Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 16:25, 18 July 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Euthanasia article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Euthanasia. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Euthanasia at the Reference desk.

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Death High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Misplaced Pages. 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Law Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Philosophy: Ethics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics

Template:WP1.0

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 3 sections are present.

Euthanasia in America

The major problem with this article is that it misuses the term "physician assisted suicide" and "voluntary euthanasia." Physician assisted suicide is not the same as voluntary euthanasia, which is illegal in America. (http://www.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/docs/year4.pdf?ga=t) This link is a report on the Die with Dignity Act in Oregon, it clearly states that euthanasia is illegal, and is not the same as assisted suicide. The article is locked, though. These are major errors that need to be corrected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conundrumbandit (talk • contribs) 00:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

It clearly states that only active euthanasia is widely illegal, the term "euthanasia" in its legal context is not used for what in other contexts is called passive euthanasia. Withdrawing life support with patient consent is considered voluntary, passive euthanasia in a non-legal context, but it is legal throughout the US as you can see by reading the reference.--Jorfer (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

An introduction to Euthanasia in America should not be void of mention of Dr. Jack Kevorkian, a.k.a. "Dr. Death," a Michigan physician who participated in over 100 cases of euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide in the late twentieth century (See Caddell, D. P. & Newton, R. R. (1995). Euthanasia: American attitudes toward the physician's role. Soc. Sci. Med., 40, 1671-1681. Boyler1 (talk) 03:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Under the jurisdictions section on the right side of the page, Japan should also be listed. Japanese culture is less prone to view suicide as a sin or a crime than most Western cultures, and therefore the Japanese public have differing attitudes toward euthanasia than many other societies. (See: Otani, I. (2010). "Good manner of dying" as a normative concept: "Autocide," "granny-dumping" and discussions on euthanasia/death with dignity in Japan. International Journal of Japanese Sociology, no. 19, 49-63.)Boyler1 (talk) 03:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Under the History sub-heading on the main euthanasia page, there should be mention of more history than just the Nazi T4 initiative. In pre-modern Europe, people often removed the pillow from beneath a dying person's head or placed the dying person on the ground in order to hasten death and subsequently shorten the remaining length of time suffering (See: Stolberg, M. (2007). Active euthanasia in pre-modern society, 1500-1800: Learned debates and popular practices. Social History of Medicine, 20, 205-221.)Boyler1 (talk) 03:12, 4 May 2011 (UTC) Under the History sub-heading on the main euthanasia page, there should also be mention of ancient societies' euthanasia practices. In ancient Greece and Rome, citizens could acquire poison from a physician for the purpose of ending their own lives, and in Sparta, voluntary euthanization of the elderly was practiced (See: Gesundheit, B., Steinberg, A., Glick, S., Or, R., & Jotkovitz, A. (2006). Euthanasia: An overview and the Jewish perspective. Cancer Investigation, 24, 621-629.)Boyler1 (talk) 03:20, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Intent

Bilby said:

I'm not quite sure what you meant by the above, but "intent" plays a key role in the euthanasia debate. The consequence - that a person dies - is a given...Action T4 is not considered euthanasia, in the modern sense, in part because the intent of the action was not to relieve suffering, but to limit the cost of the disabled on society.

— Bilby

Yes, you did not understand my point. One can not assume that nazi-eutahnasia-program's intentions were bad and masked but current-euthanasia's intentions are good and clear, in order to define euthanasia. A proclaim of intentions made by the euthanasia supporters is not a proof exactly as the intentions claimed by the nazis were also not any proof of their innocence. Proclaimed intentions do not explain the real contexts and facts. There are investigations that contextualize euthanasia and investigates the real interests and circumstances (economics, politics, etc.) around and beneath it, thus the facts and not solely the proclaimed intentions. But those investigations also contextualize and explains the use of certain proclaimed intentions and certain language used for example by the propaganda-support, and they even compare the language used in different moments by the pro-euthanasia movements included by the nazis. For example: those reliable sources have noticed that a "modern sense" of euthanasia is not a fact but an opinion and in many cases a sort of euphemism used by the euthanasia supporters to white-wash that term of its nazi past. So, those investigation goes far beyond than a very simplistic dictionary definition based on summary claimed intentions. I have provided some of those sources. Trying to define euthanasia based on the intentions claimed by its supporters in a dictionary is subjective, superfluous, naive and POV. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, defining euthanasia by its intent is the standard approach - see, for example, Bordy's "an act of euthanasia is one in which one person (A) kills another person (B) for the benefit of the second person, who actually does benefit from being killed", where intent plays a key role ("for the benefit of"); Williams's "... either an assisted suicide or a killing by another for humanitarian reasons and by merciful means, generally with the consent of the person killed" ("humanitarian reasons going to the intent of the action); or perhaps Beauchamp and Davidson's third necessary condition:

"B's primary reason for intending A's death is cessation of A's (actual or predicted future) suffering or irreversible comatoseness, where B does not intend A's death for a diferent primary reason, though there may be other relevant reasons; and (b) there is sufficient current evidence for either A or B that the causal means to A's death will not produce any more suffering than would be produced for A if B were not to intervene."

(Beauchamp and Davidson actually go into some detail about why "there must be a beneficient motive or a humanitarian reason in cases of euthanasia"). I also rather like Wreen, who argued, amongst other things, that "euthanasia is defined in terms of the intention to confer a benefit, a good, on a creature" (although that actual wording was more to show why plants and non-sentient animals can't be euthanised).

Many commentators relating Action T4 to the modern euthanasia debate consistently make this point: Gardella argued that "the program had little if anything to do with mercy and everything to do with saving money and freeing medical resources for the German war effort", referring to the intent of the actions, and Gardella wasn't an advocate and was warning of risks with euthanasia. From Kushe we get "the motivation behind these killings was neither mercy nor respect for autonomy: it was, rather, racial prejudice and the belief that the racial purity of the Volk required the elimination of certain individuals and groups". Michalsen and Reinhardt even go to the point of arguing that the Nazi's abuse of the term has so damaged it, and is so unlike the current debate, the we shouldn't even use the term "euthanasia" to describe what is being argued for today.

The point is, I guess, that this is ethics - intent is core to ethical debate, along with consequences and actions. There are, as you suggest, arguments that euthanasia comes to the fore during times of economic stress, although that has been far less of the issue in the last couple of decades, but the modern debate is very much about the intent. If the intent is not to relieve suffering, then the action is not, according to the modern understanding, euthanasia. - Bilby (talk) 18:34, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Bilby, you missed my point. And you are wrong, the thing is not limited to intents although some sources certainly do. But even if we limit to the intents, I also noticed that the intents proclaimed around euthanasia in the "modern sense" were also proclaimed by the nazis, and viceversa. Even the claimed definition of euthanasia and the legal debate around have not changed in its essentials, as any one can read. But certainly claiming that the nazi-euthanasia intents were just a mask but the current intents do not, it is a sort of naive that turns any serious source I introduced as useless. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

In that case, no, I have no idea at all about what you're talking about. My main point, though, in regard to Action T4, is that if I kill someone in order to steal their money, but say that my intent was to relieve suffering, then I may be claiming euthanasia, but it is not euthanasia. if the Nazis claimed that they were killing people in order to relieve suffering, but they were actually killing people for economic benefit or for eugenics, then they were not engaged in a euthanasia program. I'm not claiming that all current intents are pure - I am saying that intent is a core part of the definition, and if you don't have the intent to relieve suffering, you may be claiming that you are engaged in euthanasia, but according to the modern understanding, you are not.

A good history section would explore why euthanasia was proposed, and it would look at times when the push for euthanasia was related to economic benefits, eugenics, or other aims. What it shouldn't do is claim that killing for eugenics or economic benefits instead of for the benefit of the patient actually is euthanasia, according to current definitions, and this would need to be highlighted. - Bilby (talk) 19:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I guess I should add that I think "modern sense" is a bad term, as intent has been in place since at least Moore in the 16th century, and in a general sense, as you say, the definition is more-or-less consistent. I guess my distinction is with the work from the 50's on, where there has been more of an effort to get to the nature of the definition - Wreen and Beauchamp being but two of those who have spent time clarifying the limits and what is meant. - Bilby (talk) 19:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well perhaps we are trying to define a ghost as perhaps there lacks a factual evidence of an existing euthanasia (good death, good killing), at least one for the beneffit of the patient, although each euthanasia supporter, included the nazis, has claimed that intent. I don't want to engage in a trascendental discussion if a dead patient is still a patient who can testify that death was something good and better than life. Thus, I just have to say that I strongly believe that at any rate one lives better alive than dead. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 03:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Original intent of the proposal

Folks, this is becoming a subjective argument about the merits (or not) of "modern euthanasia" vs. "Nazi euthanasia" which is interesting, but not essential to the limited expansion to this article that Gabbe and I are proposing. Can we please go back to that?

@ClaudioSantos. Please be careful. In amending your comments, you accidentally deleted mine, hence I have reinstated it above. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:55, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not realized it. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

That's why I separated the two. :) This relates more to an eventual definition section. - Bilby (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Understood! --Bermicourt (talk) 18:58, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Well I summarize my point: nazi-euthanasia programm can not be presented as it was not euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Er, surely you've just contradicted yourself? --Bermicourt (talk) 07:02, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

No, I have not. --ClaudioSantos (talk) 14:07, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

So far Bermicourt and Claudios support the addition of information on Action T4 to this article. Bilby and myself support a much more limited addition of information on T4. While Bilby has focused on intentions, Misplaced Pages cannot use intentions to make a distinction. Misplaced Pages:Verifiability prohibits that. What is verifiable is that many more scholars disagree with the Nazis use of the term "euthanasia" versus the modern usage. What is also verifiable is the different circumstances surrounding Action T4 from that occurring today (e.g. husband deciding to take a wife off life support versus a government doing so; it should be noted that the earlier case is mostly not considered euthanasia by the government in the US). Action T4 is important to the history of involuntary euthanasia, but modern euthanasia is voluntary. The modern definition of the term and the modern definition's origin is the focus of this article and thus should be given more weight. A section on the history of voluntary euthanasia needs to be added first before Action T4 is added. Bibly seems to be working on this. This is important in keeping with WP:UNDUE.--Jorfer (talk) 01:55, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Just as a passing comment, "intention", in the sense I mean it, only refers to how euthanasia is defined - that it, it is defined as an act intended to benefit the subject. Thus I'm referring to the argument given by many scholars who disagree with considering Action T4 euthanasia, (ie that it wasn't intended to benefit the subjects) rather than the intent of anyone involved in this discussion. :) - Bilby (talk) 03:01, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Also Claudio, I looked at Groningen Protocol and found that "The Groningen Protocol does not give physicians unassailable legal protection...no black-letter law exists in this area" This means it is not actually law; this is because it is a widely accepted interpretation of the law. Legally, parents are widely considered the consent givers for children in almost all matters. One more thing. mentioning libel is not to connote a legal threat. It is simply to point out that any accusations of masked intentions of supporters of Euthanasia in Misplaced Pages's voice is against Misplaced Pages policy and possibly against US law.---Jorfer (talk) 02:09, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I have provided some sources that claim that Aktion T4-nazi-euthanasia-program can not be presented as it was not euthanasia. And there are even more reliable and verifiable sources, and they are not few. Therefore it is also a fact that many sources claim that AktionT4-euthanasia-programm was euthanasia. About WP-policies, etc., perhaps it is useless to repeat that considering euthanasia support as a crime (e.g. incitement to murder, incitement to crime) and a mask to cover murders, is something claimed also by reliable and verifiable sources (I provided some), surely based on the legal fact that in most countries euthanasia is nothing else but a crime. Thet is a claim that could be inserted at any place in the article as it is claimed by reliable and verifiable sources. So I do not understand if Jorfer is going to put a complaint in the noticeboard against those sources. Whatever. Also I do not undertsand Jorfer's point about Groening protocol. Indeed, as noticed by Jorfer, if parents are those who decide about the euthanasia (the killing) of their children, then certainly it is not voluntary euthanasia, so the current use of euthanasia and that term is not restricted to voluntary euthanasia as Jorfer firstly stated. But perhaps it is useful to notice that actually AktionT4-nazi-euthanasia-program started with the killing of children and it was also needed the consent from their parents to proceed with the euthanasia (the killing) like in the current euthanasia-Groening Protocol, therefore it seems to be another identity between nazi euthanasia and current euthanasia. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 05:46, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Whilst no-one today is advocating a Nazi-style programme, Action T4 was still a form of euthanasia, albeit involuntary and horrific in the way it was used, and should still form part of the history of euthanasia in this general article, not swept under the carpet. --Bermicourt (talk) 06:40, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

It should not be swept under the carpet. But context matters. The context is that what was performed in Germany was not necessarily what was meant as euthanasia prior to the Action T4 program, and is not what is meant as euthanasia now. The arguments connecting the two are largely slippery slope arguments - euthanasia will lead to Action T4 - rather than arguments that the term means the same thing in both contexts. Ignoring that would be doing the reader a disservice.

I note that in the Action T4 article a good chunk of time is spent discussing the relationship of Action T4 to euthanasia - the context that I'm referring to. It seems to me that if Action T4 is to be covered here, that's the bit that matters. - Bilby (talk) 06:58, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Claudios, the point is that the programs are designed as voluntary, but laws applying to the consent minors result in a different legal situation for them, so I will clarify, modern euthanasia programs are not involuntary in the way that Action T4 was if you. You cannot infer that because it is illegal in most jurisdictions that it is because mostly considered a mask to cover murder (at least on Misplaced Pages per WP:OR). All this indicates is that most countries view the cons of euthanasia as outweighing the benefits. This does not mean that they do not believe the reasons supports give are genuine. The potential reasons may include feasibility of implementation, for example. Your sources need to reflect the weight of your accusation.--Jorfer (talk) 18:19, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Jorfer I am not implying nothing, I am just going to summarize the thing: many sources say explicity: euthanasia is murder and a term used to cover murders. Jorfer, frankly, I am getting tired to repeat something that seems you are unable to understand as you even swaped the premise and the conclusion of my sentence and put them upside down. Jorfer you are the one just arguing your own point of views. I do not know if I even have to refer to your "argument": "current involuntary euthanasia is not involuntary in the way that involuntary-nazi-euthanasia was". To be honest that sounds very ridiculous and superfluos like sayig "this is not that because this is not that", and this is not a personal attack but my objective appreciation of that sort of sentence. I noticed that involuntary euthanasia against children is practiced today and involuntary euthanasia against children was also practiced by the nazis and even that both of them required the parents consent. Then I showed two similarities, instead of your answer which absolutely lacks the difference you just solely claimed. If sources claim that nazi euthanasia was euthanasia, then is POV to demand them "to reflect the weight of their accusations", that criteria is not the criteria about sources but just to be reliable and verifiable.

Bilby, you said that "what was performed in Germany was not necessarily what was meant as euthanasia prior to the Action T4 program", but here is a source that shows that the euthanasia movement firstly supported the nazi-euthanasia programme and if they made some critics it was just about the methods but they supported the results(!). This source shows that the american euthanasia movement only tried to differentiate and to emphatize on "voluntary" because of the public opinion against nazism. That source also shows a lot of identities between nazi euthanasia and the euthanasia movement at that time, for instance actually also the american euthanasia movement introduced a bill to legalize involuntary euthanasia for "idiots, imbeciles, etc." exactly in the same way as it was understood by the nazi-euthanasia programme. Other similarities have been also stated between the english euthanasia movement and the nazi euthanasia programme, see for exaple this source. For isntance, the concept of "mercy killing" with or without voluntarity was something common to the rethoric of the euthanasia movement and was used not solely by the nazis. These sources even states the reponsability that had the euthanasia supporters in the subsequent massive killing. And so on. Similarities to the current euthansia are also to be found and described by many sources. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 20:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

I've never denied similarities - I only deny that use of the term in the debate held today is not the same as the use of the term in Action T4, to the extent that there are essentially different things, and that the commentators I've read have also argued that the use of the term prior to Action T4 was not generally in keeping with the way it was used in Germany - including in how the term was officially used in the country. The literature comparing Action T4 today does not claim that it and euthanasia are the same thing, but the euthanasia can lead to Action T4. It continues to be an important part of euthanasia history and debate, but that doesn't mean that the use of the term is accurate. At any rate, this is pointless. Over time I and others will provide the needed context to the article.

In regard to you other comment, there is no legal involuntary euthanasia being practiced today in any jurisdiction. - Bilby (talk) 22:23, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

AktionT4-nazi-in(non)voluntary-euthanasia was not legal too. Groening protocol is a current juridical agreement that allows the doctors in The Netherland to commit in(non)voluntary euthanasia against newborns: prosecutor will not prosecute the doctor. So involuntary eithanasia is being practiced in ate least one jurisdiction. If it is practiced illegal everywhere, I just noticed that aktion T4-nazi-euthanasia programm was also no legal.-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing involuntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. They are considered to be separate concepts. - Bilby (talk) 02:10, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No, I do not. But, as you seem lost and drowned under terms, then I have to say it in plain words: whatever be the euphemis used to mask the killing of children perpetrated by doctors, the facts are: during the nazi-euthanasia-AkTiont4-programme, doctors killed children using the motto euthanasia, and nowdays following the Groening Protocol doctors still kill children using the same motto: euthanasia. Parents' consent was "required" then and parents' consent is still "required" now, although certainly was the doctor who had and still has the last word and main responsability. They argued "mercy" then, they argue "mercy" now. If it was illegal then and it is illegal now, then that is another similarity, and I certainly can note some other else, even essential ones. And I also remember some other cases than Groening Protocol, such as the recent attempt to kill one little baby in Canada, against his parents' will. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 06:31, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps you need to catch up on your history and the definitions of types of euthanasia? There's not much point in continuing this if you continue to make fundamental errors. It seems best to drop this and return to trying to improve the article. - Bilby (talk) 07:44, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

No Bibly, you are evading the point and trying to hide the thing in terms and euphemisms. The killing of children by doctors is called today non-voluntary euthanasia (and by some authors, certainly not all of them), at nazi time the killing of children was called euthanasia or gnadentod (mercy death), but the point, evaded by you, is: during nazis-euthanasia programm the doctors killed children and today also the doctors kill children, both of them use the same motto: euthanasia. Both of them requiere the parent's consent, both of them argue "mercy", and both of them are not legal. So there are fundamental factual similarities and both used the same term euthanasia. So, it seems you are not imporving nothing but evading the dicussion in order to force your own point of view. That is really a fundamental error. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 15:43, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

As I mentioned, there's no value in continuing. Action T4 is mentioned in the article, and we'll slowly expand the history to handle the weight problems and context. - Bilby (talk) 16:08, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I already noticed that value (worth, unworth, unworthy life, etc.) is your criteria. Nothing personal (person=mask) but certainly a fundamental and societal error. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

If you can so badly misread what I'm saying, either I'm saying it wrong, or you're not going to pick it up. Time to move on, and my apologies for wasting other' editor's time with what proved to be a pointless digression that wasn't necessary to improve the article. - Bilby (talk) 17:37, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Ronpanzer, 9 May 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Stealth Euthanasia

Stealth euthanasia is a method used in the United States and imposes death without an official recognition of the procedure. Stealth euthanasia is often accomplished through the "Third Way" method of terminally-sedating a non-agitated patient continuously while assuring that no fluids are provided to the patient. Through terminal sedation, the patient dies through dehydration while in a medically-induced coma.

Stealth Euthanasia

• "Serving Patients Who May Die Soon and Their Families: The Role of Hospice and Other Services" by Joanne Lynn, MD; JAMA. 2001;285(7):925-932.
• "Responding to Intractable Terminal Suffering: The Role of Terminal Sedation and Voluntary Refusal of Food and Fluids" Timothy E. Quill, MD; Ira R. Byock, MD; and for the ACP-ASIM End-of-Life Care Consensus Panel.
• "Palliative Care: The New Stealth Euthanasia" by John Mallon.
• "Creeping euthanasia: In many places, it advances by stealth" by Alex Schadenberg.
• Stealth Euthanasia: Health Care Tyranny in America (Hospice, Palliative Care and Health Care Reform.

Ronpanzer (talk) 01:10, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. That's hardly a reliable source, especially for such an inflammatory claim. The author (apparently you) notes in the foreword that the entire book is comprised of anecdotal evidence. As your username is the same as the author of the work you're citing, please read our guideline on conflict of interest. — Bility (talk) 00:00, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

AktionT4, historic section

I have deleted a quote dealing on current legislation in section dealing with the history of euthanasia. I've kept the argument while I just addded an argument dealing with the history of euthanasia. Those sources points the relation and confluencing within eugenics movemente, euthanasia and the nazi euthanasia porgram. At any rate the quote is unduly too long. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 15:44, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I desisted on the last changes. I prefered to add a new subsection dealing on the historic relation on eugenics and euthanasia, and I have quoted some sources. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 16:25, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class medicine articles
• High-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• B-Class Death articles
• High-importance Death articles
• B-Class law articles
• Mid-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• B-Class Philosophy articles
• High-importance Philosophy articles
• B-Class ethics articles
• High-importance ethics articles
• Ethics task force articles