Talk:Non-voluntary euthanasia/Archive 2

Slippery Slope section may be too long or misplaced
The Slippery Slope subsection is perhaps not appropriate to this article, as it contains arguments relating to euthanasia generally, voluntary euthanasia, and the Groningen protocol, to name a few. It is also far too large now for the article, and looks like a wp:COATRACK. TickleMeister (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The slippery slope debat is a difficult one anyway. How many GP's make "mistakes" just big enough to help somebody over the bridge. A but too much sedation, forgotten tablets and so on. How many GP's will notify these cases when they are considered criminal. Even if you don't see it, it is there... Eddylandzaat (talk) 03:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * So what do we do? This slippery slope debate should be moved to its own article, or deleted, IMO. Comments from others? TickleMeister (talk) 07:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think a split would be a good idea, as (a) the arguments in question apply to all forms of euthanasia, and (b) the section is too long compared with the main trunk of the article. I would summarize the arguments and then give a at the top of the section. At the moment it's not terrifically informative anyway: just "'Tis, 'tisn't, 'tis, 'tisn't" with a bunch of footnotes at the end.  Xanthoxyl  &lt; 17:14, 1 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Xanthoxyl, agreed. Once in its own article, this very complex question can be fleshed out. Currently, it is completely overshadowing the article's topic. TickleMeister (talk) 01:19, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

New article created
A new article was created, as per agreement in this section, called Euthanasia and the slippery slope. It was immediately tagged for deletion as a PIOV essay, which is an unfortunate feature of wikipedia. If any of you wish to see the article survive, I suggest you start editing it as soon as possible. We have 7 days before it gets deleted, unless we improve it. TickleMeister (talk) 01:43, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Goody, why so quick? On the Dutch WP the procedure is 14 days. Eddylandzaat (talk) 18:56, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Doyal quote
removed the following quote from the "Legal status" section, saying that "": {{Quotation|Len Doyal, a professor of medical ethics and former member of the ethics committee of the British Medical Association, said in 2006 that "[p]roponents of voluntary euthanasia should support non-voluntary euthanasia under appropriate circumstances and with proper regulation".

Untitled

 * I should add that there is no such thing as "child euthanasia" in the medical literature.
 * The "child euthanasia" page at wikipedia only has sources that refer to infant euthanasia and the Groningen Protocol.
 * The "child euthanasia" article was created recently (2009) by a blocked user ( as a wp:POVFORK. OzOke (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Now you are tellling a different story then the first time. But still I'm cautious because of your strange, incorrect edits on Groningen Protocol. Eddylandzaat (talk) 19:38, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Please note that I have questioned your sourcing of the statements that I removed (and you reinserted), at Talk:Groningen Protocol. Secondly, the English of your text is incorrect/clumsy, and I replaced it with text directly from the source discussed (Verhagen), and meaning the same thing more or less. You reverted that again. So you are reverting improving edits in favor of your uncited, ungrammatical versions. Please stop. Also, please do not use the word "vandalism" again in reference to my edits. OzOke (talk) 23:41, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Patrolling admin Gabbe has not responded to this merger proposal, nor has habitual editor Bilby. I'm assuming qui tacet consentiret and will proceed shortly. OzOke (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Meanwhile I also do not agree. Therefore there is not consensus. Qui tacet consentire videtur, yes videtur, but sometimes indeed does not. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * You have to give reasons. wp:JUSTDONTLIKEIT will not suffice. OzOke (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I will do soon. Meanwhile you should don't mind because my reason is that one you already argued: "...tacet..." -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where I sit on this one - initially I thought merging was a good idea, but there are some issues unique to the euthanasia of children such that in the long term I can see a good article on the subject that would be expansive enough to warrant its own treatment, a bit like where we're going with the slippery slope argument. It's just that this good article doesn't currently exist in Wikipedia, and if there aren't sources to develop it it may be the case that it can't. :) Anyway, I'll see what sources do exist in regard to child euthanasia, and maybe they'll help work out where I sit on this. - Bilby (talk) 00:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should we discuss a proposal made by an user abusing of 4 sockpuppets since years ago in order to force his editions pro euthanasia? -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 04:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * We don't. If OzOke/TickleMeister is the only supporter, then I see no reason to continue the discussion. - Bilby (talk) 05:42, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Misleading wording
The current article says that "Non-voluntary euthanasia is illegal in all countries in the world". However, passive non-voluntary euthanasia is legal in most of the United States, in some cases without the consent of relatives (See Euthanasia in the United States). It is specifically illegal in Florida, Missouri, and a few other states, however. Kaldari (talk) 23:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Nazi comparison
Let's discuss whether to add to the lead the comparison between the Nazis and the Groningen Protocol. The material has been added by ClaudioSantos, and removed, , and.

The first problem I see is that the second source (the FASPE one) seems to be a research project by a number of undergraduates. For instance, the paper making the Groningen/Holocaust analogy is written by "Benjamin Abelson, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Class of 2014". When it comes to the first source, the one written by Pisanò, while it isn't strictly prohibited to use non-English language sources, it would be much more preferable with a reliable source written in English. If there aren't any, I don't see the point of having this in the lead. Gabbe (talk) 07:10, 3 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Xanthoxyl complaint was that the content was already in the article. But it was false. About the sources. As Gabbe said, non english sources are allowed. FASPE sources is reliable and verifiable and itis not requiered that the sources must be writyten by graduate people but it is allowed to be written by people who deals and investigate the issue and FASPE is a programm for profesional dedicated to investigate the nazis. The authors of the Journal are professional students dedicated to investigate the issue and at any rate the Journal is made by the supervision of graduate professors. Then why to delete those editions comparing nazi-euthanasia programm-AktionT4 with non-voluntary euthanasia? White washing euthanasia? PD: anyway, I've added more sources. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 14:23, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * A blatant attempt to insert as much opinion and worst-case-scenario as possible into the lead paragraph. The slippery slope issue is discussed directly beneath in the body of the article, where it belongs, with better sources, and there is a link to a whole other article entitled Euthanasia and the slippery slope. And I see now you've performed 4 reverts in 24 hours. Well done. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 14:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * My edition is not dealing with the slippery slope but a comparison between the killing of children under nazi-euthanasia-program-AktionT4 and the killing of children under the modern motto of non-voluntary euthanasia and Groningen Protocol. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) First, you've added a blog post. This is not a reliable source. Second, the blog post does not fully support what you have written. And third, the blog post goes into the reasons why the comparison both does and doesn't work - it provides a wider context, which your line fails to do. In regard to FASPE, I agree with Gabbe that the source is not reliable. But more importantly, you've ignored the bulk of the argument. The argument offered by FASPE, and even your blog post, is a complex one, not suited to single-line statements in articles where the bulk of the argument can't be discussed or contextualised. This is not the article for that discussion - this is an article that makes but a passing mention of the Groningen Protocol, so that discussion is much better suited to the dedicated Groningen Protocol article. The statement is unrequired here, is POV, and needs to be placed in the context of the argument as a whole. - Bilby (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've added it to the groening protocol and it was deleted. If Groening Protocol is just "passing" mentioned in the lead then why not to add my edition? Actually that mention of the groningen protocol in the lead was made by an user (user:Ratel) who was expulsed because he abused of puppetry in order to coercively publish his pro-euthanasia opinions (see for example Ratel deleting and edition against the Groninegn Protocol: ). Indeed that user (actually one of his puppets) inserted the Groningen protocol mention in order to present the non-voluntary euthanasia as something "less bad today" and he explicity said in another discussion that he has no problem with the supression of that sort of newborns with spina bifida. I wonder why Xanthoxyl quickly runs to the noticeborad when I put editions where the authors are against euthanasia but let pass and defend the blatant editions made by this expulsed editor.
 * About the sources: one blog is sponsored by a professional institute dedicated to investigate the issue. Th other blog is made by an known prtofessional author on the issue (see). My editions just says: that nazi infanticide has been compared with groningen protocol and that is what the sources say. The non-enghlish source is a reliable and verifiable source allowed by WP policies on sources. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 14:49, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * [Note: ClaudioSantos has been blocked for 5 days for edit-warring.] Let me make a few points (here, rather than on your talk-page where it would be instantly blanked). You don't understand consensus. You don't understand policies on sources and self-published material. You don't understand neutrality — it's not okay to insert Nazi Nazi Nazi into the first paragraph. Your English is not that great. Your talk-page replies ignore the important elements of others' comments. And you persistently edit-war. Xanthoxyl  &lt; 07:14, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

Statement about Groningen Protocol in the lead
The paragraph that Night of the Big Wind is continuosly reinserting is WP:OR: the source does not say what that paragraph claims. Is that Night of the Big Wind opinion which he is trying to force to include by falsely atributing it to a source that does not claim it?. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * It is very nice that you try to remove unwelcome text, but I don't buy that. You will have to proof that it is Original Research. As long as you don't do that, I regard your removals als vandalism! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are wrong and shameless lying. You are the one who must prove the source claims that statement about non-voluntary euthanasia. I've read it and it does not. That source (here is the abstract: )is an study about Deliberate termination of life in newborns in The Netherlands; an review of all 22 reported cases between 1997 and 2004, but it never claims that "In the modern world, the term (non-voluntary euthanasia) is usually applied to medical situations, such as the termination of newborns born with severe spina bifida (child euthanasia), performed in the Netherlands under the Groningen Protocol". The source does not even use the term non-voluntary euthanasia not even the term Groningen Protocol. You provide the exactly page where the source claim that statement or you are vandalizing, falsely attributing an statement to a source and forcing your WP:OR WP:POV. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:15, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Further down in the article it does... Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:26, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * No, it does not. You should copy-paste a quote of the source to prove it or you are blatantly lying. -- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:40, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Could you refrain from personal attacks? Thanks!
 * Because you made an POV-issue out of it if have removed part of the lead. But you go far in pushing your Point of View! Night of the Big Wind (talk) 18:45, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am not personally-attacking you. Actually it is a blatantly lie when falsely attributing to a source an statement that it does not claim. That is WP:OR and blatantly misleading. And I also remember that statement was firstly inserted into the lead by an user who was expulsed due sock-puppetry and well known and well expulsed because of using dirty tactics in order to force his editions, you should know him as you were also his victim:-- ClaudioSantos (talk) 18:49, 8 June 2011 (UTC)