up the machine, but the patient administered the injection via the computer. I'm not sure that we can say that both Nitschke and the patient administered it - in this case, it had to be administered by one or the other. Is it administering the injection to set up the machine, or is it administering the injection to cause the injection to be given? - Bilby (talk) 10:03, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nitschke gave the injection. He inserted the needle. The patient made a selection on the screen and the machine depressed the plunger. It seems pretty clear to me. Nitschke injected, and his machine and software pushed the plunger. Nitschke was the active agent, the patient was simply giving electronic consent. All legally, first time ever. Not sure why you are confused. Ratel (talk) 11:12, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The patient made a selection on the screen and the machine depressed the plunger" - that's the key step that makes this assisted suicide. If Nitschke had triggered the injection, it would have been euthanasia. But instead he built a machine which allows the final choice - the administration of the drug - to be made solely by the patient, which is why this was termed as assisted suicide. If the patient administers the drug by triggering the machine, it seems that Nitschke could not have administered the drug. He certainly assisted in its administration, but that has happened before under other assisted suicide laws. - Bilby (talk) 11:33, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No, this goes well beyond physician assisted suicide (PAS), which involves giving someone the drug or more usually, a prescription for the drug. The only input from the patient was an affirmation, everything else was done by PN or his machinery. You'd have a hard time convincing a court that this is PAS. Ratel (talk) 21:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The machine wasn't there just to accept the affirmation - it was there to deliver the drug when triggered by the patient. It was not Nitschke who administered the injection, or who caused the injection to be administered. It was the patients triggering the process set up by Nitschke that caused their deaths. The source you are lining to is a bit confused, but describes it repeatedly as both euthanasia and assisted suicide. Our article on the machine makes this clear, and Nitschke has described how it was important to him that the patient was in control of the administration of the drugs [1], and that the machine was there so that he did not have to administer the injection, instead allowing the patient to choose to do so themselves - even if he was not in the immediate personal space when the patient made that decision. - Bilby (talk) 22:43, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It's a grey area we can debate, but in the end that description has been in the article for years, and has been printed in many news articles for years (lots of sources), and is claimed by PN himself. I don't think it should be removed. We can qualify it again with "Nitschke says" if you like. Ratel (talk) 01:31, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that the sources using that description were taking it from us, rather than the other way round. I'll see if I can find better wording, but I'm not convinced that even Nitschke was describing himself this way, or if he does (and I know one sources claims he does) he also describes himself as not administering the injection, so we end up stuck with the contradiction. - Bilby (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Philip Nitschke. 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:

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) 10:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism Section

In the interest of neutrality, there should be a section on the criticism of Philip Nitschke. He's a controversial figure, and heavily criticised by many advocates of euthanasia. He, arguably, sets back any acceptance of euthanasia under law with his "euthanasia creep". When most people are polled on euthanasia, they think of someone with a terminal disease, in the last stages and in unbearable pain. Someone in the final stages of pancreatic cancer for example. But Nitschke offers his services to people who are not suffering from terminal illnesses, but are merely old, or depressed. This goes beyond euthanasia, into what should be called suicide. Opponents of euthanasia legislation often talk about the "slippery slope", that any law will be steadily pushed beyond it's initial limits and be stretched to those who are not terminally ill, but merely tired of life, and that eventually the old and valuable will feel pressure to end their lives rather than burden the medical system etc. Nitschke makes it difficult to dismiss the "slippery slope" argument because he is extending those who he feels are eligible for his help way beyond those in unbearable physical pain and terminally ill. I'm not qualified to write such a section, but it should be included to provide balance. The extensive sections on Nitschke's court cases and disputes with the AMA do not adequately deal with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.7.90.98 (talk) 03:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But Nitschke offers his services to people who are not suffering from terminal illnesses, but are merely old, or depressed. What services are you alluding to? Regarding the slipperty slope, even mentally troubled people in Holland can get access to euthanasia [2], so your objections have less to do with PN's ideas and more to do with how euthanasia should be applied. If there is something missing from PN's page, it's a section on rational suicide. Ratel (talk) 04:08, 16 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]