Article Evaluation: Diabetes ^[1]

1.Is everything in the article relevant to the article topic? Is there anything that distracted you?

Everything is relevant and there is no unnecessary information

2. Is any information out of date? Is anything missing that could be added?

There are some articles that are over 5 years old from current date so information may not be current.

3. What else could be improved?

Updated resources and references, more pictures of how diabetes/insulin work, more details on prevention of diabetes specifically lifestyle, longer description of type 1 and type 2 diabetes, updated picture on diabetes (replace the main picture near the heading)

4. Is the article neutral? Are there any claims that appear heavily biased toward a particular position?

Article and tone is neutral, facts are stated but no side is apparent.

5. Are there viewpoints that are overrepresented, or underrepresented?

Some viewpoints that are underrepresented is the description on how type 1 and type 2 diabetes work.

6.Check a few citations. Do the links work? Does the source support the claims in the article?

The links work and the source supports the claims of the article.

7. Is each fact referenced with an appropriate, reliable reference? Where does the information come from? Are these neutral sources? If biased, is that bias noted?

Each fact is referenced appropriately and the information comes from PUBMED, Books, Mayo clinic, and literature reviews. The sources are neutral and no biases is apparent.

8.What kinds of conversations, if any, are going on behind the scenes about how to represent this topic?

There are conversations on the talk page relating to updating mapping images, changing information on diet and reasons behind it.

9.How is the article rated? Is it a part of any WikiProjects?

Article is rated B class and is part of other wikiprojects.

10. How does the way Wikipedia discusses this topic differ from the way we've talked about it in class?

Talks about it more in detail and less open ended questions. The information is more factual and does not bring up anything about ethics of personal perspective. Theres no ongoing discussion about what is right and wrong and is purely informational.

This is a user sandbox of Kjsnguyen. You can use it for testing or practicing edits. This is not the sandbox where you should draft your assigned article for a dashboard.wikiedu.org course. To find the right sandbox for your assignment, visit your Dashboard course page and follow the Sandbox Draft link for your assigned article in the My Articles section. Get Help

Copy Edit: Right to Die

The right to die is a concept based on the opinion that a human being is entitled to end their own life or to undergo voluntary euthanasia. Possession of this right is often understood to mean that a person with a terminal illness, or without the will to continue living, should be allowed to end their own life or to use assisted suicide or to decline life-prolonging treatment. The question of whom, if anyone, should be empowered to make this decision is often central to the debate.

Some academics and philosophers, such as David Benatar^[1], consider humans to be overly optimistic in their view of the quality of their lives, and in their view of the balance between the positive and the negative aspects of living. This idea is considered in terms of antinatalism and the lack of agency regarding one’s birth and who should have authority over one’s choice to live or die.

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 irrational suicides is argued. Pilpel and Amsel write:

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.

Hinduism accepts the right to die for those who are tormented by terminal diseases or those who have no desire, ambition or no responsibilities remaining; and allows death through the non-violent practice of fasting to the point of starvation (Prayopavesa).Jainism has a similar religious practice named Santhara. Other religious views on suicide vary in their tolerance and include denial of the right as well as condemnation of the act. In the Catholic faith, suicide is considered a grave sin.

Main article: Euthanasia in the United States

[WANT TO ADD]

The right to die movement in the US began with the case of Karen Quinlan in 1975 and continues to raise bioethical questions of one's quality of life and the legal process of death.

Karen Quinlan, 21, lost consciousness after attending a party in which she consumed alcohol and tranquilizers ^[1]. She soon began to experience respiratory problems which then prevented oxygen from flowing to her brain thus damaging her cortex. This lead her to slip into a comatose state in which a respirator and a feeding tube was required to keep her alive and breathing

^[2][3]. Karen did not have a proxy, living will, or expressed her wishes if something ever happened to her to those around her made it difficult to decide what the next step should be taken. Her parents wanted their daughter to be removed from life support since they understood that their daughter would never wake up and that prolonging her life may be more damaging and it would not be of quality life ^[4][5]. Karen Quinlan's father sought out the right to be Karen's legal guardian and petitioned for the removal of the respirator that was keeping her alive. The court, however, argued that the removal of the ventilator, which would lead to Karen's death, would be considered unlawful, unnatural, and unethical. Quinlan's lawyer's counterargument stated that the removal of the respiratory would allow Karen to have a natural death which is natural and ethical. The Quinlan's won the court case and was appointed as the legal guardians of their daughter. The respirator was removed in 1976, but Karen continued to live without the ventilator until 1985 ^[2][5]. This case to this day continues to raise bioethical questions of one's quality of life and the legal process of death. The Quinlan case brings up many important issues which are still being addressed til this day. One of the critical points that the Quinlan case brings up is the patient's right to deny or withdraw treatment. Cases, where the patient's denied or withdrew treatment, were unheard of during that period and it went against medical ethics in preserving one's life. Debates about allowing patients the right to self-determination was controversial, and it would be evaluated for the next couple of decades from state to state. It also brings up the question if family members and those who are close to the patient are allowed in the decision-making process. Since Karen had no written documentation, voiced her decision, or appointed a proxy, this caused a long legal battle between the Quinlan family and the state in determining Karen's best interest and determining if she would want to live or die. This had a significant influence on the use and establishment of advance directives, oral directives, the use of a proxy, and living wills

^[5][6].

Two other major cases that further propagate the right to die movement and the use of living wills, advance directives and use of a proxy were Nancy Cruzman and Terry Schiavo. In 1983, Nancy Cruzman suffered a car accident which left her permanently in a vegetative state. Her status as an adult and lack of an advance directive or proxy lead to a long legal battle for Nancy Cruzman's family in petitioning for the removal of her feeding tube which was keeping her alive since the accident. Nancy had mentioned to a friend that under no circumstances would she want to continue to live if she were ever in a vegetative state, but was not a strong enough case to remove the feeding tube ^[7]. Eventually, the Cruzman family won the case and had their daughter's tube removed. This case brought great debate if the right to die should be approved from state to state or as a whole nation^[8]. Terri Schiavo is the most recent right to die case which occurred between 1990-2005. This case was more controversial because there was a disagreement between Terri's immediate family members and her husband whereas the Quinlan's and Cruzman's case, the family was able to make a unanimous decision on the state of their daughters. Terri suffered from a cardiac arrest which lead to her collapse and soon after began to have trouble breathing. The lack of oxygen to her brain caused irreversible brain damage, leaving her in a vegetative state and required a feeding tube and ventilator to keep her alive. Terri left no advance directive or had a discussion with her parents or husband about what she may have wanted if something were to happen to her. Soon after, her husband was appointed as her legal guardian. Years later, her husband decided to remove Terri's feeding tube since the chances of her waking up were slim to none. Terri's family, however, argued against this decision and brought this case to court. The case was very turbulent and occurred over some years and even involved the state and its' legislators before a decision was made^[8]. This brought out bioethical debates on discontinuation of Terri's life vs. allowing her to continue living in a permanent vegetative state. Those who were for preserving Terri's life stated that removing the tube would be ethically immoral since we do not know what she would have wanted. They challenged her physical and mental state and stated that she might have some consciousness; thus she deserves to continue living. Those for removing the tube argued for self determination and that her quality of life was diminished ^[8][9][10]. The Schiavo case is the most recent and significant right to die case in which further many people's thought of having an advance directive or living will. It also further looks into other complications that can arise, such as family disagreements, which should have been accounted for when dealing with a right to die case^[8][10].

Canada Section (added one sentence in bold)

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) reported that not all doctors were willing assist in patient's death due to legal complications and went against what a physician stood for. Many physicians stated that they should have a voice when it comes to helping a patient end their life^[1]. However, the belief in late 2015 was that no physician would be forced to do so but the CMA was offering educational sessions to members as to the process that would be used.^[2]

There is a question in ethics as to whether or not a right to die can coexist with a right to life. If, it is argued, the right to life is inalienable, it cannot be surrendered, and therefore may be incompatible with a right to die.^[3] A second debate exists within bioethics over whether the right to die is universal, only applies under certain circumstances (such as terminal illness), or if it exists. It is also stated that 'right to live' is not synonymous to 'obligation to live'. From that point of view, the right to live can coexist with the right to die.^[4]

Ethics (portion will add in)

The preservation and value of life have led to many medical advancements when it comes to treating patients. New devices and the development of palliative care has allowed humans to live longer than before. Prior to these medical advancements and care, those who were unconscious, minimally unconscious, and in a vegetative state life span was short due to no proper way to assist them with basic needs such as breathing and feeding. With the advancement of medical technology, it raises the question about the quality of life of a patient when they are no longer conscious. The right to self-determination and of others emerged and questions the definition of quality and sanctity of life; if one had the right to live, then the right to die must follow suit ^[1][2]

The right to die is supported and rejected by many. Arguments for this right include:

1. If one had a right to live, then one must have the right to die, both on their terms.
2. Death is a natural process of life thus there should not be any laws to prevent it if patient seeks to end it.
3. What we do at the end of our lives should not concern others.
4. If euthanasia is strictly controlled, we can avoid entering a slippery slope and prevent patients to seek alternative methods which may not be legal^[3].

Arguments against of having the right to die argues:

1. It is a slippery slope; if we allow certain patients this right, it can expand and have dire consequences.
2. Give rise in pressuring those to end their lives or the live of others; ethically immoral in human and medical standards.
3. "Throwing away" patients who are deemed no longer capable to be in society.
4. Decrease in care for patients^[4][5].