Talk:Philip Nitschke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Nancy Crick

I modified the Nancy Crick section based on the information from the article. Neither is properly sourced but the story in the Nancy Crick article sounds more believable to me. Nitschke may have suggested her bowel cancer is back but I'm somewhat doubtful her offered her a professional diagnosis. Indeed for all we know he may have suggested she confirm his suspicions with her doctors first. Unless better references are offered which suggest he gave her a professional diagnosis that her bowel cancer was back, it's better to leave it as is IMHO. Nil Einne 13:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of his name

It would be helpful if someone could include an audioclip to more accurately reveal how to pronounce this name. Mramz88 (talk) 21:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Philip Nitschke's autobiography

Philip Nitschke writes his autobiography. Damned if I do <http://www.randomhouse.com.au/books/philip-nitschke/a-lifes-purpose-an-autobiography-9780522861419.aspx>

This is reported by WP:RSs including:

<http://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle/between-life-and-death-20130826-2skl0.html>

<http://www.skynews.com.au/politics/article.aspx?id=901606>

<http://bigpondnews.com/articles/Election-2013/2013/08/31/Report_tells_of_Nitschkes_hypochondria_901607.html>

A paragraph, scoured from the above, providing an insight into Nitschke's view on euthanasia, is repeated rejected variously (and cryptically) claiming:

commentary

WP: BLP

WP:MOS

not relevant

WP:SOAP

Please (1) formulate your substitute para or (2) give a more comprehensive reason, as to why Nitschke's autobiography should not be quoted in Philip Nitschke. 1.126.170.158 (talk) 02:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

It seems obvious that you already are an experienced editor. Therefore, if you want your opinions on this matter to be respected and properly responded to, then you need to use your account name. I, for one, don't believe that you are a new or inexperienced IP editor. If you choose to edit anonymously then you can't expect other editors to respect your edits. Anglicanus (talk) 08:09, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Here are some obvious problems with your edits:

1. They have nothing to do with his "views on euthanasia" so they don't belong anywhere in that section.

2. They are copyright violations. You cannot take some text out of an already published source and just dump it into an article. Information in articles is meant to be based on reliable sources ~ not to be plagiarised from them.

3. The text that you plagiarised from a published source reads as blatant and contentious personal opinion and commentary. Therefore it had to be removed in accordance with various policies including the BLP ones.

It is also your responsibility to make sure that your edits are acceptable in the first place. If they aren't they are liable to removal. You can't expect other editors to do the work of fixing your problem edits. Anglicanus (talk) 08:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

First para > your POV > fine

1 Philip Nitschke's view on euthanasia is an obvious inclusion in Philip_Nitschke#Views_on_euthanasia

2&3 Worthwhile suggestions > Text rewritten

Final para Wikipedia is community encyclopedia. Other editors are free to improve inclusions. 49.184.51.62 (talk) 13:48, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

The last stable version was 12:50, 23 July 2013‎. The IP added disputed content after that and it's since been disputed by two editors. Per WP:BRD, the content should stay out until consensus for inclusion is reached here. Anna Frodesiak (talk) 12:52, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Nigel Brayley investigation

I've removed the claims that Nigel Brayley was under investigation for the murder of his wife, and that he was also under investigation for other murders. Perth News is saying that Braley believed that he was a suspect [1]. but the ABC states that Braley was never named as a suspect [2]. Given the ambiguity, it seems best not to describe him as a suspect until this is clarified. Similarly, while Nitschke has described Brayley as a serial murder [3], he also stated that he could not prove this, and from the sources I haven't seen any claims over than from Nitschke that Braley was being investigated over other deaths.

At this stage, it seems best to only ascribe the serial murderer claim to an opinion of Nitschke's, and to leave out the claim that Brayley was being investigated until this is settled. Either way, while it might explain Brayley's decision, Nitschke has stated that he was unaware of all of this when he provided his advice, so it isn't core to Nitschke's actions. - Bilby (talk) 04:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Did you do any checking? It took me 5 seconds to find that he was being investigated for murder of his wife and former girlfriend.[4]. Please remove your edits if appropriate. Jabba the Hot (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The ABC is very clear - Brayley was not named as a suspect. He may have been questioned in the past, he may have believed that he was a suspect, but according to the ABC he was not named. That's where the ambiguity comes in. It would be more relevant if Nitschke had believed that Brayley was a suspect when he offered his advice, but Nitschke has stated that he was not aware of this at the time. I'd like to be cautious with the wording until this is clarified, especially as the previous wording made it appear that Brayley being investigated was a factor in Nitschke's decision. - Bilby (talk) 04:18, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Of course he was a suspect ... the police even arrested him initially. The ABC is not the only source to turn to, in fact it's proved to be a poor source recently. PN did not offer him any "advice". You seem not aware of what happened. PN states that he doesn't know why Brayley even came to the workshop — he already had the drugs and knew what to do. Jabba the Hot (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The source you are using states "WA Police refused to confirm that Mr Brayley was a suspect in Lina’s murder." Anything beyond that is conjecture. - Bilby (talk) 04:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The source I cited states that (a) he was arrested in connection with Lina's death and that (b) the AFP had gone to Indonesia to investigate the death of another female in his life. If that's not being under suspicion, what is? Jabba the Hot (talk) 04:32, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

In any case, I used the phrase "under investigation", which he clearly was.Jabba the Hot (talk) 04:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

From The Australian [5]: "Nigel Brayley was under investigation by police for domestic violence and the murders of three former wives". Please revert. Jabba the Hot (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"West Australian police suspected Brayley of killing his wife in 2011. Since his death, it has emerged that Australian Federal Police was investigating the 2005 dis­appearance of his then live-in girlfriend in East Timor." [6] Jabba the Hot (talk) 04:42, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"The husband of a woman police believe was pushed to her death at a Perth quarry three years ago was also investigated over the disappearance of another woman in 2005."[7] Jabba the Hot (talk) 04:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

A case can be under investigation without having named a suspected. Bringing somebody in for questioning does not mean he is automatically a suspect. The Banner talk 04:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Is that why the AFP sent men to another country to investigate another mysterious death of one of his girlfriends? Fact is, there are several sources that state he was under investigation and/or a suspect. That should be good enough for Wikipedia. The fact that WA Police refused to confirm that Brayley was a suspect in Lina’s murder is a formality. Their actions clearly show otherwise, and that's why numerous sources state that he was indeed "under investigation". Jabba the Hot (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

You are misrepresenting the first The Australian article, which is describing claims made by Nitschke, not stating that Brayley was under investigation. But I know we'll find articles that say he was. We also have articles that clearly state he was not a suspect.. The issue is that we don't know for certain at this stage anything more than he was questioned and looked into, and either way, it was not a factor in Nitschke's decision. Nitschke is using this to justify his actions post the event, and while they might explain why Brayley committed suicide, they would only be relevant to Nitschke's advice if he'd known about them at the time. There may be some compromise wording we can go for, but we a) can't say he was a suspect, b) can't say that he was a serial murder, and c) can't suggest that this was a factor in Nitschke's actions. - Bilby (talk) 04:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Again, what "advice" are you talking about? Jabba the Hot (talk) 04:58, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"Police were investigating his possible involvement in the February 2011 death of his wife Lina" [8] Jabba the Hot (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Jabba: The two paras commencing, "In 2014 Nitschke was . ." and "On 23 July 2014 the . ." read like Nitschke-defence-pleas, found on a Nitschke website, rather than Wikipedia. As they stand they are not encyclopaedic, as they have an obvious (and laboured) non-NPOV underpinning. Sam56mas (talk) 06:33, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, merely giving his side of the story.Jabba the Hot (talk) 08:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC) Q.E.D. My case rests. Sam56mas (talk) 09:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC) We can rephrase if there are other objections to verbatim quotes. I can précis if required. Jabba the Hot (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

"At the time of his suicide, Nigel Brayley was facing ongoing questions about the death of his wife. Two other female friends of his had also died." [9] That's from the mouth of the ABC journo who started this whole brouhaha. Jabba the Hot (talk) 13:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Nitschke killing a dog at age 15

I am wondering why Nitschke having violently killed his neighbour's dog - by slitting its throat - as a revenge attack at age 15 hasn't been raised, there is a long editing history and I haven't seen it there. Surely that's an important aspect of his personality. He has admitted to it several times, most publicly on Andrew Denton's "Enough Rope", which was picked up by press reports at the time (2007). Nitschke "explained" (excused) his behaviour by saying he was "lonely" at the time. How many lonely adolescents brutally kill a DOG? Unless they are mentally ill? Any thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LyndellaLee (talk • contribs) 12:27, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know if it is an important aspect of his personality, but something that he did as a teenager 51 years ago isn't something that I'd like to give a lot of weight to. If he'd been arrested as a result, maybe, or if it is shown that the event is particularly significant, but personally I'd be inclined to write it off, and focus more on his actions in the last couple of decades or so. One incident as a teenager isn't necessarily indicative of his personality today. - Bilby (talk)

Actually it had nothing to do with being "lonely" and more to do with being a 15 year old who'd been exiled from his home and was suffering sexual abuse at the hands of an adult male. I'd have killed the abuser and not his dog, but that's me. Jabba the Hot (talk) 13:26, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Forum registration and use of word "claimed"

Bilby inserted the words "Nitschke claimed" in this sentence I added: "In another case Lucas Taylor, 26, committed suicide in Germany by taking Nembutal after soliciting advice at an online forum (which, Nitschke claimed, Taylor had accessed by claiming his age was 65) hosted by Exit International". However, nobody can register at that forum unless they put an age over 50. The registration process just won't allow it. It's programmed into the logic. So I think the use of the word "claimed" is superfluous here. Nobody is contesting that Taylor lied about his age to gain entrance to the forum. (Incidentally, the forum is now closed and I believe when it re-opens, registrants will require photo id). I'm going to remove the weasel words unless cogent counterarguments are put forward. Jabba the Hot (talk) 23:25, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

It is true that to register on the forum users are expected to state that they are over 50. However, the only source for Taylor claiming to be 65 specifically comes from Nitschke, and it may be possible for someone to be registered without stating that they are over 50. As Nitschke is clearly involved and not a neutral commentator, it seems best to ascribe statements that have not been independently verified to him, rather than presenting them as fact. Nitschke appears to have made questionable statements in recent days, making it more important than normal to distinguish between independently verified statements and those made be someone involved in the proceedings. - Bilby (talk) 00:17, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

"it may be possible for someone to be registered without stating that they are over 50". I've just told you that's not the case. Jabba the Hot (talk) 00:22, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know the software they are using. But with any db-based software someone with sufficient access can register a user through other means than their agreement on a front page. But that's not really the issue. The statement that Taylor claimed to be 65 comes from Nitschke rather than being independently verified, so it needs to be presented accordingly. - Bilby (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Compromise on the wording "according to Nitschke"? Claimed suggests it may not be so, and there are too many "claims" in the sentence if you use claim: "online forum (which he accessed by claiming his age was 65, according to Nitschke)". Jabba the Hot (talk) 01:30, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with "according to". - Bilby (talk) 02:45, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Agree with that solution. BTW1, for future consideration, there remains two more occurrences of the word 'claim' in this Nitschke article Refer WP:CLAIM BTW2, more pro-euthanasia people having 'reservations' about Nitschke: <http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/philip-nitschke-adds-nothing-to-the-euthanasia-debate/story-fni0ffsx-1227002612923> Sam56mas (talk) 06:01, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

So many problems with that op-ed piece it's hard to know where to begin. Take one sentence: "The reason Nitschke has been deregistered is that he has admitted to helping a depressed and suicidal Perth man, Nigel Brayley, aged 45, in his decision to kill himself." PN never "helped" Brayley in any way, Brayley was not depressed (there was no diagnosis of depression from any doctor), Brayley had bought Nembutal and planned his own death before meeting PN, PN does not even know why Brayley emailed him or attended a workshop (just making sure his plans were foolproof perhaps?) etc. Junk journalism. Jabba the Hot (talk) 07:10, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Younger people section

Bilby, I don't object to your removal of what you see as a copyvio (I have not checked if it is or isn't), but note that you have effectively removed PN's views from that section, and that section falls under a heading called "[Nitschke's] Views on euthanasia". Can you please insert some of his views on the topic into that section again? Jabba the Hot (talk) 07:31, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Appeal refused

I will proceed to restore the last edition that was reverted claiming an alleged misrepresentation of the source: So let us quote it here: All section "Discussion", deals on showing the interaction between Dr. N. and Mr. Bradley was in connection with Dr. N medical profession and it explicity concludes on #54: "The tribunal is satisfied that the interactions Dr N had with Mr B had a sufficient connection with his profession and in the course of that conduct Dr N. was bound by the code of conduct" Further on section "code of conduct", #58 it says: "It is not difficult to see that what Dr N. was doing in his interactions with Mr B. was not consisten with protecting and promoting his health including prolonging his life" On #57 it explicity mentions that the principles of the code still apply even for those doctors whose roles is not the doctor-patient relationship. On #88 it sum up that "in essence, supporting persons ... to take their own lifes appears incosistent with the responsability to protect and promote their health and prolong their life." So it is clear enough that the following statement: "the appeal was rejected on the grounds that despite of Brayley was not Nitschke's patient nevertheless in their interaction there was sufficient connection with Nitschke's medical profession that bounds him to the medical code of conduct, for which supporting someone else on commiting suicide was inconsistent, specifically Nitschke's conduct was contrary to doctors duty to protect patients' life" which is being restored is more accurate than the following one: "the appeal was rejected on the grounds that although it was accepted that Brayley was not Nitschke's patient, the concept of rational suicide was inconsistent with the medical profession's code of conduct." If a grammar issue is claimed then it should be corrected instead of simply revert the edition to restore that clearly misrepresentation of the source. Shall I proceed to restore the mentioned edition with some grammar corrections. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 12:27, 22 January 2015 (UTC) New wording with grammar corrections: "the appeal was rejected on the grounds that despite of Brayley was not Nitschke's patient nevertheless in their interactions there was sufficient connection with Nitschke's medical profession that bounds him to the medical code of conduct contravened by Nitschke's conduct since supporting someone else on commiting suicide is contrary to doctor's duty to protect patients' life." --ClaudioSantos¿? 12:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'll give other editors a chance to comment here. Your edit is still couched in broken English and is much clumsier than my edit, while saying essentially the same thing. I can't see that your edit is any better, in fact it makes the whole issue confusing. Jabba the Hot (talk) 21:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Your edit could look like a cute puppy, but it is imprecise and misleading, it misrepresents the source. The tribunal preciselly rejected the key claim made by Dr. N which pretends he was allegedely not bounded to the medical code of conduct since Bradley was not his patient. But preciselly the tribunal showed that Dr. N was indeed bounded to the medical code since Dr. N interaction with Mr.B was in sufficient connection with his medical profession even though Mr.B was not Dr.N patient. So including only the phrase claiming Dr.N was not in doctor-patient relationship with Mr.B is not representing the conclusions made by the tribunal and is certainly trimming the tribunal's main argument against the claim of Dr.N. May you explain why should we not show the entire argument and conclusion made by the tribunal? or are you really claiming your unique concern is an alleged grammar? --ClaudioSantos¿? 23:22, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand exactly what you are trying to say. My edit, which is that there was no doctor-patient relationship, is correct. The other part of my edit, which is that the tribunal concluded that the suspension stands because PN's conduct with NB did not conform to the medical profession's Code of Conduct is also correct (it summarises all the clumsy verbiage you have inserted).

I suspect this conflict is arising because you are doing what Wikipedia expressly discourages, which is that you are using a primary source to draw conclusions yourself. I only supplied that source as a backup to the news sources (secondary sources). I suggest we only insert text that is derived from secondary sources and that we do not use primary sources to insert material. Agreed? Here is the ideal secondary source, a major national newspaper: Philip Nitschke heads to supreme court to fight for his medical licence. Jabba the Hot (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is evident, you are not understanding me. But let me use your expressions: your phrases are true, but it is also true that according to the tribunal there was enough medical interaction between Dr.N and Mr.B, and it is also true that according to the tribunal it does not matter if MrB. was not Dr.N's patient, since it is also true that according to the tribunal Dr. N was still bounded to the medical code, and it is also true that preciselly that was the key claim the tribunal used to reject Dr.N appeal basis which was: Mr.B was not his patient. Not to mention, it id also tru that this second tribunal claimed Dr.N. is a serious risk to the public. And it is also true that trimming the truth is making it a lie. But if you prefer, as I originaly said: take away the phrase "Mr.B was not patient of Dr. N." since that phrase is the one you are cherry picking from the source, and obviously you have not the background to understand the tribunal's conclusions nor should you make a WP:OR either. --ClaudioSantos¿? 00:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

By the way: you are also cherry picking form The guardian that phrase and leaving aside the other quotes that newpaper article make of the tribunal sentence. And actually, The Guardian, is just quoting the sentence, it is not providing any analysis either. So if you want to pick just one of those quotes why should we not quote the others quoted on The Guardian? based on what are you just picking that only phrase claiming Mr.B was not Dr.N patient from The Guardian or from the tribunal sentence self?--ClaudioSantos¿? 00:25, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Stop using the AMA report as a source. That's a primary source. We use secondary and tertiary sources in Wikipedia. So we'll use the secondary source, okay? We can do without your personal analysis of what the tribunal did or did not say or mean. And incidentally, stop making personal attacks on me and biting. Jabba the Hot (talk) 02:16, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

You were who introduced that source, and claimed we should mention Mr.B was not patient of Dr.N since that has legal relevance, so based on your legal opinions that are irrelevant plus groundless. The Guardian, which is barely quoting a primary source -and one can question if it is really a secondary or tertiary source- is also misrepresented, if we cherry pick it to include your phrase, when that source quote other parts of the tribunal sentence. For example, I truly endorse the section should mention that tribunal considered Dr. N is a serious public risk. For the rest, I wonder what are exactly your grounds to accuse me of bitting and personaly attacking you? Hopefully you understand that mentioning that you seem lacking the background to pose as interpreter of a tribunal sentence is not a personal attack, but I do agree that is irrelevant since your opinions on the case can be simply refused due WP:OR. I am still not clear why you broke a phrase explaining the reasons given by the tribunal to reject the appeal of Dr.N and put in the middle of it preciselly the claim of Dr.N that Mr.B was not his patient? what has to do the reasons to upheld the suspension of dr. N's license with Mr.B not being patient of Dr.N.? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 03:09, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I can hardly understand what you're trying to say. You seem to be saying that The Guardian is not a secondary source (wrong) and that I am interpreting the tribunal ruling (wrong, I took all of my edit from The Guardian and none from the primary source). The rest of your comment above is gobbledygook, more or less. Perhaps if you use Google Translate and then paste the results here, I'll be able to follow your reasoning? Jabba the Hot (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I am also sorry, like when I am sorry due my students think that legal terminology or philosophical terminology are so obscure that for them they are just gibberish. I remember same concerns have arisen against Hegel philosophy. And Lenin said he was unable to understand any language but dialectics. Not to mention Marx struggling with math. Certainly it should be very frustrating to be unable to understand. But don't worry I do understand you Jabba. So let see what does think and say other people that perhpas are able to read and understand my comments ... or not. By the way there is a spanish proverb saying: "hablando se entiende la gente", that you can try to understand by using google translator. --ClaudioSantos¿? 06:32, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

POV

With claims of neutrality flying in from all sides, I declare this article POV untill this case is solved. The Banner talk 16:21, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Not sure about the POV tag, because the only problem I can see on the page is that editor Claudio Santoz has removed the reference to "rational suicide", which is part of PN's and EXIT's raison d'être (see [10]). It is a well known phrase, used by many euthanasia proponents, and if you Google it you will also see it is not only referred to all over the 'net ( even in newspapers [11] ) but also in other articles in Wikipedia (such as right to die, where editor Claudio Santoz has also raised numerous objections on the talk page about the wording there as well). So I really cannot see the justification for removing the phrase from this article, and I suggest that since this editor is finding problems with the wordings of a number of euthanasia-related articles, that we seek some sort of consensus on the issue to see if his objections are unique to him or more general in the Wikipedia community.

I intend expanding on the concept of Rational Suicide, perhaps with a new article. Ratel (talk) 18:31, 15 February 2015 (UTC)