Talk:Right to die

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Right to die article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1: 3 months

Death: Suicide High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Death, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Death on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.DeathWikipedia:WikiProject DeathTemplate:WikiProject DeathDeath
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Suicide task force (assessed as High-importance).

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Social and political philosophy

Politics: Libertarianism Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Libertarianism portal This article is supported by WikiProject Libertarianism (assessed as Low-importance).

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

Workplan for Edits

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]

- 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

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

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]

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]

The RFC you have slapped on this starting discussion is also unnecessary. The Banner talk 17:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)[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]

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]
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]
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]

Not necessary. "Legal and moral concept" is fine in terms of neutrality.Senorangel (talk) 20:42, 24 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, remove it. ~ HAL333 02:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[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]
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]
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]
No - saying controversial is not necessary in the short description. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 05:17, 5 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
No this is not appropriate. AlloDoon (talk) 20:05, 12 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction needs stronger references

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]

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]

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

Should just be an option possible in every hospital

Why not considering a "game over"? A possibility for every human being that doesn't desire to continue living. "Selbsmordrecht". 178.197.234.102 (talk) 15:34, 22 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's a decision to be made by politicians, not by encyclopedia writers. Btw: maybe you can look at the Swiss situation. Erik Wannee (talk) 07:27, 23 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, why not consider the possibility that many people want the right to continue living, but feel of little or no value/are under pressure to end their lives/fear that end of life care might be of poor quality? So, before rushing to allow the killing older people, should we not demand decent, well funded, end of life care as an option in every hospital and care home?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.166.169 (talk • contribs)

Philosophers

Another editor placed a two sections in the lede about the point of view of a philosopher. IMHO, this belongs not in the lede and would fit better in the section "Ethics". But in fact, I have doubt if it belongs in the article at all. Opinions please. The Banner talk 12:37, 16 October 2023 (UTC)[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.

[1]