Talk:Assisted suicide in the United States

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
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, Ln168282.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Case for Medical Aid in Dying Wiki Page
Assisted Suicide is a felony across most of the United States. It is explicitly prohibited by statute in 42 states and prohibited by common law in an additional six states and the District of Columbia. Assisted suicide is also prohibited in every state where where aid in dying, a medical option for terminally ill adults which allows them to shorten the dying process, is authorized. Elected lawmakers across the country have voted for or sponsored laws allowing medical aid in dying, while at the same time maintaining prohibitions on assisted suicide.

Therefore, Medical Aid in Dying and Assisted Suicide or Assisted suicide in the United States merit separate entries in Wikipedia.

Medical aid in dying is a medical practice as per the peer-reviewed Journal of Palliative Medicine and as per the American College of Legal Medicine, American Medical Student Association, American Medical Women’s Association, American Public Health Association, the California Medical Association, the Maryland State Medical Society, Kokua Mau (the Hawaii Medical Society), the Colorado Medical Society, the American Psychological Association, and the American Academy of Hospice and Palliative Medicine. (see article for references)

Medical Aid in Dying and Assisted Suicide or Assisted suicide in the United States merit separate entries in Wikipedia.

The Columbia Journalism Review recently reported from Colorado, where a years-long debate ended with Colorado voters approving medical aid in dying in November 2016. It showed the trend it away from calling medical aid in dying suicide because suicide is pejojrative and denotes a person who is mentally ill. This is the reason the American Public Health Association notes that “[p]rofound psychological differences distinguish suicide from actions under” laws authorizing medical aid in dying, and concludes “[m]edical and legal experts have recognized that the term “suicide” or “assisted suicide” is inappropriate when discussing the choice of a mentally competent terminally ill patient to seek medications that he or she could consume to bring about a peaceful and dignified death.”

Medical Aid in Dying and Assisted Suicide or Assisted suicide in the United States merit separate entries in Wikipedia.

The Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California and Colorado laws which authorize medical aid in dying expressly state that: “actions taken in accordance with [the Acts] shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law.” The same is true of aid-in-dying laws currently under debate in 20 or more U.S. states.

For these reasons, I have uploaded a separate entry that properly describes the medical practice of aid in dying in the United States. The current assisted suicide page should remain but only refer to cases of true "assisted suicide." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmlsmal1127 (talk • contribs) 21:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Case Against Medical Aid in Dying Wiki Page
"Medical Aid in Dying," or "MAiD" is a term that strongly favors the proponents' perspective. Not everyone agrees with that perspective, and it is inappropriate for the proponents to use Wikipedia as a platform for their advocacy. As the article currently asserts, PAS is a controversial practice opposed by a variety of groups representing the Latinx, disabled and lower income communities. Although Physician Assisted Suicide is legal in 10 juristictions under the moniker "aid in dying," that practice-in which a physician proscribes a lethal drug to someone who has been diagnosed with a terminal illness-is still a felony in 39 states. PAS is the most appropriate term because "suicide" is defined as the act of ending one's life, regardless of the person's mindset or their reason for making that choice.

Although Jmlsmal1127 is entitled to his/her opinions, there is no consensus supporting the distinction that he/she is drawing between what proponents term “medical aid in dying” and opponents term “assisted suicide.” Hence, I have changed the title of that page to “assisted death in the United States” and I propose that it and the article on assisted suicide be merged into a page with the title, “Medical Aid in Dying/Assisted Suicide in the United States.” Such a title would present both views and hence more accurately reflect the social division that exists on this matter. Progo35 (talk) 20:21, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Period of time between 1906 movement and 1980s?
Isn't there any information available about what happened in this political movement in between the events of 1906 and the Kevorkian era beginning in 1989? That's a long period of time for the article to be silent. Bry9000 (talk) 23:18, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

Assisted Suicide in the Mid-20th Century
I suggest adding a paragraph under History that includes events related to assisted suicide that occurred between 1906 and 1980. Certain important events include: 1930- there is an increase in popular support for assisted suicide during The Great Depression, 1937- the founding of the National Society for the Legalization of Euthanasia, 1967- the first living will is written by Louis Kutner, 1972- US Senate holds first national hearings on euthanasia.

There are multiple timelines of events that go into detail about this time period and would be useful to the user because as of now there is a large time gap in the country's history of assisted suicide. http://www.timetoast.com/timelines/assisted-suicide-in-the-us http://www.rtl.org/legislation/ProlifeLaws/assistedsuicide_chronology.html

Laurafisher17 (talk) 20:57, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Vermont Legalization
Could somebody please update this article and the map to reflect Vermont's new legalization of physician-assisted dying? Source: http://rt.com/usa/vermont-assisted-suicide-legalize-591/ Liberal92 (talk) 01:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Terminology not neutral
Referring to this process as "physician-assisted suicide" is not neutral. A similar bias going the other way would be use of the term "death with dignity." The neutral term appears to be "physician aid in dying." Vermont, Washington, and Oregon clarify in their code that this process does not entail a suicide, which makes the term not just biased but inaccurate as per those states. (I'm not sure about the NM and MT court cases.) I'd like to make a redirect from physician-assisted suicide to the main page of physician aid in dying, then change terminology to respect neutral tone. Thoughts? Jordan 04:45, 24 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs)


 * Well suicide seems to suggest that one is killing oneself. So a cold-blooded assessment is whether the physician-assisted part is "legal murder" or "assisted suicide."
 * But, sure, there is a politically correct term that makes it seems like one is being a Good Samaritan by doing this.
 * To me, the concept smacks a bit of the ending of Soylent Green.
 * Having said that, physicians have been doing this, sub rosa, for a long while. 99% of the time, their motives were cold-bloodedly objective. The patient had lost all pretense to a "quality of life" and the physician deliberately o/d-ed him. This wasn't "recorded" anywhere. One wonders about someone who has a lot of money "deciding" he'd be better off dead. It raises certain ethical questions that go unanswered by some statutes or proposed ones.
 * It does seem to help the Medicare/Social Security problem somewhat. I can see why the federal government might be in favor. Student7 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Use of "assisted suicide" to refer to aid in dying is inaccurate in fourth distinctive ways. First, it was coined by Catholic activists disputing Oregon's Measure 16 in 1994 - so it carries a political bias. Second, the laws in Oregon, Washington and Vermont each do not contain the term "assisted suicide" but use aid in dying. Third, assisting a suicide remains illegal in all three states - and also Montana and New Mexico. No state attorney general or county district attorney has charged any physician or pharmacist who acted within the aid in dying laws of the three states. Finally, describing people who use aid in dying, such as Brittany Maynard, suicides grossly misrepresents their experience and devalues both their lives and deaths. Continued usage of the biased and inaccurate term should be amended throughout Wikipedia. Pdx97217 (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

Inaccurate terminology
Assisting a suicide in Oregon is a class C felony, assault in the fourth degree, listed at ORS 163.193. U.S. district attorneys routinely convict people of assisting suicide. Oregon law specifically distinguishes assisting a suicide from "death with dignity" and ORS 127.880 s.3.14. states, "Nothing in ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall be construed to authorize a physician or any other person to end a patient's life by lethal injection, mercy killing or active euthanasia. Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law. [1995 c.3 s.3.14]" Pdx97217 (talk) 23:02, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Response to Inaccurate Terminology Complaint
Oregon's law is not sacrosanct in terms of understanding this particular practice. Although Oregon and 10 other territories have legalized PAS, 39 states still consider the act of proscribing lethal drugs to a terminally ill or disabled person to be a felony. Oregon may define PAS as "MAiD" but that doesn't mean that everyone else in the country has to look at the practice in that way. In the 1997 case Washington vs. Glucksburg and Vacco vs. Quill, the United States Supreme Court ruled that what the proponents call MAiD is physician assisted suicide and is not a protected liberty interest under the Constitution.

Missing info
HOW MANY people have committed assisted suicide in USA? HOW MANY in Oregon? WHY doesn't the article say??? HandsomeMrToad (talk) 22:32, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Probably because the information is not available. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 03:36, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Assisted suicide in the United States. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090426081553/http://www.deathwithdignity.org:80/historyfacts/ballotmeasures.asp to http://www.deathwithdignity.org/historyfacts/ballotmeasures.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:20, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Colorado
Can someone please add Colorado legalization to the map? 109.67.48.38 (talk) 06:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ - Thanks for noticing! NickCT (talk) 21:19, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Dupont writer (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Medical aid in dying
The topic Medical aid in dying is practically a subset of the other topic; over half of it is just a copy of the existing Assisted suicide in the United States article; and the portion that differs isn't specific to medical aid in dying—it's equally applicable to assisted suicide in general. Basically, this is a WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Largoplazo (talk) 20:41, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Copying this from your comment on the MAID page: Historically many people have called aid in dying “assisted suicide,” so there is overlap. However: 1) as more states pass these laws more people will be researching the actual medical term that’s in all of the legislation, “aid in dying;” 2) there are already complaints on the Assisted Suicide in the US page, in the Talk section, that this distinction matters, and Wiki should reflect that; and 3) as Americans make the transition from “assisted suicide” to “aid in dying” in their terminology – as we have shifted to “climate change,” “people of color” etc. – it helps to have both pages there referring to each other.Jmlsmal1127 (talk) 20:50, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - re "more people will be researching the actual medical term that’s in all of the legislation, “aid in dying;”" - That sounds like a rationale for a redirect. Not a separate article. NickCT (talk) 20:59, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Support Merge - Agree with nom. This should definitely be merged. I sorta understand what User:Jmlsmal1127's attempting, but it strikes me that creating the new article is mostly WP:SOAPBOXING for a neologism.
 * How about a minor compromise here? I suggest we merge, then change the lede sentence of this article from -
 * Physician-assisted suicide is defined as suicide committed with the aid of another person, sometimes a doctor.
 * to
 * Assisted suicide (also referred to as medical aid in dying) in the United States is the practice of providing aid or assistance to a person trying to tend their life.
 * How does that sound? NickCT (talk) 20:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What probably needs to happen is for the Assisted Suicide in the US page to be revised. As noted, "assisted suicide" is an actual felony in most states and state laws that allow for aid in dying say explicitly that "assisted suicide" is STILL against the law, even after the aid in dying law passes. It makes sense that the Assisted Suicide in the US Page refers readers to the Medical Aid in Dying page, even if there is a lot of overlap between the two. The change that needs to happen is to the Assisted Suicide in the US page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dupont writer (talk • contribs) 21:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC) Dupont writer (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
 * - A reasonable point. But WP doesn't define things on a strictly legal basis. In other words, just because legislation draws a distinction between two things it calls "medical aid in dying" and "assisted suicide" doesn't mean WP should. If the majority of sources treat "assisted suicide" and "medical aid in dying" as the same subject, WP should too. NickCT (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the merged article is about the United states, then the legal definitions in the US are relevant. Correct terminology is important where it can prevent confusion. If terminology varies internationally then the terminology must be explained in the context of the article. Alternative meanings may be mentioned, but given due weight. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * - A reasonable point. But WP doesn't define things on a strictly legal basis. In other words, just because legislation draws a distinction between two things it calls "medical aid in dying" and "assisted suicide" doesn't mean WP should. If the majority of sources treat "assisted suicide" and "medical aid in dying" as the same subject, WP should too. NickCT (talk) 05:30, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If the merged article is about the United states, then the legal definitions in the US are relevant. Correct terminology is important where it can prevent confusion. If terminology varies internationally then the terminology must be explained in the context of the article. Alternative meanings may be mentioned, but given due weight. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose. This topic is not U.S.-specific. For example, the first sentence of Dignitas (Swiss non-profit organisation) reads: "Dignitas is a Swiss nonprofit member's society providing assisted/accompanied suicide to those members of the organisation who suffer from terminal illness and/or severe physical and/or mental illnesses, supported by (of the organization independent) qualified Swiss doctors."


 * See also Euthanasia in the Netherlands, where "euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide are not punishable if the attending physician acts in accordance with criteria of due care".
 * (Emphases added.) Narky Blert (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Despite its title, the exclusive scope of the content of the current Medical aid in dying article is the United States. I didn't see any point in moving it to Medical aid in dying in the United States, though I could have properly done so, before proposing merging from there, and then you wouldn't have had your basis for objecting. Or, alternatively, I could have called for merging Medical aid in dying to Assisted suicide, my motion could have passed, the content could all have then been merged to Assisted suicide, and then someone could have looked at it there and said, "Hey, this is all very detailed U.S. information, I'm going to move it to Assisted suicide in the United States, and then move of the material to Assisted suicide would turn out to have been an unnecessary diversion from the final outcome.So I propose interpreting my request in the context of the content: merging the exclusively U.S.-related content from the other article to this U.S.-specific article. Largoplazo (talk) 21:39, 3 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge. There are big political implications in this decision, and it should not be taken lightly. "Assisted suicide" and "aid in dying" are importantly different things, though their histories do overlap somewhat. As far as I know, every U.S. state with an "aid in dying law" (which is, I believe, five) explicitly outlaws suicide, and the law explicitly prohibits a physician from "assisting." (This is certainly the case in Oregon, and I believe it's true of all the other states as well.) From a distance, these distinctions might sound like mere technicalities, but they make a tremendous difference in practice, as the history of each law exhibits. The Euthanasia in the Netherlands article makes it clear why we need to have separate articles for "aid in dying" laws; the procedure that has apparenty been legal in the Netherlands since 2002, if I'm not mistaken, has never been legal in any of the United States. Readers about the laws will be interested in such distinctions, and should not have to battle confusing article titles as they learn about them. (And as a related point, this article should probably be stubbified and most of its contents moved to an article about aid in dying.) -Pete Forsyth (talk) 18:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You seem to be suggesting that if a topic has a number of variations, some of which happen to be illegal in some places and others of which happen to be legal in some places, then that causes them to be two different topics that should have separate Wikipedia articles. I don't see that that follows. It's kind of like saying that since there are many animals that cannot be legally kept as pets in the United States, or parts of it, instead of just having Pet, we should have separate articles for pets that are kept legally and pets that are kept illegally. Largoplazo (talk) 19:29, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, that's not my position at all -- sorry I was unclear. My point is that aid in dying and assisted suicide are sufficiently distinct topics that they should have separate coverage on Wikipedia. As (merely) one piece of evidence for that, I offer the point that various legal jurisdictions recognize a distinction. Five legal jurisdictions in the USA (if I'm not mistaken) permit aid in dying, but do not permit assisted suicide; those positions have, in different states, been adopted by popular, legislative, and judicial means. A better kind of evidence (per Wikipedia's policies on sourcing) would be the content of relevant academic literature. When searching scholar.google.com, I find a number of articles about "aid in dying", and a number of articles about "assisted suicide," and some overlap.
 * Here's how I see the terms:
 * Aid in dying: The best "umbrella term," as it can be legitimately used to include a variety of approaches.
 * Assisted suicide: Widely used, but used inconsistently in different sources. For instance, some sources refer to "assisted suicide" in Oregon, even though Oregon law is explicit in outlawing suicide, and forbidding physicians to assist in the administration of the poison. The reader is not well served if the varying use is not clearly explained. Best not to use it in the titles of Wikipedia articles; disambiguation pages and redirects can point out the inconsistencies.
 * Euthanasia: Specific term with a well-understood definition.
 * -Pete Forsyth (talk) 20:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Another point to consider: the term "aid in dying" is relatively new, and has been gaining in common usage. Here's a chart of "aid in dying" as a search term in Google News from 2008-2016. -Pete Forsyth (talk) 21:11, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I went through the sources in the Medical Aid in Dying page, and a majority seemed to still describe the issue assisted suicide, rather than the medical aid in dying terminology. It was very close, as the aid in dying term also turned up, but from what the sources were saying this is simply a terminology issue - there is a push to distinguish between suicide and physician aided suicide by using a different term. It was of some note that the "aid in dying" term is almost exclusively used in the literature that is in support of the legislation, while the neutral literature (which also tended to be the mainstream media) went with assisted suicide. (It was interesting that none of the sources seemed to be opposed, but that is a different concern).
 * The best that I can determine is that "medical aid in dying" - which is the act of prescribing a lethal dose of a drug to a terminally ill patient so that they can take their own life - is indistinguishable from "physician assisted suicide", in which a terminally ill patient is prescribed a lethal dose of a drug so that they can take their own life. There is a difference between PAS and general assisted suicide, as PAS requires a doctor while assisted suicide is a more general term.
 * Given that he two articles are almost completely identical, I can only see this as a fork to use a specific term, rather than a usable second article. Anything of value in medical aid in dying could be easily merged here, and if there is a distinction to be drawn, this is the place to draw it. - Bilby (talk) 04:47, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Source
The NYT has a good overview of the national state of assisted suicide in the above link czar  21:24, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Assisted suicide in the United States. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030908034403/http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/cases/case19.asp to http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/cases/case19.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I propose that Assisted Death in the United States be merged into this article, Assisted suicide in the United States. Both articles are about the same topic and overlap each other. The content in the Assisted Death in the United States article can easily be explained in the context of Assisted suicide in the United States, and Assisted suicide in the United States is of a reasonable size that the merging of Assisted Death in the United States will not cause any problems as far as article size or undue weight is concerned. 8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 08:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * support seems about right(however more opinions needed...IMO--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:03, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * support but with one proviso. I am concerned that a deluge of recent edits by an opponent of assisted death which has changed both the accuracy and the neutrality of both articles by altering the language used and has considerably confused where the overlap occurs (there is a distinct difference between aid in dying (a term which has been removed almost entirely) (or assisted death) and assisted suicide in legal terms. This is one small example among many where discussion was removed albeit left in the lede (which is meant of course to summarise) There is plenty of discussion above this section which details it and further information here. The merge needs to happen with this in mind so the correct terminology can be reinstated and the perjorative language removed to restore WP:NPOV. It might be useful for someone experienced in the subject or with a medical background to take a look either first or as part of the merge so that the differences are clear. Mramoeba (talk) 13:39, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * support. Agree that NPOV must be preserved/restored. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 21:33,11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but I strongly dispute my fellow editors comments regarding POV. I disagree that my edits disrupted neutral POV, I feel that they restored it, and I actually did file a notice with Wikipedia concerning the neutrality of the article as I found it. I choose not to divulge my personal position on assisted death (you're assuming that I oppose it when I haven't made any statement either way), but I stand by my edits as reinstating what should be a balanced presentation of this topic. As I said, the latter article, Medical aid in dying, did not include any information about people who oppose it, why they oppose it, or what their arguments are. Creating wikipedia entries that do not acknowledge these dynamics violates standards for neutral POV.  Moreover, the statement made by Mramoeba "(there is a distinct difference between aid in dying (a term which has been removed almost entirely) (or assisted death) and assisted suicide in legal terms" is true, but framing wikipedia entries  solely in that respect represents the proponents' POV that the *philosophical* distinction is clear and that this procedure is "aid-in dying." As said, this is a POV that is common to the proponents perspective, literature and advocacy efforts, and not using it simply allows both POVs to exist. If I had, instead, replaced all the references to "aid in dying" with "assisted suicide," or gotten rid of the information referring to proponents, then I would be espousing an opponents' perspective/agenda. If I were, say, teaching a philosophy or law school class, I would tell my students that "Aid in dying" and "assisted suicide" are both examples of political framing; they do not represent objective reality, which is true. "Assisted death" allows readers to make up their own minds.Progo35 (talk) 22:58, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It is assisted suicide which is inaccurate; the blanket removal of the term aid in dying; blanket substitution of terms such as 'lethal dose of barbiturates' for 'medication' (no mention of differing locations prescribing different drugs, not solely barbiturates); the removal of sentences such as "Medical aid-in-dying laws expressly prohibit euthanasia", the uncited addition of statements such as "Opponents also cite the fact that oncologists and other non-psychiatric physicians responsible for referring patients for counseling are not trained to detect complex, potentially invisible disorders like clinical depression" and "The fact that the caveat in this poll is incurable illness rather than terminal illness represents one of the opponents’ primary objections to assisted death" (with no refs). It is these examples and many more which are clearly designed to change the focus of the pages and which is why I suggest an uninvolved editor take a look at it. Mramoeba (talk) 00:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It’s tricky to add citations for everything; I’m still learning how, and editing wiki is a hobby, not a job. Indeed, the article that I edited did not cite all of its claims regarding proponents, etc, so I really think that eliminating that passage because of “lack of citation” is a bit obtuse. I did eliminate the term “medication” because it presents the proponents view as an objective reality-framing assisted death drugs as “medication” suggests that AD is like any other medical procedure. That’s the proponents’ view, there is not and likely never will be a consensus on that. “Drugs” is neutral, and with very few exceptions in which drugs like morphine or chloral hydrate are utilized, barbiturates are, in fact, the drugs that are used. As for the statement “medical aid in dying laws expressly forbid euthanasia,” there are 2 problems with it:
 * a. It uses the biased term “medical aid in dying,” which has already been discussed above
 * b. The language of the laws forbid euthanasia, but that sentence privileges the legal context of that term over its functional application. The term Euthanasia literally means “good death.” Assisted death is provided in order to help someone euthanize themselves. Hence, technical and legal differences between the two should be acknowledged, but the phrase “expressly forbid euthanasia” strikes me as overbearing.Progo35 (talk) 01:43, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , If you intend to edit controversial articles on Wikipedia, you will have more success if you learn how to adequately reference anything and everything that is likely to be challenged. Getting the formatting perfect is secondary to identifying the source and using a reliable and verifiable source. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)


 * support merger. Regarding Progo35's edits, not all have been bad, but I have mixed feelings about changing "medication" to "drug" etc. If death is the desired outcome, then the barbiturate/drug is a medication. Ratel (talk) 03:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , I understand the meaning of medication to be incompatible with intent to cause death. A drug may well be used for this purpose. Cheers, · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 19:57, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , to medicate is to "administer medicine or a drug to (someone)". Purpose is not implicit. Ratel (talk) 22:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
 * , If this is the case you will be able to cite a reliable reference to support this definition. I do not know of one myself. What I have found so far indicates that purpose/intent is implicit.&middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:39, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You may have heard of people "self-medicating" with alcohol, hardly a healthy pursuit. rBesides, a peaceful death is in fact a desirable outcome in this instance, in which case the drug administered can legitimately be called a medication. Ratel (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I have indeed, and I notice that you have applied quote marks around the term. That does not make it a correct usage, and irony is often intended. Nevertheless, none of the definitions I found sugest that administation of a substance with an intention to cause death or other harm is a legitimate use of the term medication. I am not arguing against the desirability of a peaceful death as an outcome of medical aid in death, just the use of the terms medication and medicine when applied to a drug used for this purpose. It is possible that the laws define the meaning of medication in this context differently, and in that case they should be cited. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I feel that “medication” is inappropriate and biased in the context of a Wikipedia article. Desired impact does not define something, and calling the drugs “medication” strongly reifies the *proponents* perspective that assisted death drugs are in the same broad medical category as tylenol or Prozac. Die-hard opponents would prefer to use the term “poison,” because that is how the opponents view those drugs, but that wouldn’t be a neutral term. Because it represents the proponents unique POV that assisted death is a medical procedure, “medication” is similarly biased.Progo35 (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Desired impact can define something. Whether it does in this case is unclear. As an encyclopaedia, Wikipedia should use a term which is as little loaded with emotional content as is reasonably possible. In this case I agree that both medication and poison are emotionally loaded, whereas drug is as neutral as can reasonably be expected. A drug can be used either as a poison or a medication depending on the intended outcome, and the possible effects as known to the administator. Historically many substances have been used as medication which we now know to be ineffective or toxic, nevertheless, at the time they were used as medicine. In the future it is quite likely that some of the substances now administered as medicine will also be found to be inappropriate. That does not stop them from legitimately being called medicine and used as medicine now. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 04:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)


 * support merger of both articles which are about exactly the same subject. The title of this article 'suicide' is preferred over 'death'.  This article appears more WP:NPOV and a better starting place for the target merge, and it appears the two are being coordinated with this as the likely target.  I am interested in this project and will probably help out. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:10, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Suicide is one mode of death. Generally when merging the broader topic title will be more appropriate, but it also depends on whether the alternative would require verifiable and encyclopaedic content to be discarded. The title shoule reflect the content. The order of what gets merged where is less important. If the article is broader than suicide, it can be moved after the merge, but it is a little less complicated if the content is moved to where it will stay. · · · Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * We use the WP:COMMONNAME for titles. A google of "assisted suicide" gives 13.2 million results.  "Assisted death" only gives less than a tenth of that. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:50, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The two are different things, we should be clear about that in all relevant articles on wikipedia. Mramoeba (talk) 19:27, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They aren't different things, any more than suicide is different from death. "Suicide" just indicates the agent and implies the deliberateness of what 'is' a death. Assisted suicide is a subtopic of assisted death. Largoplazo (talk) 20:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
 * In the UK assisted death refers to the process by which someone who is terminally ill chooses to end their life. Assisted suicide does not. Whilst one death may be a subset of a broader category of death the distinction is important, particularly within a legal framework. The merge should be clear on that. I'm wondering as some people seem to not see this distinction whether it is geographically specific to the current debate in the UK. Mramoeba (talk) 21:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like there's pretty good consensus here on the merger, which was proposed over 9 months ago. Any volunteers? heat_fan1 (talk) 14:33, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Merger with Unique Information Intact/Some Discussion About Balance
I agree that the two pages should be merged, as they are about the same topic. There is information in the two pages that is district regarding both sides in of the debate, and I move that all of this information remains on the new page. Progo35 (talk) 11:44, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Progo35: why are you creating a new section for this comment when you should be adding your comments in the appropriate section above? 8&#61;&#61;8 Boneso (talk) 20:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Because I find the directions confusing and made the comment in the manner in which I thought I was meant to do. I salute all those who are able to understand and implement all of the technical procedures associated with Wikipedia editing, but unfortunately I am not one of them. Progo35 (talk)< — Preceding unsigned comment added by Progo35 (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It gets easier with practice. Not a crisis, engaging in rational discussion is the important part. Formatting can be fixed when necessary. Cheers, &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 05:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Peter! Progo35 (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

States Opposed to Assisted Suicide, e.g. KY
I would support having sections about states that currently oppose assisted suicide. For example, Kentucky which recently passed this. Not sure how easy it will be to find sources given that the most accessible sources like Find Law and Nolo have--for reasons I still don't understand--been banned. Both of these sources point out that KY "has, in fact, taken an opposing path, declaring that any health care professional convicted of assisted suicide may have his or her license to practice revoked. (See Kentucky Revised Statutes §§ 216.302 and 216.308.)" Nolo. com. Find Law also mentions KRC 311.637, 311.639 and civil and criminal penalties. (Note: The Kentucky legislature's unofficial versions of the same statutes can be found here  I'm not sure if Justia's version are more or less reliable.  I believe neither is 'official'.)

Is there any support or opposition to creating a section to discuss anything related to assisted suicide for these states, please let me know. Maybe this has been covered already? --David Tornheim (talk) 12:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There's already an article on Right-to-try law.Terrorist96 (talk) 13:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)


 * It is part of the topic. You can create a section. If there is consensus that it is balanced, verifiable and relevant, it will probably get to stay. &middot; &middot; &middot; Peter (Southwood) (talk): 13:15, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Decisions re Merger from Assisted death in the United States
This section is for discussion of material being merger here from Assisted_death_in_the_United_States per Talk:Assisted_suicide_in_the_United_States (permalink). Each subsection shows individual decisions I made that others might disagree with. Please feel free to add your own. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

1
Differences between 1st sentence of Death article to Suicide article:
 * In 1992, the group Californians against Against Human Suffering proposed Proposition 161 to allow patients with less than six months to live the right to receive a lethal prescription of barbiturates from a physician.  assistance from physicians in dying.

I chose the latter; hence, keeping the language as is. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

2
I am tempted to change:
 * "...making California the fifth state to authorize medical aid in dying..."

to
 * "...making California the fifth state to authorize assisted suicide..."

to be consistent with the chosen article title. However, the WP:RS cited in this section does tend to use the phrase "death" rather than "suicide", so I am leaving it for now. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:38, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

LEDE
Most of the WP:LEDE of this version of Assisted death in the United States was already in the the LEDE here. I made a few adjustments as necessary to bring in material to this article's LEDE that was absent.. The one thing that I did not copy over was this unsourced sentence:
 * Helping someone commit suicide is technically prohibited in every state where assisted death is authorized.

--David Tornheim (talk) 20:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Title
It’s not suicide- it’s dying quicker with the aid of a physician, or physician-aided dying. 152.44.158.141 (talk) 05:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Objections to the title and main concept used
I find the title of the article "Assisted suicide in the United States" objectionable because the article is only about physician's assistance of dying, and not about all "assisted suicides". Also the sentence in the first paragraph where "assisted suicide" is said to be "often used interchangeably with physician's assisted suicide, physician's aid in dying ...et cetera" is plainly wrong since these are separate things and not used interchangeably unless a person does not know or does not care to make the difference.

I find the main concept "physician's assisted suicide (PAS)" objectionable as a overarching term to describe the laws on physician's assisted dying in these states of USA. It is not a suicide in its usual understanding since we are talking about terminally ill people (patients) and this is not an act of desperation or stemming from a feeling of not willing to live. It is an option when death is inevitable for people who otherwise generally would like to live. The term "physician's assisted suicide (PAS)" is therefore demeaning and is for example not used in the Benelux countries. The term "assisted suicide" is used for the special case in Switzerland where people from special organizations can assist in voluntary assisted suicide, but in this instance too, its use can be debated, since the circumstances are often the same as in physician's aid in dying. Also it is not precise to say that PAS is not the same as euthanasia. PAS as it is defined in this article is actually "indirect euthanasia" and when a physician gives the lethal drug it is termed "direct euthanasia". So both are instances of euthanasia. The wording in this article indicates a lack of understanding of this important understanding of euthanasia. It is also strange that "euthanasia" is hardly used in the article, since that term is central to the whole discussion of this act.

I can propose a different use of terms here but I am not sure how that would work. I hope this will be discussed. I am Svanur Sigurbjörnsson, MD (trained in NYC), BA in philosophy and MA in biomedical ethics. At Univ. of Icel. Faculty of Medicine. Svanur Sigurbjörnsson (talk) 21:04, 16 May 2022 (UTC)