This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Right to die article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mborj06.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kjsnguyen. Peer reviewers: MishaSayenkoCSUEB.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 21 September 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kevndli, Goshita, Sarazhou19.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I get the cleanup tag, this article is a mess, but why NPOV? Pianoman123 tagged it without (apparently) starting any discussion on the matter.
I proposed the merger because Right to die should be covered in euthanasia as it essentially the same thing but without the POV title.--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
The Right to Die is something that can be theoretical, or something that can only be understood by someone with an incurable, painful disease.
We are all mortal; and if it is true that some of us have no medical help, why do they make it so difficult. Even the Oregon Law requires it be a “fatal” disease. There are many painful disabling diseased that, unfortunately, won’t kill you.Fredlaws 17:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
Should be merged !!!!!! "Right-to-die" is a legal, philosophical and moral concept which may or may not be admissible for debate in the current legal climate. "Euthanasia" is a practice (rather, set thereof) which purports to rely on the "right-to-die" concept. Major clean-up required, yes. Zvozin 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
What a nonsense: To expect a "world wide view" on the right to die in a Wikipedia article. If a person wants to die, then this does not require a "world wide view". And whenever in a Wikipedia article you write about the "Right to die", you must not forget those people, WHO are suffering. Those humans are not able to write in the Wikipedia, so I do for them. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT t-online.de -- replace AT by @ ) (13032007)
Speaking of which, only arguments for have been presented in this article. To keep a neutral, encyclopedic style to this article, surely arguments for both sides should be presented? Rockman999 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
This page needs to be locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.202.80.77 (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
We need a section which brings the arguments for and against "right to die" debate.--Inayity (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
I added some arguments for and against the right to die debate under ethics portion -Kelly Nguyen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talk • contribs) 01:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
I've stumbled upon this article - Dignified death. I very much do not think this article deserves to stand on its own as is. I suggest somebody either fleshes it out or redirects/merges it to this article. Just bringing it to the attention of other people - currently only one article links to it. Freikorp (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
"Right to die" shall bedefined as a claim adn a term used by those who are pro-euthanasia, but not as an actual right as they pretend. It is not neutral, nor accurate. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
We don't generally go about intentionally prejudicing readers against a topic. As I stated, the fact that not everyone agrees that assisted suicide should be a right doesn't mean that Wikipedia dismisses it - see, for instance, right to bear arms or fetal rights - and since in a number of jurisdictions one does have the legal right to assisted suicide, the idea that it's just a "controversial claim" floating out in the ether and "alleging" that a right "should" exist is not only an obvious POV push but also inaccurate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 05:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello!
My name is Dusti, and I'm responding to your request for a third opinion. To better understand the issue, can the involved parties briefly fill me in on what's going on below? Dusti*poke* 05:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
(partly c/p from above) I support the wording "The right to die is the ethical or institutional entitlement of any individual to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia" rather than "The right to die is the controversial claim alleging that there should exist an ethical or institutional entitlement of any individual to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia". We don't generally go about intentionally prejudicing readers against a topic. The fact that not everyone agrees that assisted suicide should be a right doesn't mean that Wikipedia dismisses it - see, for instance, right to bear arms or fetal rights - and since in a number of jurisdictions one does have the legal right to assisted suicide, the idea that it's just a "controversial claim" floating out in the ether and "alleging" that a right "should" exist is not only an obvious POV push but also inaccurate. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 06:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
The "right to die" is a term used in the specific context of the efforts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is not an accepted "right" not even for jurisdictions where assisted suicide or euthanasia has been legalized (legalization of eutahnasia does not imply the enforcment of such a "right to die". There is not even consensus on the meaning neither the pertinence of the term, even for those who are pro-euthanasia. [2]. Those facts about the term are the facts to be represented in the lede, instead of presenting it as a actual existing right as could pretend those favoring euthanasia. Even the cited article about fetal rights is more conservative and defines it in terms of a possibility not as a fact (..."may be entitled"...) while this article is showing the thing as it was a matter of fact the existence of such "right to die" while in fact it is not included in any Human rights Declaration, not even recognized in any Constitutional Law. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
In reviewing the conflict, it's simply the opening text that's being disputed. From what I understand, there are two different sentences that have been suggested:
What we have to keep in mind with an article like this is that it needs to remain neutral, regardless of our feelings on the issue. Looking at the two leads, the first lead insinuates a point of view The right to die is the ethical or institutional entitlement.... whereas the secondary lead, The right to die is the controversial claim alleging....
By keeping policy in mind, and by keeping a neutral point of view, I'm going to have to say that the second lead is the best start for the article. It sets the neutral tone for a great article. Dusti*poke* 17:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
Hmmm, I think that you also have the history on mind. In this case specifically the history of ClaudioSantos as known anti-euthanasia "campaigner"! The Banner talk 01:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
On the topic> reliable sources like this one shall be considered to give an actual definition of the term, and this is not the unique reliable source that start questioning if there exist such a right and also shows that even inside the movement pro eutahansia the pertinence of the term is also a question. Authors like Ian Dowbiggin have also shown that this term emerged as an attempt to clean the euthanasia associationts from the word "euthanasia" after WWII. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
If I may add an opinion, on reading the two phrasings collected by Dusti on the 25th, I was struck that one asserted the validity of the right and the other asserted that the right was a claim. The former seems inappropriate given that it is such a contentious matter (beyond WP) but the latter seems incoherent: a right cannot be a claim. The beginning of ClaudioSantos's explanation of his viewpoint seems to me a much better basis for a lede sentence, though we could trim and adjust it a little: "The "right to die" is a principle debated in the context of efforts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide." (I have replaced "term used" with "principle debated" to avoid subtly denying the validity of the right in the lede, which would be as inappropriate as asserting it.) NebY (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
It was predictable that these tags would appear here, now CS could not change the article to his liking. In my opinion, the POV tag is absolute nonsense. Regarding the OR tag: what sections do you regard as "own research", CS? The Banner talk 20:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Pfff, why do we mention an incomplete list of the options that are named as "Right to die"? We should name them all, or none at all. Beside the suicide and voluntary euthanasia you have also the passive euthanasia (refusal of treatment) in various variations. The Banner talk 23:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps, rather that this simmering tag edit war, we could discuss how to improve this article so that we don't need tags. - MrX 21:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
The US section under Legal Documents by country requires expansion. It would be good to provide some historical information, because Euthanasia is just one category that falls under what many understand as the right to die.
The term 'right to die' has been interpreted in a number of ways, including issues of suicide, passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide.[1] As health of citizens is considered a police power left for individual states to regulate, it was not until 1997 that the US Supreme Court made a ruling on the issue of assisted suicide and one's right to die. In 1997 the Supreme Court heard two appeals arguing that New York and Washington statutes that made physician assisted suicide a felony violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2] In a unanimous vote, the Court held that there was no constitutional right to physician assisted suicide and upheld state bans on assisted suicide. While in New York this has maintained statutes banning physician assisted suicide, the Court's decision also left it open for other states to decide whether they would allow physician assisted suicide or not.
Since 1997, four states in the US have recognized the right to die with dignity. Oregon, Washington, and Vermont, in 1997, 2009, and 2013 respectively, have laws that provide a protocol for the practice of physician assisted suicide.[3] The law in these three states allows terminally ill adult patients to seek lethal medication from their physicians. Montana's law, passed in 2009, does not provide a protocol for the practice, but rather provides legal protection for physicians in the case that they write a prescription for lethal medication upon patient request.
In early 2014, a New Mexico Second District Judge Nan Nash ruled that terminally ill patients have the right to aid in dying under the state constitution, ie. making it legal for a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a terminally ill patient.[4] The ultimate decision will be made with the outcome of New Mexico's Attorney General's appeal to the ruling.
Mdickey17 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)
References
I've just created Lecretia Seales - can you help expand it? She is worth mentioning in this article too. Tayste (edits) 20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I am Kelly and I am a student editor assigned to edit this article. Please let me know if you end up reverting my edits so I know what I did wrong!
Intro: Grammar and citation Changed passive voice to active, remove and added articles, removed redundant words, removed commas, fixed some sentences that had unclear antecedents, and added a citation when summarized a philosopher. Broken up some sentences due to length and flow Fixed more passive sentences to better the sentence structure
United States Added information about the right to die movement and major cases that highlight and propagated this movement. Added information in the US section of how the right to die movement began and how it caused major deabte about the issues of legal death. Copied over from sandbox (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Kjsnguyen/sandbox) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talk • contribs) 19:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Added a map showing which states allow the right to die and which does not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talk • contribs) 03:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Added a new map due for the united states section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talk • contribs) 03:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Header
Added a picture near the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
-Hi Kelly I fixed the image size and added a caption to your picture-Andrew Ta
Ethics Added more information on arguments for and against right to die. Used literature reviews to see how did the right to die come about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talk • contribs) 21:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Also fixed punctuation and grammar to better the flow
Why is David’s The Death of Socrates featured on this page? Socrates didn’t commit suicide; he drank the hemlock under duress as a form of execution. Seph Shewell Brockway (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
Hello, we are graduate student editors assigned to edit this article. Our work plan is as follows:
Article chosen Right to Die
Why this one? Include WP rating scale? How fit with your interests. Other details as desired WP rating: Start Class This article has significant room for improvement and relates to geriatric/end of life care.
You WP editing team (up to 3) K, G, S
Initial Analysis of the article When comparing to other “Right to…” articles, we noticed that this article does not have a clear definition/background section. Furthermore, there is limited information about the right to die in the United States.
Overall organization, what changes Overall, we will enhance the quality of this page by providing a standard “Definition” section. We may augment other sections depending on necessity.
What will you add? N/A
What will you remove? N/A
What will you augment? Right to die, United States subsection
What will you decrease coverage of? N/A
Roles in the project. List members and planned roles. - Overseer: S - Researcher: K - Editor: G
Team coordination plan: - We will communicate over private Slack messages. - We will meet regularly during our classes. - We will collaborate over Google Drive to organize files.
WIP presenter - K
Peer review from another team (merely suggestions): -Tighten up the anecdotes of the 3 major cases--less re-stating at the end, more active voice -citation is still needed for sentence two of the Canada subsection--I suspect it was referring to the 5, not 6, plaintiff Gloria Taylor case? -Under "Ethics", define what TADA is/link it -Maybe rename Ethics as "Ethical Arguments"? -Remove religion from the introduction as it is restated under another subheadingRose811811 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
- I think you mentioned in class that G would be adding a section on medical perspectives, will that still be added? I think that would be really valuable for the page. - You're editing the heading of the United States page right? I think it looks pretty solid so far.
Should the term "Controversial" be used in the short description? Helper201 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the IP edit that we shouldn't use the term "Controversial" in the short description. This could be applied to thousands of Wikipedia short descriptions. Virtually every view, ideology, stance etc could be considered controversial to some degree. Using such a term here is unnecessary and comes across as original research and/or not respecting a neutral point of view. Subjects such as Anti-abortion movements could be considered controversial by some for example, and yet this is one of a vast array of examples where such odes to controversy are not found in the short description. Helper201 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Who is "Pilpel and Amstel"? How did the quotation from their work support or add to the introduction it was placed in? The article's introduction should have references directly supporting its definitions. 2600:1700:CDA:A2C0:845E:BF52:B14D:7218 (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Proponents typically associate the right to die with the idea that one's body and one's life are one's own, to dispose of as one sees fit. However, a legitimate state interest in preventing suicide is often up for debate. Pilpel and Amsel wrote:
Contemporary proponents of "rational suicide" or the "right to die" usually demand by "rationality" that the decision to kill oneself be both the autonomous choice of the agent (i.e., not due to the physician or the family pressuring them to "do the right thing" and commit suicide) and a "best option under the circumstances" choice desired by the stoics or utilitarians, as well as other natural conditions such as the choice being stable, not an impulsive decision, not due to mental illness, achieved after due deliberation, etc.[1]
The Banner talk 21:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Why not considering a "game over"? A possibility for every human being that doesn't desire to continue living. "Selbsmordrecht". 178.197.234.102 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
That's a decision to be made by politicians, not by encyclopedia writers. Btw: maybe you can look at the Swiss situation. Erik Wannee (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
Then again, why not consider the possibility that many people want the right to continue living, but feel of little or no value/are under pressure to end their lives/fear that end of life care might be of poor quality? So, before rushing to allow the killing older people, should we not demand decent, well funded, end of life care as an option in every hospital and care home?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.169 (talk • contribs)
Another editor placed a two sections in the lede about the point of view of a philosopher. IMHO, this belongs not in the lede and would fit better in the section "Ethics". But in fact, I have doubt if it belongs in the article at all. Opinions please. The Banner talk 12:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)