Talk:Right to die

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg 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.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2019 and 16 May 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kjsnguyen. Peer reviewers: MishaSayenkoCSUEB.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

Sciences humaines.svg This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 21 September 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kevndli, Goshita, Sarazhou19.

Above undated message substituted from assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I get the cleanup tag, this article is a mess, but why NPOV? Pianoman123 tagged it without (apparently) starting any discussion on the matter.

I would imagine the NPOV issue with this article would be the lack of information regarding views of those critical of a "right to die" such a many religious conservatives. I think this article needs to explaining the views of those who both oppose having a "right to die" as well as better explaining the views of those who argue for a "right to die". Also their needs to be some clarity that some people support the right to have one's own or a family members life support discontinued in certain circumstances but do not supports euthanasia (i.e. assisted suicide). --Cab88 15:00, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I proposed the merger because Right to die should be covered in euthanasia as it essentially the same thing but without the POV title.--Joe Jklin (T C) 02:17, 11 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Right to Die is something that can be theoretical, or something that can only be understood by someone with an incurable, painful disease.

We are all mortal; and if it is true that some of us have no medical help, why do they make it so difficult. Even the Oregon Law requires it be a “fatal” disease. There are many painful disabling diseased that, unfortunately, won’t kill you.Fredlaws 17:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Euthanasia" is not "Right to die"[edit]

Should be merged !!!!!! "Right-to-die" is a legal, philosophical and moral concept which may or may not be admissible for debate in the current legal climate. "Euthanasia" is a practice (rather, set thereof) which purports to rely on the "right-to-die" concept. Major clean-up required, yes. Zvozin 22:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with Zvozin's above assessment and I believe it could not have been stated any better, and therefore it should not be merged. --Chad 05:23, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


What a nonsense: To expect a "world wide view" on the right to die in a Wikipedia article. If a person wants to die, then this does not require a "world wide view". And whenever in a Wikipedia article you write about the "Right to die", you must not forget those people, WHO are suffering. Those humans are not able to write in the Wikipedia, so I do for them. Hans Rosenthal (ROHA) (hans.rosenthal AT -- replace AT by @ ) (13032007)

You take it upon yourself to write for others? And in fact what you write with this assumed authority equates to "we do not need to cover more perspectives on the subject than we currently do; in fact we should be limiting the perspectives on the subject we cover to only the perspectives of those in a certain position"? How arrogant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:24, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Speaking of which, only arguments for have been presented in this article. To keep a neutral, encyclopedic style to this article, surely arguments for both sides should be presented? Rockman999 (talk) 12:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This page needs to be locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:02, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pro and Against Arguments section needed[edit]

We need a section which brings the arguments for and against "right to die" debate.--Inayity (talk) 08:29, 28 July 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I added some arguments for and against the right to die debate under ethics portion -Kelly Nguyen — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talkcontribs) 01:52, 30 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dignified death[edit]

I've stumbled upon this article - Dignified death. I very much do not think this article deserves to stand on its own as is. I suggest somebody either fleshes it out or redirects/merges it to this article. Just bringing it to the attention of other people - currently only one article links to it. Freikorp (talk) 11:34, 6 April 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shall be "right to die" presented as an actual right here?[edit]

"Right to die" shall bedefined as a claim adn a term used by those who are pro-euthanasia, but not as an actual right as they pretend. It is not neutral, nor accurate. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:31, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Lede sentence[edit]

We don't generally go about intentionally prejudicing readers against a topic. As I stated, the fact that not everyone agrees that assisted suicide should be a right doesn't mean that Wikipedia dismisses it - see, for instance, right to bear arms or fetal rights - and since in a number of jurisdictions one does have the legal right to assisted suicide, the idea that it's just a "controversial claim" floating out in the ether and "alleging" that a right "should" exist is not only an obvious POV push but also inaccurate. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 05:33, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

We don't also have to prejudicing readers in favor of a topic. you also miss that legalization of euthanasia does not necessarily means nor is understood by the reliable sources as the enforcment of a "right" to get euthanasia[1] -- ClaudioSantos¿? 05:38, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Calling something a right doesnt automatically favour it, or force people to favour it, many people here would be opposed to a "right to bear arms" (we have rather strict gun controls in Australia). In some areas Gay Marriage rights still arent majority endorsed either. Need I go on? -- Nbound (talk) 05:51, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Then neither it forces anybody against a "right", showing this "right" is actually a claim, as it is. The "right to die" is certainly, as the sources state: part of the efforts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, and shall be presented as such, not as an actual right, exactly as the age of consent reform is not presented as a right to have sex with children. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 06:03, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Request for 3rd Opinion[edit]


My name is Dusti, and I'm responding to your request for a third opinion. To better understand the issue, can the involved parties briefly fill me in on what's going on below? Dusti*poke* 05:57, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viewpoint by Roscelese

(partly c/p from above) I support the wording "The right to die is the ethical or institutional entitlement of any individual to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia" rather than "The right to die is the controversial claim alleging that there should exist an ethical or institutional entitlement of any individual to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia". We don't generally go about intentionally prejudicing readers against a topic. The fact that not everyone agrees that assisted suicide should be a right doesn't mean that Wikipedia dismisses it - see, for instance, right to bear arms or fetal rights - and since in a number of jurisdictions one does have the legal right to assisted suicide, the idea that it's just a "controversial claim" floating out in the ether and "alleging" that a right "should" exist is not only an obvious POV push but also inaccurate. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 06:42, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Viewpoint by ClaudioSantos

The "right to die" is a term used in the specific context of the efforts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide. It is not an accepted "right" not even for jurisdictions where assisted suicide or euthanasia has been legalized (legalization of eutahnasia does not imply the enforcment of such a "right to die". There is not even consensus on the meaning neither the pertinence of the term, even for those who are pro-euthanasia. [2]. Those facts about the term are the facts to be represented in the lede, instead of presenting it as a actual existing right as could pretend those favoring euthanasia. Even the cited article about fetal rights is more conservative and defines it in terms of a possibility not as a fact (..."may be entitled"...) while this article is showing the thing as it was a matter of fact the existence of such "right to die" while in fact it is not included in any Human rights Declaration, not even recognized in any Constitutional Law. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 14:45, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

3rd Opinion by Dusti

In reviewing the conflict, it's simply the opening text that's being disputed. From what I understand, there are two different sentences that have been suggested:

"The right to die is the ethical or institutional entitlement of any individual to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia"
"The right to die is the controversial claim alleging that there should exist an ethical or institutional entitlement of any individual to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia"

What we have to keep in mind with an article like this is that it needs to remain neutral, regardless of our feelings on the issue. Looking at the two leads, the first lead insinuates a point of view The right to die is the ethical or institutional entitlement.... whereas the secondary lead, The right to die is the controversial claim alleging....

By keeping policy in mind, and by keeping a neutral point of view, I'm going to have to say that the second lead is the best start for the article. It sets the neutral tone for a great article. Dusti*poke* 17:01, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OK. Obviously I disagree, but that's what 3O is for. Your comment mentions that you think stating it as a right is non-neutral; since my concern is the use of prejudicial words controversial and alleging (as I said, all "rights" are "controversial" to those who oppose them, even widely accepted ones), what do you think of a compromise wording like "The right to die is the view that there exists an ethical..." etc.? "View" is a term used elsewhere on WP. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 17:21, 25 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Collaboration is always desired. If the two of you are able to come up with an alternate intro, definitely do so! :) Dusti*poke* 01:24, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm asking you in advance. It would be nice if Claudio would agree to a compromise, but I'm also preemptively seeking a third opinion from you again since you are not a single-purpose anti-euthanasia account. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:15, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hmmm, I think that you also have the history on mind. In this case specifically the history of ClaudioSantos as known anti-euthanasia "campaigner"! The Banner talk 01:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:The Banner: As you already know I won't engage in any discussion started with that sort of comments from you to me, but I shall redirect them to admins: [3] who are to decide if you are again wikihounding me. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ow, afraid for some background details? The Banner talk 09:22, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And I am aware that you immediately started complaining about wikihouding with a admin. That admin asked us to behave politely, an accusation about wikihouding is not polite! The Banner talk 09:56, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not accusing you, I am leaving the issue and the decision to an admin. I have to report your comment due: as far as I know the admins explicity and repeateadly prohibited you to do any comment such the last one you did about me. Any further concern just talk with the admins. This conversation is over. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 17:02, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On the topic> reliable sources like this one shall be considered to give an actual definition of the term, and this is not the unique reliable source that start questioning if there exist such a right and also shows that even inside the movement pro eutahansia the pertinence of the term is also a question. Authors like Ian Dowbiggin have also shown that this term emerged as an attempt to clean the euthanasia associationts from the word "euthanasia" after WWII. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:44, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm having trouble figuring out what you're trying to say in this comment. Do you or do you not agree that "view" is the more neutral term used in similar articles? (As well, citing a single source that disagrees that a right to die exists is unlikely to prove convincing to users who have access to the Internet, ie. all users, and can easily find many more sources of equal quality that do believe it exists.) –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 20:13, 26 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well to avoid you too much job: I do agree with the third opinion: my version is more appropiate than the other. And let notice you haven't cited any reliable source supporting your claim at all.-- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:43, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so you're not even trying. Good to know. –Roscelese (talkcontribs) 16:22, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can understand you agree, but your version is totally POV and it lacks sources about that. So I have changed in into a non-official (...) entitlement, what is the most neutral wording appropriate here. The Banner talk 05:25, 27 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If I may add an opinion, on reading the two phrasings collected by Dusti on the 25th, I was struck that one asserted the validity of the right and the other asserted that the right was a claim. The former seems inappropriate given that it is such a contentious matter (beyond WP) but the latter seems incoherent: a right cannot be a claim. The beginning of ClaudioSantos's explanation of his viewpoint seems to me a much better basis for a lede sentence, though we could trim and adjust it a little: "The "right to die" is a principle debated in the context of efforts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide." (I have replaced "term used" with "principle debated" to avoid subtly denying the validity of the right in the lede, which would be as inappropriate as asserting it.) NebY (talk) 18:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The difficult part is that there is an official "Right to Die" (legal voluntary euthanasia, under strict conditions legal to assist with suicide) in The Netherlands while Canada is working on it. So it is definitely not a wild claim, as CS wants to put it down, nor a widespread formal right. The Banner talk 22:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could not find any source for the "unofficial right" wording. Neither any source sustaining that legalization of euthanasia implies a "right to die". I am still waiting for any source from the other editors to support the proposed versions. They shall start with providing those reliable and verifiable sources. --ClaudioSantos¿? 05:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, here we go again. I have reverted your controversial edit as inapproriate for the lead. The Banner talk 06:59, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As someone who has not been involved with this article, the current lead seems quite neutral, however I don't understand the phrase "institutional entitlement". Is this intended to say that an institution can commit suicide (or voluntary euthanasia)? Also, I think the last paragraph of the lead is WP:UNDUE for the lead, and should be relegated to a section (Religious views?) in the body of the article. - MrX 17:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The Banner: the "controversial" version is the one your restored. A non-involved editor also endorse my version as a better one. And another editor also endorsed my point of view on the topic and on the lede, that is instead of the version you restored. Actually you have introduced a change talking about a "unofficial right to die" which is clearly your very original point of view, unsourced and unreliable, are you really trying to help providing a sourced wording or just trying to edit based on your personal point of view, if the last just remind WP:OR --ClaudioSantos¿? 20:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I don't look up WP:OR. Reading the history of your talk page explains much more where you are coming from and what your objectives are. Face-smile.svg The Banner talk 20:22, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm sure there's some neutrally worded compromise that we can come up with. It would be nice to find a reliable source to define this, but since the concept is so politically/emotionally charged, that may not be possible. - MrX 20:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

POV and OR[edit]

It was predictable that these tags would appear here, now CS could not change the article to his liking. In my opinion, the POV tag is absolute nonsense. Regarding the OR tag: what sections do you regard as "own research", CS? The Banner talk 20:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The lede is absolutely unsourced and nothing in the lede is mentioned in the body. --ClaudioSantos¿? 21:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is fairly rare for a lead and lead sentence to be sourced. The lead should be/is only a summary of the article. So you will find your sources in the Ethics section. The Banner talk 23:19, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Could we take the Ethics section, which is is sourced, and use it as a starting point? Perhaps an opening sentence like this:
"The right to die is part of a bioethics debate concerned with whether individuals are entitled to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia, particularly in the cases of terminal illness and long term suffering."
This is similar to what Neby proposed, and avoids words like alleged and controversial. I offer this only as a starting point -- it would need some wordsmithing. - MrX 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
For anyone who has access to Questia, there are many, many scholarly sources on this subject. As expected, they're fairly circumspect about defining what the phrase means, beyond simply saying that it is an ongoing social/ethical/medical/political debate. - MrX 22:36, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Pfff, why do we mention an incomplete list of the options that are named as "Right to die"? We should name them all, or none at all. Beside the suicide and voluntary euthanasia you have also the passive euthanasia (refusal of treatment) in various variations. The Banner talk 23:44, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Are you starting a new discussion or responding to me? If the latter, could you please offer an alternative wording that might address the concerns? - MrX 23:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A related but new discussion: what should we put in the lead, all variations or none. Removal of all can take quite some heat out of this discussion. The Banner talk 00:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Perhaps, rather that this simmering tag edit war, we could discuss how to improve this article so that we don't need tags. - MrX 21:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I still agree with users, like Mr X. who noticed the claimed "right to die" is just a disputed but not actual right. A lead portraying the right to die as an human right is just POV promotion of euhanasia, and obviously unsorced, not any human rights declaration includes such a right. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 01:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The present intro is neutral and sourced. Why you still see it as POV I don't know. The Banner talk 01:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Where is the source for claiming that this is an human right? why you removed the tag despite of this discussion was not over and Mr X and other editors did NOT agree with your position and proposed different versions on the lead? why are you again removing it again despite of you are an involved part of the content dispute? -- ClaudioSantos¿? 02:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The title of the article is "Right to die" so I don't see the need to source that this is a human right. I don't support this tag either. The article describes how proponents view the right to die as well as critics. I think you are arguing more along the lines as to whether or not this article should even exist. LesVegas (talk) 17:49, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
All WP articles need sources. It's how we keep it from being the bank of lies people see it as.Weegeerunner (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@LesVegas: The "right to die" is certainly, as the sources state: part of the efforts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, and shall be presented as such, not as an actual "human right", as it is showed in the current first paragraph. The leading paragraph should preciselly show what is on the body of the article, and certainly the body is not stating that the "right to die" is an actual "human right". Please note a 3rd opinion request was triggered before and some editors endorsed my position: we can't show "right to die" as an "human right", since that is an unsourced and false claim, but a POV claim, the claim poponents of legalizing euthanasia claim. Also in this thread a third alternative version was proposed. None of the porposed alternatives claim the right to die is an actual human right, but all proposed version, more or less, worded the thing like this: "The right to die is the controversial claim alleging that there should exist an ethical or institutional entitlement of any individual to commit suicide or to undergo voluntary euthanasia", which stick to what is also stated in the body. --ClaudioSantos¿? 01:17, 6 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Do you have sources for part of the efforts to legalize euthanasia and assisted suicide, Claudio? The Banner talk 04:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Just noting as an uninvolved editor that I see no reason to have the POV or OR tags in this article. Jabba the Hot (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Euthanasia in the United States[edit]

The US section under Legal Documents by country requires expansion. It would be good to provide some historical information, because Euthanasia is just one category that falls under what many understand as the right to die.

The term 'right to die' has been interpreted in a number of ways, including issues of suicide, passive euthanasia, active euthanasia, assisted suicide, and physician assisted suicide.[1] As health of citizens is considered a police power left for individual states to regulate, it was not until 1997 that the US Supreme Court made a ruling on the issue of assisted suicide and one's right to die. In 1997 the Supreme Court heard two appeals arguing that New York and Washington statutes that made physician assisted suicide a felony violated the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2] In a unanimous vote, the Court held that there was no constitutional right to physician assisted suicide and upheld state bans on assisted suicide. While in New York this has maintained statutes banning physician assisted suicide, the Court's decision also left it open for other states to decide whether they would allow physician assisted suicide or not.

Since 1997, four states in the US have recognized the right to die with dignity. Oregon, Washington, and Vermont, in 1997, 2009, and 2013 respectively, have laws that provide a protocol for the practice of physician assisted suicide.[3] The law in these three states allows terminally ill adult patients to seek lethal medication from their physicians. Montana's law, passed in 2009, does not provide a protocol for the practice, but rather provides legal protection for physicians in the case that they write a prescription for lethal medication upon patient request.

In early 2014, a New Mexico Second District Judge Nan Nash ruled that terminally ill patients have the right to aid in dying under the state constitution, ie. making it legal for a doctor to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to a terminally ill patient.[4] The ultimate decision will be made with the outcome of New Mexico's Attorney General's appeal to the ruling.

Mdickey17 (talk) 00:51, 27 April 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Lecretia Seales[edit]

I've just created Lecretia Seales - can you help expand it? She is worth mentioning in this article too. Tayste (edits) 20:14, 4 June 2015 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Grammar Edits and Adding Information[edit]

Hello, I am Kelly and I am a student editor assigned to edit this article. Please let me know if you end up reverting my edits so I know what I did wrong!

Intro: Grammar and citation Changed passive voice to active, remove and added articles, removed redundant words, removed commas, fixed some sentences that had unclear antecedents, and added a citation when summarized a philosopher. Broken up some sentences due to length and flow Fixed more passive sentences to better the sentence structure

United States Added information about the right to die movement and major cases that highlight and propagated this movement. Added information in the US section of how the right to die movement began and how it caused major deabte about the issues of legal death. Copied over from sandbox ( — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talkcontribs) 19:58, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added a map showing which states allow the right to die and which does not — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talkcontribs) 03:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Added a new map due for the united states section — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talkcontribs) 03:35, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Added a picture near the title — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talkcontribs) 03:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

-Hi Kelly I fixed the image size and added a caption to your picture-Andrew Ta

Ethics Added more information on arguments for and against right to die. Used literature reviews to see how did the right to die come about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kjsnguyen (talkcontribs) 21:23, 29 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also fixed punctuation and grammar to better the flow


Why is David’s The Death of Socrates featured on this page? Socrates didn’t commit suicide; he drank the hemlock under duress as a form of execution. Seph Shewell Brockway (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Workplan for Edits[edit]

Hello, we are graduate student editors assigned to edit this article. Our work plan is as follows:

Article chosen Right to Die

Why this one? Include WP rating scale? How fit with your interests. Other details as desired WP rating: Start Class This article has significant room for improvement and relates to geriatric/end of life care.

You WP editing team (up to 3) K, G, S

Initial Analysis of the article When comparing to other “Right to…” articles, we noticed that this article does not have a clear definition/background section. Furthermore, there is limited information about the right to die in the United States.

Overall organization, what changes Overall, we will enhance the quality of this page by providing a standard “Definition” section. We may augment other sections depending on necessity.

What will you add? N/A

What will you remove? N/A

What will you augment? Right to die, United States subsection

What will you decrease coverage of? N/A

Roles in the project. List members and planned roles. - Overseer: S - Researcher: K - Editor: G

Team coordination plan: - We will communicate over private Slack messages. - We will meet regularly during our classes. - We will collaborate over Google Drive to organize files.

WIP presenter - K

Peer review from another team (merely suggestions): -Tighten up the anecdotes of the 3 major cases--less re-stating at the end, more active voice -citation is still needed for sentence two of the Canada subsection--I suspect it was referring to the 5, not 6, plaintiff Gloria Taylor case? -Under "Ethics", define what TADA is/link it -Maybe rename Ethics as "Ethical Arguments"? -Remove religion from the introduction as it is restated under another subheadingRose811811 (talk) 03:29, 17 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

- I think you mentioned in class that G would be adding a section on medical perspectives, will that still be added? I think that would be really valuable for the page. - You're editing the heading of the United States page right? I think it looks pretty solid so far.

Using "Controversial" in the short description[edit]

Should the term "Controversial" be used in the short description? Helper201 (talk) 17:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I agree with the IP edit that we shouldn't use the term "Controversial" in the short description. This could be applied to thousands of Wikipedia short descriptions. Virtually every view, ideology, stance etc could be considered controversial to some degree. Using such a term here is unnecessary and comes across as original research and/or not respecting a neutral point of view. Subjects such as Anti-abortion movements could be considered controversial by some for example, and yet this is one of a vast array of examples where such odes to controversy are not found in the short description. Helper201 (talk) 16:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The essence is that the principle of the "right to die" IS controversial to the bone and therefore is not POV as the IP claims. The Banner talk 17:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Its completely unnecessary to include here. As I stated this could be applied to the short descriptions of so many thousands of other so called controversial topics, but isn't, for good reason. Right to life could be classed as controversial, pro-abortion, anti-abortion, suicide, left politics, right politics, drug use etc. A wider consensus should be achieved before such terms are added to short descriptions as this could be applied to so many other subject matters. What criteria has this met that those other subjects have not? Who has decided this criterion? What reliable sources does this claim come from etc? Helper201 (talk) 17:10, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The RFC you have slapped on this starting discussion is also unnecessary. The Banner talk 17:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at the previous discussions I think starting up an RfC and getting outside opinion was appropriate. There are too many discussions about 'controversial' here and this should stop those one way or the other. NadVolum (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • This does seem a bit premature for an RFC, but since I'm here anyway I'd say no, it shouldn't be used there in this case. Doing so doesn't seem to comport with the purpose of short descriptions, and in particular Wikipedia:Short_description#Content, which says that short descriptions should "start with the most important information". I can understand the impulse, since much of the article is about the controversy(ies). But as WP:SHORTDESC notes, the short description is not meant to summarize the article. So FWIW, I don't think this is the way to go.-- Visviva (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • To my mind, the primary issue with the short description is not whether or not it includes the particular descriptor of "controversial" (I think there are probably plenty of permutations on the shortdesc where it would work just fine), but the issue is rather the fact that the description is woefully deficient in providing any kind of meaningful understanding of the topic. Of course, the concept is to some extent self-descriptive from the article title alone, but if there is to be a short description, it really ought to have at least a little more meat on the bones in terms of description and contextualization. SnowRise let's rap 16:16, 25 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No it shouldn't - The word moral is there already, saying controversial is duplication. Anyway what's there is nowhere near being a short description of the topic. The first sentence of the article can easily be shortened down to somthing suitable. In fact I think 'based on the opinion' is redundant in th first sentence. NadVolum (talk) 12:33, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Not necessary. "Legal and moral concept" is fine in terms of neutrality.Senorangel (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Yep, remove it. ~ HAL333 02:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, unnecessary – short descriptions are only supposed to have the most basic information to identify the field of the article and distinguish it from other articles with similar names. Per WP:SDNOTDEF, it should "use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial or judgemental". —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 20:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No, and probably don't even call it "controversial" in the first paragraph. What's there is already pretty good, imho. Ovinus (talk) 05:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No not appropriate for a short description. I also agree it should not be in the first paragraph. Adoring nanny (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No - saying controversial is not necessary in the short description. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • No this is not appropriate. AlloDoon (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Introduction needs stronger references[edit]

Who is "Pilpel and Amstel"? How did the quotation from their work support or add to the introduction it was placed in? The article's introduction should have references directly supporting its definitions. 2600:1700:CDA:A2C0:845E:BF52:B14D:7218 (talk) 00:44, 3 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: the IP already removed the text (s)he disagrees with. Fir clarity sake, I did but it here:

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 suicide is often up for debate. Pilpel and Amsel wrote:

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.[1]

The Banner talk 21:07, 12 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ A Pilpel; L Amsel. "What is Wrong with Rational Suicide" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on 2018-02-18. Retrieved 2020-06-26.