Talk:Right to die
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess. |
| Start | This page has been rated as start-Class on the quality assessment scale |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance assessment scale |
Contents |
[edit] NPOV?
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)
[edit] Merger
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)
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)
[edit] "Euthanasia" is not "Right to die"
Should not 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)
- 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)
[edit] worldview
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 t-online.de -- 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)
