Talk:Family Health Care Decisions Act

Neutrality
The article emphasizes controversies and only minimally discusses benefits of the proposed act. The article's neutrality is questioned. The article should be improved by making sure that both sides of the controversy are discussed, as well as providing factual information about the act. Thanks. Truthanado (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I was not the original author.  I agree with Truthnado's criticism.   However I just uploaded a revised version of the article.  It offers a more comprehensive description of the background of the FHCDA, the bases for support and opposition, a thorough summary of the provisions of the FHCDA, and a description of proposals to expand the FHCDA.  It includes an extensive list of references.  And I believe it meets the neutrality standard.
 * I would appreciate it if someone issued a review of the revised article to take the place of the old one, which is no longer applicable.
 * However, I firmly disagree with the designation that is bill is low importance - it is very significant and influential, not only in NY but nationally and internationally.  Professionals involved in medical ethics policy across the country are aware of and familiar with the FHCDA.  Rswidler (talk) 21:22, 21 May 2024 (UTC)