Wikipedia promotes cruel, agonizing, inhumane method of "euthanasia" (annexed), which, in one out of five cases in the Netherlands, is actually MURDER Options

[Anna]

Wikipedia claims that "Published studies indicate that "within the context of adequate palliative care, the refusal of food and fluids does not contribute to suffering among the terminally ill", and might actually contribute to a comfortable passage from life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_illn...n_and_hydration

In fact, dehydration is a very cruel, agonizing, inhumane way to murder someone. According to Dr. David Stevens, who unlike some alleged "experts" has actually seen people die this way:
"Is dying of thirst and dehydration a painless death as some experts have asserted? Most so-called experts have never seen someone die in this manner. Unfortunately, having worked for 13 years in Africa, where the most common cause of death in children is dehydration from gastroenteritis, I have seen hundreds if not thousands of patients with dehydration and some of them so far gone, that despite resuscitation attempts, they died.

As dehydration begins, there is extreme thirst, dry mouth and thick saliva," Dr. Stevens explained. "The patient becomes dizzy, faint and unable to stand or sit; has severe cramping in the arms and legs as the sodium and potassium concentrations in the body go up as fluids go down. In misery, the patient tries to cry but there are no tears. The patient experiences severe abdominal cramps, nausea and dry-heaving as the stomach and intestines dry out.

By now the skin and lips are cracking and the tongue is swollen," Dr. Stevens continued. "The nose may bleed as the mucous membranes dry out and break down. The skin loses elasticity, thins and wrinkles. The hands and feet become cold as the remaining fluids in the circulatory system are shunted to the vital organs in an attempt to stay alive. The person stops urinating and has severe headaches as their brain shrinks from lack of fluids. The patient becomes anxious and gets progressively more lethargic.

Some patients have hallucinations and seizures as their body chemistry becomes even more imbalanced. This proceeds to coma before death occurs. The final event as the blood pressure becomes almost undetectable is a major heart arrhythmia that stops the heart from pumping.

Contrary to those that try to paint a picture of a gentle process, death by dehydration is a cruel, inhumane and often agonizing death."
http://www.life.org.nz/euthanasia/abouteut...of-euthanasia1/

Starvation is also a very painful way to go.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/l...05/aug/05081606

A man named Burke sought guarantee from the United Kingdom courts that he would not be murdered in this fashion, but was denied by a cruel, inhumane judge:
http://www.bcptl.org/euthanasia.htm#Burke2

In fact, "involuntary euthanasia" (READ: MURDER) is surprisingly common. In Holland, one in five cases of "euthanasia" occur without the explicit consent of the patient, and it is not unheard of in other countries, like the United Kingdom and Canada.
http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html
http://elderadvocates.ca/exploring-physici...sisted-suicide/

In one case in Canada, a court held that any Substitute Decision Maker who refused to consent to this cruel method of MURDER was incompetent to make decisions for the patient, who was a pastor.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2574608/posts

[Milton Roe]

Wikipedia claims that "Published studies indicate that "within the context of adequate palliative care, the refusal of food and fluids does not contribute to suffering among the terminally ill", and might actually contribute to a comfortable passage from life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_illn...n_and_hydration

In fact, dehydration is a very cruel, agonizing, inhumane way to murder someone. According to Dr. David Stevens, who unlike some alleged "experts" has actually seen people die this way:
"Is dying of thirst and dehydration a painless death as some experts have asserted? Most so-called experts have never seen someone die in this manner. Unfortunately, having worked for 13 years in Africa, where the most common cause of death in children is dehydration from gastroenteritis, I have seen hundreds if not thousands of patients with dehydration and some of them so far gone, that despite resuscitation attempts, they died.

The two situations are completely different, of course.

The key words in Wikipedia are "within the context of palliative care." In such cases the mouth and other mucus membranes are kept from drying out, by administering enough water to stop that. This also keeps the tongue from swelling.

In palliative care, the patient who wants to drink is never kept from drinking (and eating) all they wish to! So where does the dehydration come from? From patients who do not want to drink, cannot drink due to some obstructive throat tumor or gastrointestinal tumor, or who are unconscious. These are merely NOT put on intravenous hydration. Discomfort for other reasons, as well as cramping, is treated with enough morphine to stop it. Occassionally patients who seem to having some discomfort from dehydration itself, are given some subcutaneous fluid. This is not enough to keep the kidneys functioning, but may be enough to keep some other symptoms, such as skin turgor loss, from happening.

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws. However, anybody who wants to fulmanate about hospice dehydration had better have had some experience seeing it. Experience with death by thirst of normal children in Africa does not count. What idiocy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

[Sololol]

The source looks policy compliant. Why not find a well-sourced article supporting your claims and add in an opposing view?

[Anna]

Wikipedia claims that "Published studies indicate that "within the context of adequate palliative care, the refusal of food and fluids does not contribute to suffering among the terminally ill", and might actually contribute to a comfortable passage from life"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminal_illn...n_and_hydration

In fact, dehydration is a very cruel, agonizing, inhumane way to murder someone. According to Dr. David Stevens, who unlike some alleged "experts" has actually seen people die this way:
"Is dying of thirst and dehydration a painless death as some experts have asserted? Most so-called experts have never seen someone die in this manner. Unfortunately, having worked for 13 years in Africa, where the most common cause of death in children is dehydration from gastroenteritis, I have seen hundreds if not thousands of patients with dehydration and some of them so far gone, that despite resuscitation attempts, they died.

The two situations are completely different, of course.

The key words in Wikipedia are "within the context of palliative care." In such cases the mouth and other mucus membranes are kept from drying out, by administering enough water to stop that. This also keeps the tongue from swelling.

That would hardly prevent the most serious symptoms. It is impossible to dehydrate someone to death without creating a variety of slow painful changes in their body chemistry.

According to Judge Lynch of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, dehydration and starvation is likely to create some or all of the following before death:
"* The mouth would dry out and become caked or coated with thick material.
* The lips would become parched and cracked.
* The tongue would swell, and might crack.
* The eyes would recede back into their orbits and the cheeks would become hollow.
* The lining of the nose might crack and cause the nose to bleed.
* The skin would hang loose on the body and become dry and scaly.
* The urine would become highly concentrated, leading to burning of the bladder.
* The lining of the stomach would dry out and the sufferer would experience dry heaves and vomiting.
* The body temperature would become very high.
* The brain cells would dry out, causing convulsions.
* The respiratory tract would dry out, and the thick secretions that would
result could plug the lungs and cause death.
* At some point within five days to three weeks the major organs, including the lungs, heart, and brain, would give out and the patient would die."
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/l...05/mar/05032308

Even if it did, that's like saying "Drowning may be less painful when drunk." It's probably true, but that doesn't make it any less painful for non-drunks, nor is it any guarantee that drunks will not experience some degree of pain, fear, and panic while drowning.

I suppose if you drug the patient with sufficient morphine, probably enough to render the patient unconscious, you might be able to nullify the painful effects of the dehydration. No guarantees on that. Of course, at that point, you may as well keep the patient hydrated and kill the patient with the morphine, which would probably be a lot more humane. (Further research required.) Even so, it's still MURDER without the patient's consent.

In palliative care, the patient who wants to drink is never kept from drinking all they wish! So where does the dehydration come from? From patients who do not want to drink or who are unconscious. These are merely NOT put on intravenous hydration. Discomfort for other reasons, as well as cramping, is treated with enough morphine to stop it. Occassionally patients who seem to having some discomfort from dehydration itself, are given some subcutaneous fluid. This is not enough to keep the kidneys functioning, but may be enough to keep some other symptoms, such as skin turgor loss, from happening.

If you had gone through my links, you would have realized another possibility, even if it had not been readily apparent to you: a conscious patient, fully able to feel pain, who is fully paralyzed. Obviously, a patient experiencing total or nearly total paralysis is incapable of grabbing a cup of water and drinking it, and requires help in staying hydrated. And where in the name of heaven and earth did you get the idea that kidney failure wasn't painful?

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws. However, anybody who wants to fulmanate about hospice dehydration had better have had some experience seeing it. Experience with death by thirst of normal children in Africa does not count. What idiocy. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/hrmph.gif)

I can't get over how sloppy you are.

A man in the U.K. goes to court, asking for a guarantee that he will not be murdered by dehydration, is refused by a murderous, cruel, inhumane judge, and you don't see a problem? One in five "euthanasias" in the Netherlands occur without the explicit consent of the patient, and you don't see a problem? If you don't care about children in Africa, do you care about elderly and disabled Dutch? A hospital in Canada declares any representative of the patient (read: VICTIM) who refused to consent to murdering the patient (read: VICTIM) by starvation to be incompetent of making decisions for the patient (read: VICTIM), and you don't see a problem.

Terri Shiavo certainly didn't die a painless death when she was cruelly dehydrated and starved to death.
http://www.lifenews.com/2010/03/31/bio-3079/

Newsflash: One of the very people who advocated euthanasia and death by dehydration and starvation, Dr. Helga Kuhse, did so only because, "If we can get people to accept the removal of all treatment and care - especially the removal of food and fluids - they will see what a painful way this is to die and then, in the patient's best interest, they will accept the lethal injection."

[Anna]

The source looks policy compliant. Why not find a well-sourced article supporting your claims and add in an opposing view?

Policy? What policy? More to the point, whose policy?

I don't have the time or energy to fight with them on their own turf. From what I've read in the news, it takes quite a bit of time an energy. Nevertheless, putting such horribly wrong information about such a serious matter is unethical for a website to be reporting to be an encyclopedia. Let the biased pro-murder ideology stay in the biased pro-murder so-called "medical" journal.

To give you a quote from that "source": "Perhaps all patients with essentially normal mental status who are aware that they are dying engage in some degree of suicidal ideation."

I can guarantee you, from going out and the world and actually talking to people, that ain't true. A lot of people refuse suicide because of strong religious beliefs, others because of their strong lust for life. Many simply have things they want to do with their lives they haven't done yet.

[EricBarbour]

Nevertheless, putting such horribly wrong information about such a serious matter is unethical for a website to be reporting to be an encyclopedia. Let the biased pro-murder ideology stay in the biased pro-murder so-called "medical" journal.

Welcome to Wikipedia. BTW, I usually call it an "encyclopedia". For good reasons.

In general, I suspect most people would agree with you. However, Wikipedia isn't run by "most people", it's run by madmen.

[Anna]

Nevertheless, putting such horribly wrong information about such a serious matter is unethical for a website to be reporting to be an encyclopedia. Let the biased pro-murder ideology stay in the biased pro-murder so-called "medical" journal.

Welcome to Wikipedia. BTW, I usually call it an "encyclopedia". For good reasons.

In general, I suspect most people would agree with you. However, Wikipedia isn't run by "most people", it's run by madmen.

Yes, "encyclopedia". Thank you! :-)

[Milton Roe]

That would hardly prevent the most serious symptoms. It is impossible to dehydrate someone to death without creating a variety of slow painful changes in their body chemistry.

Well, you're wrong. I've seen it many times, and you obviously have no experience yourself. But ignorance can be cured. I would suggest you visit your local hospice, and if you're nice, they'll probably allow you to visit some of their patients. There's no substitute in this life for seeing for yourself.

According to Judge Lynch of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, dehydration and starvation is likely to create some or all of the following before death:
[blah]

You know, this guy is a judge, not a doctor, nurse or family member of a dying patient. He can visit the local hospice program also, but apparently chose not to.

I suppose if you drug the patient with sufficient morphine, probably enough to render the patient unconscious, you might be able to nullify the painful effects of the dehydration. No guarantees on that. Of course, at that point, you may as well keep the patient hydrated and kill the patient with the morphine, which would probably be a lot more humane. (Further research required.) Even so, it's still MURDER without the patient's consent.

Sure, but that's what we have advanced directives are for. Have you filled yours out? If you want to be on all possible life support, including IV fluids, I'm sure somebody will be willing to give them to you. Terri Schiavo had not filled out her paperwork. I have. If I'm ever in a vegetative state or even badly brain damaged (no social interaction), they're going to dehydrate me and fill me up with the best narcotics. What happens to you, is your problem.

If you had gone through my links, you would have realized another possibility, even if it had not been readily apparent to you: a conscious patient, fully able to feel pain, who is fully paralyzed. Obviously, a patient experiencing total or nearly total paralysis is incapable of grabbing a cup of water and drinking it, and requires help in staying hydrated.

It also requires help to breathe if you're totally paralyzed to the point that you can't communicate even by blinking. In that state, my instructions are to give me a big shot of morphine and take me off the ventilator. I'll be dead in 20 minutes which is fine with me, since being fully "locked in" with people who won't let you die, is far scarier than the alternative. Dehydration the least of my worries, and suffocation is fast. And with morphine, no bother. Indeed, that's how morphine kills: you don't need to breathe; you don't want to breathe.

And where in the name of heaven and earth did you get the idea that kidney failure wasn't painful?

From seeing a great variety of people who had it! Where did you get the idea that it was? You know, I're sure you have a local chronic renal dialysis center near you that you can probably visit also. Go educate yourself. Stop writing stuff on web you know nothing about. Use your telephone directory.

A man in the U.K. goes to court, asking for a guarantee that he will not be murdered by dehydration, is refused by a murderous, cruel, inhumane judge, and you don't see a problem?

I see a problem with the NHS! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) However, in the US, it's not a problem. Fill out your "advanced directive" forms properly, and that's your guarantee. Make sure the person(s) you appoint as your proxys in your durable power of attorney for healthcare, are people who know your feelings, and that you trust. Legally in the US they are bound by your wishes as set out in the advanced directive, but it never hurts to make sure.

http://www.pogoe.org/ebm/resources/nursesn...e_Decision.html

One in five "euthanasias" in the Netherlands occur without the explicit consent of the patient, and you don't see a problem?

I see a problem with Dutch paperwork. However, one of the classic arguments for euthanasia, is that (in the absense of knowing the person's wishes) ethically you would do for an "in-testate" person what you'd do for a suffering animal, would you not? So where does that leave you?

If you don't care about children in Africa, do you care about elderly and disabled Dutch? A hospital in Canada declares any representative of the patient (read: VICTIM) who refused to consent to murdering the patient (read: VICTIM) by starvation to be incompetent of making decisions for the patient (read: VICTIM), and you don't see a problem.

I might see a problem, but you forgot to provide a link.

Terri Shiavo certainly didn't die a painless death when she was cruelly dehydrated and starved to death.

We don't know the answer to that, but it's likely she felt no pain, as she was lacking half her brain. She was not conscious, and in general it takes being conscious to feel pain.

When I was in high school we did a demonstration that you can't do any more in high school. We took a frog and decapitated it, then hung the body up from a hook in the neck. For some minuites it was possible to see a remarkable phenomenon something like this:



A headless frog can do better than this, though. If you put a paper with vinegar on the skin, the headless frog can reach over with the opposite leg, and very delicately and very specifically flick the paper off. No matter when you put it on the skin of the back or front, one leg reaches over from the opposite side, and removes it. A frog can reach any part it its skin with a toe, and does. That's all in the spinal cord (as you can prove by pithing the spinal cord and seeing that the ability goes away). No brain is required, however. There is no pain.

So don't be fooled by what looks like consiousness, but is merely reflex. Even humans have some of this. Not as much as frogs, but enough to fool people seeing what they want to see. I include the frog because if THIS frog had its head, you'd be saying "Of course the frog feels that!" It's obvious by inspection, right?

[It's the blimp, Frank]

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws.

Fur real?

I question how much of it is really voluntary. There are plenty of greedy kids tired of waiting for their inheritance, plus so-called "capitation committees" eager to save some bucks for the corporate shareholders by ending treatment. These two groups can exert serious pressure on an ailing person.

[Anna]

That would hardly prevent the most serious symptoms. It is impossible to dehydrate someone to death without creating a variety of slow painful changes in their body chemistry.

Well, you're wrong. I've seen it many times, and you obviously have no experience yourself. But ignorance can be cured. I would suggest you visit your local hospice, and if you're nice, they'll probably allow you to visit some of their patients. There's no substitute in this life for seeing for yourself.

Pain is often not apparent on the face. I have know many people who were in a lot of pain, including a few cancer patients, and, in many cases, you couldn't tell just from looking at their face... although sometimes there was something in the eyes. I've been in a lot of pain myself, and people didn't have any idea from looking at my face. Hell, probably saved my life once when I played possum and let some madman think he had beaten me to unconsciousness.

I can do better. I've lived in a desert. I've been dehydrated. I've been hungry. Not enough to die, but enough to know that it isn't fun.

And then there's the horror stories you hear of people who have drunk seawater, which apparently results in a sort of accelerated dehydration.

According to Judge Lynch of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, dehydration and starvation is likely to create some or all of the following before death:
[blah]

You know, this guy is a judge, not a doctor, nurse or family member of a dying patient. He can visit the local hospice program also, but apparently chose not to.

No, he did what a judge does: he listed to people on both sides.

And anyway, his opinion is hardly the only one I've presented.

I suppose if you drug the patient with sufficient morphine, probably enough to render the patient unconscious, you might be able to nullify the painful effects of the dehydration. No guarantees on that. Of course, at that point, you may as well keep the patient hydrated and kill the patient with the morphine, which would probably be a lot more humane. (Further research required.) Even so, it's still MURDER without the patient's consent.

Sure, but that's what we have advanced directives are for. Have you filled yours out? If you want to be on all possible life support, including IV fluids, I'm sure somebody will be willing to give them to you. Terri Schiavo had not filled out her paperwork. I have. If I'm ever in a vegetative state or even badly brain damaged (no social interaction), they're going to dehydrate me and fill me up with the best narcotics. What happens to you, is your problem.

What I've seen of hospital personnel is they don't read advance directives, or even medical bracelets. Hell, even if the patient is awake and shouting (well, as loudly as one can when one is having trouble breathing) that the patient wants to live and breathe, they continue to hold the patient hostage against the will of both the patient and any representative of the patient. Thus subjecting the patient to painful lungache and oxygen deprivation headache. One would hope that the hospital is question is an exception rather than the rule... but given the reluctance of the police and the AMA to do anything to punish the hospital in question, I have my doubts. The police seemed to be under the impression that the hospital was not within their jurisdiction, sort of like an embassy.

That is what I'm complaining about. Doctors taking drastic measures like euthanasia without even asking the patient, and in many cases, against the explicit wishes of the patient and/or his family. People who genuinely want to die painful deaths are a different matter. The statistics in the Netherlands are particularly horrible.

Advance directives won't do you any good if the doctors are dead set on doing what they think is best, your wishes be d***ed. Although, the advance directive might help your family sue for wrongful death, so they are good to fill out for that, so you can at least dream of being avenged.

If you had gone through my links, you would have realized another possibility, even if it had not been readily apparent to you: a conscious patient, fully able to feel pain, who is fully paralyzed. Obviously, a patient experiencing total or nearly total paralysis is incapable of grabbing a cup of water and drinking it, and requires help in staying hydrated.

It also requires help to breathe if you're totally paralyzed to the point that you can't communicate even by blinking. In that state, my instructions are to give me a big shot of morphine and take me off the ventilator. I'll be dead in 20 minutes which is fine with me, since being fully "locked in" with people who won't let you die, is far scarier than the alternative. Dehydration the least of my worries, and suffocation is fast. And with morphine, no bother. Indeed, that's how morphine kills: you don't need to breathe; you don't want to breathe.

Paralysis is more complicated than that. 100% paralysis of both voluntary movement would probably stop the lungs and heart, killing the patient, but there are different types and different degrees. It's possible for someone to me paralyzed enough that they can't lift a glass of water and bring it to their lips, but not so paralyzed that they can't breathe. A person who is incapable of voluntary muscle control can even go into convulsions. Sometimes, paralysis is temporary. Sometimes you get better and live to tell about it. Also, even if you can blink, good luck getting someone who is considerate and smart enough to a) think of doing this and b) ask reasonable questions you can give yes-or-no answers to without thinking to yourself "Well, yes, except... how do I tell him the except just by blinking! Why won't he ask more specific questions rather than these vague ambiguous things?! Maybe if I just stare he'll ask better questions...."

In that case, I was probably wrong about morphine being painless. Suffocation may be fast, if it is abrupt enough, but it doesn't feel fast when you are panicking that much. If breathing were abruptly terminated, it might take five minutes for you to go unconscious, but it doesn't feel like five minutes. In my experience, if feels more like an hour. Of course, even if it really was an hour rather than just a particularly slow five minutes, that's still a lot faster than the dehydration patients die. It's possible the morphine would knock you unconscious first. And suffocation isn't always fast. Consider carbon monoxide poisoning.

And where in the name of heaven and earth did you get the idea that kidney failure wasn't painful?

From seeing a great variety of people who had it! Where did you get the idea that it was? You know, I're sure you have a local chronic renal dialysis center near you that you can probably visit also. Go educate yourself. Stop writing stuff on web you know nothing about. Use your telephone directory.

On the contrary, it's hard to find information on the internet to explain what I've seen. Not everyone gets dialysis, and toxins building up in your body can be rather painful.

A man in the U.K. goes to court, asking for a guarantee that he will not be murdered by dehydration, is refused by a murderous, cruel, inhumane judge, and you don't see a problem?

I see a problem with the NHS! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/biggrin.gif) However, in the US, it's not a problem. Fill out your "advanced directive" forms properly, and that's your guarantee. Make sure the person(s) you appoint as your proxys in your durable power of attorney for healthcare, are people who know your feelings, and that you trust. Legally in the US they are bound by your wishes as set out in the advanced directive, but it never hurts to make sure.

This U.S. woman was wide awake and capable of telling her doctors that she did not want to remain in the hospital, and did so, yet they held her hostage anyone. Legally, I think all they can do is offer her a form stating that she is leaving against medical advice, but what good are laws if no one enforces them? Religious fanatics generally make bad doctors. So do anti-religious fanatics, for that matter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appe...e_b_434497.html

One in five "euthanasias" in the Netherlands occur without the explicit consent of the patient, and you don't see a problem?

I see a problem with Dutch paperwork. However, one of the classic arguments for euthanasia, is that (in the absense of knowing the person's wishes) ethically you would do for an "in-testate" person what you'd do for a suffering animal, would you not? So where does that leave you?

In the case of the Netherlands, with loads of people afraid to go to the hospital for fear of being killed, and filling out paperwork stating that they do not want to be helped to die.

If you don't care about children in Africa, do you care about elderly and disabled Dutch? A hospital in Canada declares any representative of the patient (read: VICTIM) who refused to consent to murdering the patient (read: VICTIM) by starvation to be incompetent of making decisions for the patient (read: VICTIM), and you don't see a problem.

I might see a problem, but you forgot to provide a link.

The last link in my first post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2574608/posts

The guy was a priest -- not the sort of person likely to consent to such a thing.

Terri Shiavo certainly didn't die a painless death when she was cruelly dehydrated and starved to death.

We don't know the answer to that, but it's likely she felt no pain, as she was lacking half her brain. She was not conscious, and in general it takes being conscious to feel pain.

When I was in high school we did a demonstration that you can't do any more in high school. We took a frog and decapitated it, then hung the body up from a hook in the neck. For some minuites it was possible to see a remarkable phenomenon something like this:



A headless frog can do better than this, though. If you put a paper with vinegar on the skin, the headless frog can reach over with the opposite leg, and very delicately and very specifically flick the paper off. No matter when you put it on the skin of the back or front, one leg reaches over from the opposite side, and removes it. A frog can reach any part it its skin with a toe, and does. That's all in the spinal cord (as you can prove by pithing the spinal cord and seeing that the ability goes away). No brain is required, however. There is no pain.

So don't be fooled by what looks like consiousness, but is merely reflex. Even humans have some of this. Not as much as frogs, but enough to fool people seeing what they want to see. I include the frog because if THIS frog had its head, you'd be saying "Of course the frog feels that!" It's obvious by inspection, right?

Youtube doesn't work on my computer. My computer is too ancient for it.

I'm not so sure about that. I've had migraine pain in full rage even as I dreamt. But there is a subtle difference between sleeping and being unconscious. Unconsciousness, in my experience, just feels like lost time. I would never have known for sure I had been unconscious, as opposed to merely coming to the brink of unconsciousness, if the world hadn't suddenly jumped forward in time. And then there's the stories you hear about people in comas dreaming or otherwise being aware and doctors mistaking paralyzed people as unconscious.

Still, if someone is going to consent to be killed, or if you are just going to murder someone in cold blood because you don't think their life is worth anything, there are less painful, or at least quicker, ways of doing it. The only argument for dehydration and starvation is that they're passive and thus makes physicians feel less like murderers. Ridiculous reasoning, really. Why should the patient have to suffer more just to ease the physician's conscience so he can say to himself, "I didn't really kill him. I just didn't prevent him from dying."

[Anna]

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws.

Fur real?

I question how much of it is really voluntary. There are plenty of greedy kids tired of waiting for their inheritance, plus so-called "capitation committees" eager to save some bucks for the corporate shareholders by ending treatment. These two groups can exert serious pressure on an ailing person.

In the Netherlands, apparently 4 out of 5 euthanasias are voluntary. Although of those 4 out of 5, I can't tell you how many thought it was their right to die and how many merely saw it as a duty. Which still leaves 1 out of 5 involuntary.

http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland/

[Kevin]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

[Anna]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

If you're too lazy to read, perhaps you should be watching the telly, rather than hanging around on a forum where the primary mode of communication is written.

Or is there a specific point you do not understand?

[Zoloft]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

If you're too lazy to read, perhaps you should be watching the telly, rather than hanging around on a forum where the primary mode of communication is written.

Or is there a specific point you do not understand?

We're used to Abd just sloughing off tl;dr politely. It's refreshing to see you bite someone's head off the way I would.

[A Horse With No Name]

If you're too lazy to read, perhaps you should be watching the telly, rather than hanging around on a forum where the primary mode of communication is written.

Hello, mama! How would you like to communicate with me? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/evilgrin.gif)

[Abd]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

What's your offer? However, gratis:

Wikipedia is wrong. I'm right. If you don't see it, you are stupid and lazy. And wrong.

How'm I doin'?

[NuclearWarfare]

Not going to lie, a lot of your post was tl;dr. But I saw you citing The Huffington Post for something medical related. You realize that a website promotes homeopathy and autism/vaccination linkage, among many other ridiculous things, isn't exactly the best kind of website to be using to promote yourself as an honest broker of The Truth, right?

[Anna]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

What's your offer? However, gratis:

Wikipedia is wrong. I'm right. If you don't see it, you are stupid and lazy. And wrong.

How'm I doin'?

Not bad. However, I believe the word I used was "sloppy", rather than stupid. And you completely missed the part about the lives of elderly and disabled people in the Netherlands and elsewhere hanging in the balance.

[Anna]

Not going to lie, a lot of your post was tl;dr.

As I told the other guy, if you're too lazy to read, you probably should be watching the telly. I have heard rumors that Doctor Who is very entertaining. I'm not your nursemaid. Find someone or something else to entertain you.

But I saw you citing The Huffington Post for something medical related. You realize that a website promotes homeopathy and autism/vaccination linkage, among many other ridiculous things, isn't exactly the best kind of website to be using to promote yourself as an honest broker of The Truth, right?

If you had read it, you would have seen it had more to do with the legal and ethical issue of consent. Regardless of what the woman's personal beliefs may or may not have been, it doesn't give religious fanatic doctors the right to hold her hostage against her will.

[Milton Roe]

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws.

Fur real?

I question how much of it is really voluntary. There are plenty of greedy kids tired of waiting for their inheritance, plus so-called "capitation committees" eager to save some bucks for the corporate shareholders by ending treatment. These two groups can exert serious pressure on an ailing person.

Of course they can. But that happens even when the person becomes too ill or demented to control their own care, and you see adult children or grandchildren back off and use hospice as a last resort.

SCENARIO:

Your 77 y.o. grandfather is demented from multiple small strokes. He doesn't recognize you. He can feed himself if food is put before him, but now eats less, and lately has started to choke. Time for a stomach tube. He is even choking on thickened Ensure.

Okay, you can leave him in the nursing home at $70,000 a year until your inheritance is gone, or you can do what he either put in his living will, or else told you verbally many years ago. Which is: I don't ever want to live like that. Maybe (inject cynical note) if it's your money, rather than the government's money, you'll remember somewhat faster that he told you that, long ago. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Strange how the memory works.

But again, have YOU filled out YOUR advanced directives? I'll bet not. Thinking about the particulars of your own death is worse than gearing up to do this year's income taxes. We all know that.

If you take him home (still using hospice, which is a program in the US, not just a place), he'll sit in bed and somebody will change his diapers and keep him comfortable, but he'll still choke, still won't eat or drink enough, and eventually he'll aspirate food enough to get pneumonia, or else begin to go into dehydration shock. At no point does he look uncomfortable-- just more and more obtunded.

This is (newsflash) how human beings die. It is the natural dying process, and more or less how all your ancestors died (if they were lucky). With morphine, it's even easier. Now-- how much are you going to interfere? Send him to the ER and demand he be put on a ventilator? Which will require a tracheostomy in two weeks? Put in that stomach tube for feeding? Start the antibiotics? If he has heart arrythmias, Medicare will be happy to pay for an automatic implantable defibrillator, and you can easily find some doctor who will put one in and bill for it. Why not? Just the way you found a doc who would fix his cataracts 5 years ago, the better to see you with. Though he didn't recognize you then, either. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Much of this is why the US spends $1.8 trillion a year in medical costs. Our system is due for bankruptcy, after which you'll have a hard time finding an aspirin for yourself, let alone an implantable defibrilator or chronic dialysis for granny. But hey, that's not here yet (it's a projection, and what do economists know?), so quit worrying and be happy. As your politician says, we don't have to make hard choices in life, because we're Americans, and Americans can do anything. Did we not put a man on the moon? We should be able to infinitely prolong people in nursing homes, since funerals are so icky. And tend to remind you that one day it will be YOUR turn.

You can always put your hands to your eyes at this point and say "la-la-la-la. No it won't." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

[NuclearWarfare]

Not going to lie, a lot of your post was tl;dr.

As I told the other guy, if you're too lazy to read, you probably should be watching the telly. I have heard rumors that Doctor Who is very entertaining. I'm not your nursemaid. Find someone or something else to entertain you.

It is very entertaining. Take an hour to watch it; it will make your day just a little better.

But I saw you citing The Huffington Post for something medical related. You realize that a website promotes homeopathy and autism/vaccination linkage, among many other ridiculous things, isn't exactly the best kind of website to be using to promote yourself as an honest broker of The Truth, right?

If you had read it, you would have seen it had more to do with the legal and ethical issue of consent. Regardless of what the woman's personal beliefs may or may not have been, it doesn't give religious fanatic doctors the right to hold her hostage against her will.

I honestly don't believe, based on the evidence you provided, that such a thing ever happened. Even if it did, there's a significant chance that many of the story's details were distorted heavily.

If you can provide a better essay published on a more reasonable website, then perhaps people will take what you say more seriously.

[Milton Roe]

In the Netherlands, apparently 4 out of 5 euthanasias are voluntary. Although of those 4 out of 5, I can't tell you how many thought it was their right to die and how many merely saw it as a duty. Which still leaves 1 out of 5 involuntary.

http://www.euthanasia.com/holland99.html

http://www.patientsrightscouncil.org/site/holland/

I'm sorry, but neither of your cites supports this. The first one is too old to be current, as it has a lot of stuff from the 90's when Dutch euthansia was illegal and (thus) underground.

The second cite notes that 1 in 5 euthanasias in the Netherlands are not reported (even though the law requires it), but that's not the same as concluding that they are "involuntary." Presently, the 2002 law requires a lot of very strict criteria, which include that the act be requested by the patient.

It requires:

*The patient's suffering is unbearable with no prospect of improvement
*The patient's request for euthanasia must be voluntary and persist over time (the request cannot be granted when under the influence of others, psychological illness or drugs)
* The patient must be fully aware of his/her condition, prospects and options
* There must be consultation with at least one other independent doctor who needs to confirm the conditions mentioned above
*The death must be carried out in a medically appropriate fashion by the doctor or patient, in which case the doctor must be present
*The patient is at least 12 years old (patients between 12 and 16 years of age require the consent of their parents)

And although there are claims in both directions, the statistics look like the act has not lead to any increase in such requests.

http://nvl002.nivel.nl/publications/detail.aspx

Now, if there are cases of the Dutch not following their own laws, what exactly can I say? If they aren't following the law in any case, what good would it do to pass more laws? Or to chance the ones there are?

[Anna]

I myself happen to support voluntary euthanasia laws.

Fur real?

I question how much of it is really voluntary. There are plenty of greedy kids tired of waiting for their inheritance, plus so-called "capitation committees" eager to save some bucks for the corporate shareholders by ending treatment. These two groups can exert serious pressure on an ailing person.

Of course they can. But that happens even when the person becomes too ill or demented to control their own care, and you see adult children or grandchildren back off and use hospice as a last resort.

Your 77 y.o. grandfather is demented from multiple small strokes. He doesn't recognize you. He eats sometimes, but now tends to choke. Time for a stomach tube. He is even choking on thickened Ensure.

Okay, you can leave him in the nursing home at $70,000 a year until your inheritance is gone, or you can do what he either put in his living will, or told you verbally. Which is: I don't ever want to live like that. May if it's your money rather than the government's, you'll remember faster when he told you that, long ago. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/dry.gif) Strange how the memory works.

That sort of thing really ought to go in writing, so that we know that he actually consented, as opposed to someone else just claiming he consented for their own selfish ends.

If you take him home (still using hospice, which is a program in the US, not just a place), he'll sit in bed and somebody will change his diapers and keep him comfortable, but he'll still choke, still won't eat or drink enough, and eventually he'll aspirate food enough to get pneumonia, or else begin to go into dehydration shock. At no point does he look uncomfortable-- just more and more obtunded.

As I said before, pain often doesn't show on the face. Also, what income range of people did the hospices of which you speak serve? The rich often get far better treatment than the poor.

This is (newsflash) how human beings die. It is the natural dying process, and more or less how all your ancestors died (if they were lucky). With morphine, it's even easier. Now-- how much are you going to interfere? Send him to the ER and demand he be put on a ventilator? Which will require a tracheostomy in two weeks? Put in that stomach tube for feeding? Start the antibiotics? If he has arthythmias, Medicare will be happy to pay for an automatic implantable defibrillator, and you can easily find some doctor who will put one in and bill for it. Why not? Just the way you found a doc who would fix his cataracts 5 years ago, the better to see you with. Though he didn't recognize you then, either. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Personally, if someone was going to murder me, I'd rather they just shot me in a major artery. Sure, it would hurt, but then the blood would drain and I'd lose consciousness. It wouldn't be long and drawn out. Of course, it's better not to be murdered at all.

Much of this is why the US spends $1.8 trillion a year in medical costs. Our system is due for bankrupcy, after which you'll have a hard time finding an aspirin for yourself, let alone an implantable defibrilator or chronic dialysis for granny. But hey, that's not here yet (it's a projection, and what do economists know?) do quit worrying. Be happy. As your politician says, we don't have to make hard choices in life, because we're Americans, and Americans can do anything. Did we not put a man on the moon? We should be able to infinitely prolong people in nursing homes, since funerals are so icky. And tend to remind you that one day it will be YOUR turn.

There are cheaper, more humane murder methods. Guns, last I heard, were not expensive.

Anyway, not all of the seriously disabled are elderly, or, even if they are elderly, incapable of continuing to have a decent life. The Dutch are killing disabled babies now.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Publ...12/003dncoj.asp

Just because someone needs a ventilator doesn't necessarily mean they can't have a decent life.

"One of our most moving speakers was Maria Matzik, who spoke out about her neglect and abuse by the medical community. Doctors had told her not to go on a ventilator when breathing became difficult. 'That would be a fate worse than death,' they'd advised.

Now a successful ventilator user who works at the center for independent living in Dayton, Ohio, Maria blasted the medical profession for its ignorance.

'Many people believe they would rather be dead than be like us,' Matzik said. 'So if one of us becomes depressed and suicidal, most people conclude that our feelings are rational. They don't try to understand or respond to whatever our real problem might be.'"
http://www.mcil.org/mcil/mcil/ndy.htm

Try to find a doctor with the guts to have a cold, dispassionate discussion about what pain might possibly be a symptom of and how to treat the underlying problem. No matter how coldly and dispassionately you describe the pain, they always seem to want to jump straight to quality of life issues. Prescribe a pain pill, or, if you are allergic to too many medications, at least make some sort of comment about quality of life issues, rather than engage in serious discussion about what the pain means.

Too many people think that if they had to live in intense, chronic pain, they'd rather be dead, and that anyone would feel likewise. Perhaps many people do feel like that. But not everyone. Pain is part of the survival instinct, after all. It's there to indicate what brings you closer to health and good life, and what brings you further away. And, at least while the pain is still there, you know you're still ALIVE.

You can always put your hands to your eyes at this point and say "la-la-la-la. No it won't." (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

Well, think. Why do you think I'm so interested in the topic?

[Anna]

Not going to lie, a lot of your post was tl;dr.

As I told the other guy, if you're too lazy to read, you probably should be watching the telly. I have heard rumors that Doctor Who is very entertaining. I'm not your nursemaid. Find someone or something else to entertain you.

It is very entertaining. Take an hour to watch it; it will make your day just a little better.

I don't have a television. However, since you do, please, watch as much as you want.

But I saw you citing The Huffington Post for something medical related. You realize that a website promotes homeopathy and autism/vaccination linkage, among many other ridiculous things, isn't exactly the best kind of website to be using to promote yourself as an honest broker of The Truth, right?

If you had read it, you would have seen it had more to do with the legal and ethical issue of consent. Regardless of what the woman's personal beliefs may or may not have been, it doesn't give religious fanatic doctors the right to hold her hostage against her will.

I honestly don't believe, based on the evidence you provided, that such a thing ever happened. Even if it did, there's a significant chance that many of the story's details were distorted heavily.

If you can provide a better essay published on a more reasonable website, then perhaps people will take what you say more seriously.

Do you like ABC News better?
http://abcnews.go.com/Health/florida-court...tory?id=9561460

I can't say I really care whether or not people who are too lazy to read take me seriously, because, quite frankly, I have difficulty taking them completely seriously.

[Kelly Martin]

What does all of this have to do with Wikipedia?

[Milton Roe]

Pain is often not apparent on the face. I have know many people who were in a lot of pain, including a few cancer patients, and, in many cases, you couldn't tell just from looking at their face... although sometimes there was something in the eyes. I've been in a lot of pain myself, and people didn't have any idea from looking at my face. Hell, probably saved my life once when I played possum and let some madman think he had beaten me to unconsciousness.

I can do better. I've lived in a desert. I've been dehydrated. I've been hungry. Not enough to die, but enough to know that it isn't fun.

And then there's the horror stories you hear of people who have drunk seawater, which apparently results in a sort of accelerated dehydration.

None of it the same thing as happens in hospice. Through most of THAT process, you can ask many hospice patients (of course not all) if they're uncomfortable, and they will tell you "no." After that, they are unconscious. What-- are you saying we are not going to believe them? At this point, if nothing will convince you, we don't have much to talk about, do we?

I suppose if you drug the patient with sufficient morphine, probably enough to render the patient unconscious, you might be able to nullify the painful effects of the dehydration. No guarantees on that. Of course, at that point, you may as well keep the patient hydrated and kill the patient with the morphine, which would probably be a lot more humane. (Further research required.) Even so, it's still MURDER without the patient's consent.

Sure, but why talk about two separate issues? When I want to talk about dehydration, you want to talk about murder due to lack of consent. When I want to talk about consent, you want to talk about death by dehydration vs. active drug overdose. Perhaps you'd do better with two threads?

What I've seen of hospital personnel is they don't read advance directives, or even medical bracelets.

Then what you've seen is against the law, and you should report it the local department of adult protective survices in your state. I guarantee you'll get a response.

The police seemed to be under the impression that the hospital was not within their jurisdiction, sort of like an embassy.

If your main gripe is that hospitals don't follow the law, and when you call the cops they won't come, then I can only say you don't live in the same country I do, and are communicating from an alternatate universe.

Hell, even if the patient is awake and shouting (well, as loudly as one can when one is having trouble breathing) that the patient wants to live and breathe, they continue to hold the patient hostage against the will of both the patient and any representative of the patient.

Thus subjecting the patient to painful lungache and oxygen deprivation headache. One would hope that the hospital is question is an exception rather than the rule... but given the reluctance of the police and the AMA to do anything to punish the hospital in question, I have my doubts.

"Oxygen deprivation headache"?? Lungache? Not from oxygen lack (chest discomfort may happen in asthma and other respiratory conditions, but we do not euthanize people for asthma). I have spent enough time in rebreather diver training, and seeing people with low pulse oximetry, to know better. Don't give me nonsense about oxygen deprivation and how it causes many symptoms. The problem in diving is that it does NOT. Dying people may have respiratory discomfort and dyspnea, but not from lack of oxygen. In hospice, the answer to this is morphine.

I really have no idea what you're talking about above. You seem to move on from issue to issue without a pause. A patient is awake and shouting that they are having trouble breathing, and the hospital refuses to do WHAT? Intubate them? So that they can no longer shout or talk due to being on a ventilator? People who can't breathe don't do much shouting. And how does this relate to euthanasia or consent? We seem to be on a different topic altogether, now. Nor do people die of oxygen deprivation while shouting to be put on a ventilator.

That is what I'm complaining about. Doctors taking drastic measures like euthanasia without even asking the patient, and in many cases, against the explicit wishes of the patient and/or his family.

Well, that's illegal everywhere, including the Netherlands. And if you have any cases of it being done against the explicit wishes of the patient, you should call the police. In fact, you should post the name of the patient and when and where they died, and why you think they were euthanized against their wishes, and I'll call the police FOR you. Stop balthering on about iit here. You're being a troll, showing up and reporting a crimewave and wanting us to do something about it.

People who genuinely want to die painful deaths are a different matter. The statistics in the Netherlands are particularly horrible.

Cite? Not the Huffington post or your right-to-life website. Something with statistics and not an axe to grind.

Advance directives won't do you any good if the doctors are dead set on doing what they think is best, your wishes be d***ed. Although, the advance directive might help your family sue for wrongful death, so they are good to fill out for that, so you can at least dream of being avenged.

Again you're changing topics. Are you talking about active or passive euthanasia (passive being withdrawal of care when somebody didn't want it withdrawn). The last can happen, but it's usually because the family was in denial and wasn't paying for futile and expensive care, anyway.

In that case, I was probably wrong about morphine being painless. Suffocation may be fast, if it is abrupt enough, but it doesn't feel fast when you are panicking that much. If breathing were abruptly terminated, it might take five minutes for you to go unconscious, but it doesn't feel like five minutes. In my experience, if feels more like an hour. Of course, even if it really was an hour rather than just a particularly slow five minutes, that's still a lot faster than the dehydration patients die. It's possible the morphine would knock you unconscious first. And suffocation isn't always fast. Consider carbon monoxide poisoning.

Which is why, before they take you off the ventilator, they give you a big dose of morphine in your IV BEFORE they do it.

On the contrary, it's hard to find information on the internet to explain what I've seen. Not everyone gets dialysis, and toxins building up in your body can be rather painful.

Well, it's easy to get on the internet and get information for what I've seen, which is that generally it's not painful. Okay? Once again, you're reporting your private experience which isn't generally the case. And you want us to get all incensed about it. One begins to get the message about why the makers of Wikipedia are so gung-ho about keeping their mantry about what is verifiable with sources (common, published experience) and not what you personally think is true.

This U.S. woman was wide awake and capable of telling her doctors that she did not want to remain in the hospital, and did so, yet they held her hostage anyone. Legally, I think all they can do is offer her a form stating that she is leaving against medical advice, but what good are laws if no one enforces them? Religious fanatics generally make bad doctors. So do anti-religious fanatics, for that matter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appe...e_b_434497.html

This is an article about a pregnant woman who was confined to a hospital on a judge's orders for the health of her unborn children. It has nothing to do with euthanasia or failure to follow laws! Moreover, the ACLU is suing over it! (N.B. for those reading along, the ACLU is run by people who believe that a fetus does not become a person until it leaves its parents' NYC appartment after finding a job, or graduates medical school, whichever comes first).

In the case of the Netherlands, with loads of people afraid to go to the hospital for fear of being killed, and filling out paperwork stating that they do not want to be helped to die.

You got that off a fearmongering website, and the date was the late 1990's. So now you're arguing with me on the basis of outdated hearsay about the anxieities of foreigners which may or many not have been justified by facts. Lovely.

If you don't care about children in Africa, do you care about elderly and disabled Dutch? A hospital in Canada declares any representative of the patient (read: VICTIM) who refused to consent to murdering the patient (read: VICTIM) by starvation to be incompetent of making decisions for the patient (read: VICTIM), and you don't see a problem.

The last link in my first post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2574608/posts
The guy was a priest -- not the sort of person likely to consent to such a thing.

Apparently you didn't read the thing carefully. The person had left no advanced directives and was brain damaged from a failed resuscitation. The family refused to "let the person fall into the hands of the public guardian" and instead signed him up for palliative care including removing of his feeding tube. Then they were unhappy the hospital removed the feeding tube. They said they were forced to choose this option but they clearly had another choice. The public guardian wasn't going to order euthanasia!

It's another nonsense scare story. Yes, in Canada, if you're brain-damaged on a ventilator with no advanced directives, the state might not keep you that way forever. Thus, if you live in Canada, you'd better fill out your paperwork.

Again, you're arguing with me about hospitals ignoring the law and paperwork, and using cases where they followed the law and had no paperwork, as your evidence.

Still, if someone is going to consent to be killed, or if you are just going to murder someone in cold blood because you don't think their life is worth anything, there are less painful, or at least quicker, ways of doing it. The only argument for dehydration and starvation is that they're passive and thus makes physicians feel less like murderers. Ridiculous reasoning, really. Why should the patient have to suffer more just to ease the physician's conscience so he can say to himself, "I didn't really kill him. I just didn't prevent him from dying."

You're preaching to the converted, there, with me. That is the Dutch argument, in fact. The chronic US argument is that acceptance of this leads to a slippery slope, and that voluntary euthanasia of those who really, really want it, and are articulate about it, is a "gateway law" (just like marijuana is a gateway drug!) to people doing anything they want. Soon there will be euthanasia on the streets!

So it's really people like you complaining about active euthanasia in the Netherlands, that has led to passive euthanasia with lots of morphine and dehydration, in the US. Aren't you proud of yourself?

[Milton Roe]

That sort of thing really ought to go in writing, so that we know that he actually consented, as opposed to someone else just claiming he consented for their own selfish ends.

Yes, of course, that is how it SHOULD happen. And people should brush their teeth and floss and see the dentist, should only marry people they're compatible enough to spend a life with, should pay their income taxes on time, should save a little money every month, should not use too many credit cards and keep a low balance and finally not smoke. And give blood and sign up for organ donation. Have I forgotten anything? Oh, yes, my damn neighbor with the Chinese wind chimes and the barking dog he leaves alone all day. God is that annoying.

However, we live in the real world where people do stupid things. Most people do NOT have a living will, specifying what kind of care they would or would not like, should they become paralyzed and/or vegetative as result of a freeway accident or brain aneurism or any of those things that could happen to anybody (as happened to Schiavo, in fact). Most people reading this post do not have such a document. So blaming Wikipedia for the state of the world that exists since people will not behave the way you'd like, is not helpful.

As I said before, pain often doesn't show on the face. Also, what income range of people did the hospices of which you speak serve? The rich often get far better treatment than the poor.

Not in hospice programs, which are cheap (which is why Medicare is very happy with them). It's hard to gold plate a hospice program or make it 5-star. They're all about the same (in a few cases of home hospice with an imcompetent family, they can be improved by hiring a private-duty nurse, but that's about it).

This is (newsflash) how human beings die. It is the natural dying process, and more or less how all your ancestors died (if they were lucky). With morphine, it's even easier. Now-- how much are you going to interfere? Send him to the ER and demand he be put on a ventilator? Which will require a tracheostomy in two weeks? Put in that stomach tube for feeding? Start the antibiotics? If he has arthythmias, Medicare will be happy to pay for an automatic implantable defibrillator, and you can easily find some doctor who will put one in and bill for it. Why not? Just the way you found a doc who would fix his cataracts 5 years ago, the better to see you with. Though he didn't recognize you then, either. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/unhappy.gif)

Personally, if someone was going to murder me, I'd rather they just shot me in a major artery. Sure, it would hurt, but then the blood would drain and I'd lose consciousness. It wouldn't be long and drawn out. Of course, it's better not to be murdered at all.

Whether you're murdered or not murdered, this fact doesn't change. And if you're dying, you do understand that any medical treatment (including food and water from a stomach tube) will make your death "long and drawn out." So you're basically giving us the Woody Allan argument of "The food is terrible, and such small portions!" You want more of a life whose quality is degraded by the presense of the technology you complain is being withdrawn, and you say a quick death would be better. But you complain of assisted suicide. Perhaps what you really want is to be a functioning cyborg. Unfortunately, you seem to lack money to pay for even the part of that technology that exists.

Just because someone needs a ventilator doesn't necessarily mean they can't have a decent life.

"One of our most moving speakers was Maria Matzik, who spoke out about her neglect and abuse by the medical community. Doctors had told her not to go on a ventilator when breathing became difficult. 'That would be a fate worse than death,' they'd advised.

Now a successful ventilator user who works at the center for independent living in Dayton, Ohio, Maria blasted the medical profession for its ignorance.

Yet another completely separate issue. How do you feel about taxpayer funded heart and liver transplants for ventilator-assisted quadruplegics? How about if they begin to become demented?

Try to find a doctor with the guts to have a cold, dispassionate discussion about what pain might possibly be a symptom of and how to treat the underlying problem. No matter how coldly and dispassionately you describe the pain, they always seem to want to jump straight to quality of life issues. Prescribe a pain pill, or, if you are allergic to too many medications, at least make some sort of comment about quality of life issues, rather than engage in serious discussion about what the pain means.

Wrong. The biggest complaint about doctors these days is that they are actually too willing to spend money on tests (including CTs and MRIs to look for an underlying problem) and more money to try to fix it (chemotherapy and heart bypass and stents are big business) and NOT enough time on quality of life and paliative care.

As for the issue of use of chronic ventilators for outpatients, I have no idea which category you put that in. Does it treat the underlying problem or just fix the symptoms? You get to complain either way, I suppose.

Too many people think that if they had to live in intense, chronic pain, they'd rather be dead, and that anyone would feel likewise. Perhaps many people do feel like that. But not everyone. Pain is part of the survival instinct, after all. It's there to indicate what brings you closer to health and good life, and what brings you further away. And, at least while the pain is still there, you know you're still ALIVE.

You'd make a great motivational speak for present government drug policy. Have you thought about a career in motivational speaking and political lobbying on behalf of the DEA?

Well, think. Why do you think I'm so interested in the topic?

I dunno. Unless you quit being coy and tell us, I'm going to assume you have terminal Trolitis, CFIDs and Kvetcher's Syndrome, and expect that the family you don't have, is soon going to try to medically murder you, in order to get the money you don't have. Is that about it?

[Milton Roe]

What does all of this have to do with Wikipedia?

It's a syndrome: Evil Wikipedia won't let me tell the world my correct but minority views, so I'm going on complain on WR.

Too much of this actually makes you begin to understand WP:V, and that's a horrible thing.

At least, this thread should be annexed (or better) stuck in The Lounge.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Mod's note: I'm of two minds on the subject of moving the thread. My sense is that the Annex is mainly for carrying out the sort of WikiCentric drama-fests that one finds on talk pages and noticeboards all over WP. Since this thread is about a specific article and seems to be staying on topic, I'm inclined to let it stay here. If it became a more general discussion of euthanasia, I would move it to the politics etc. forum. All this is subject to change, of course, after a few more posts. BTW, welcome, Anna, I can see that you have gotten right into the swing of things here. Endless debates with Milton can be fun -- I speak from experience.

[RMHED]

And you completely missed the part about the lives of elderly and disabled people in the Netherlands and elsewhere hanging in the balance.

Fuck 'em. Compulsory euthanasia is the answer to the pensions problem.

[Milton Roe]

And you completely missed the part about the lives of elderly and disabled people in the Netherlands and elsewhere hanging in the balance.

Fuck 'em. Compulsory euthanasia is the answer to the pensions problem.

Hmmm, I probably would not go that far. Fucking them, I mean. However, at some point in body part replacement before they reach Darth Vaderhood, I might suggest they wear a mask and helmet, in order to not scare the children. It can only lead to becoming General Grievous otherwise.

Anna, you see that by internet and WR standards, I really am a reasonable and moderate sort of fellow.

Milton Roe, Protocol, Human/Cyborg Relations.
Probably not the droid you're looking for.©

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/happy.gif)

[SB_Johnny]

Mod's note: I'm of two minds on the subject of moving the thread. My sense is that the Annex is mainly for carrying out the sort of WikiCentric drama-fests that one finds on talk pages and noticeboards all over WP.

This thread clearly belongs in the support group forum. Or in the teenage angst forum. Or perhaps in the teenager impersonators' forum (hard to know around these parts).

[EricBarbour]

This thread clearly belongs in the support group forum. Or in the teenage angst forum. Or perhaps in the teenager impersonators' forum (hard to know around these parts).

Tarpit. It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia.

[Abd]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

What's your offer? However, gratis:

Wikipedia is wrong. I'm right. If you don't see it, you are stupid and lazy. And wrong.

How'm I doin'?

Not bad. However, I believe the word I used was "sloppy", rather than stupid. And you completely missed the part about the lives of elderly and disabled people in the Netherlands and elsewhere hanging in the balance.

Okay, "If you don't see it, you are sloppy and lazy."

As to the elderly and disabled, they, and healthy people, have their lives hanging in the balance all over the world. I didn't miss that part, it's a detail that is part of your belief in your own rightness. That is, it's true -- lives are hanging in the balance, at least in this way or that way -- but that is not the meaning of your communication in context. Have you forgotten where you are?

As some have pointed out, if someone's life is hanging in the balance, do you rant about it on at the local bar -- this is the local bar for Wikipedia -- or do you call 911? If people are breaking the law, do you complain to the bar denizens or call the police? If the police are breaking the law, do you, again, just kvetch about it over your beer or whatever you drink, or do you take legal action within the system, start a revolution, or leave the country to go to a safer place?

Your communication here is not having what seems to be a desired effect except on your own sense of yourself, i.e., "At least I'm standing up for those poor people, unlike all these sloppy, lazy people." In fact, that's just another version of "I'm right and they are wrong," a way that you can make yourself look good in your own eyes. Want to make some real changes? You'll have to look at yourself first. That's where it starts. Always.

I'm not claiming that this is easy. What's easy is to just complain about how awful everyone else is.

[Anna]

[quote name='Milton Roe' date='Sun 19th June 2011, 6:46pm' post='277236']
[quote name='Anna' post='277198' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 6:05pm']
Pain is often not apparent on the face. I have know many people who were in a lot of pain, including a few cancer patients, and, in many cases, you couldn't tell just from looking at their face... although sometimes there was something in the eyes. I've been in a lot of pain myself, and people didn't have any idea from looking at my face. Hell, probably saved my life once when I played possum and let some madman think he had beaten me to unconsciousness.

I can do better. I've lived in a desert. I've been dehydrated. I've been hungry. Not enough to die, but enough to know that it isn't fun.

And then there's the horror stories you hear of people who have drunk seawater, which apparently results in a sort of accelerated dehydration.
[/quote]
None of it the same thing as happens in hospice. Through most of THAT process, you can ask many hospice patients (of course not all) if they're uncomfortable, and they will tell you "no." After that, they are unconscious. What-- are you saying we are not going to believe them? At this point, if nothing will convince you, we don't have much to talk about, do we?
[/quote]

Not all hospices are equal. Some hospices are incompetent.

There are even law firms that specialize in helping people sue the particularly egregious ones.
http://www.preventelderabuse.com/hospice-care.html

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277198' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 6:05pm']
I suppose if you drug the patient with sufficient morphine, probably enough to render the patient unconscious, you might be able to nullify the painful effects of the dehydration. No guarantees on that. Of course, at that point, you may as well keep the patient hydrated and kill the patient with the morphine, which would probably be a lot more humane. (Further research required.) Even so, it's still MURDER without the patient's consent.
[/quote]
Sure, but why talk about two separate issues? When I want to talk about dehydration, you want to talk about murder due to lack of consent. When I want to talk about consent, you want to talk about death by dehydration vs. active drug overdose. Perhaps you'd do better with two threads?
[/quote]

To clarify:
* I don't really have much problem with voluntary euthanasia, although I do think laws about waiting periods are reasonable enough, to make sure someone doesn't go off an get euthanized just because a bad psychoactive drug made them temporarily suicidal... or other transitory circumstances.
* I have even less problem with active voluntary euthanasia than I do with passive voluntary euthanasia, as active euthanasia is often more humane.
* I do have a huge problem with involuntary euthanasia, which I think is just a euphemism for murder.
* I think somewhere in the whole "right to die" argument, "duty to die" got latched on and a lot of people forgot about "right to live".
* I think false claims about certain methods of euthanasia -- in particular, dehydration and starvation -- being painless really amount to apologism for involuntary euthanasia, or murder. I also think anyone considering voluntary euthanasia should be accurately informed of their options and the potential painfulness of their chosen method.
* I think doctors should stick to their jobs as doctors and not try to impose their religions and philosophies on other people or tell other people whether or not their lives are worth living. While how to save someone's life or how to kill them might be questions for medicine, whether or not it is actually desirable to do so are questions for religion and philosophy... the patient's religion or philosophy, not the doctor's.

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277198' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 6:05pm']
What I've seen of hospital personnel is they don't read advance directives, or even medical bracelets.
[/quote]
Then what you've seen is against the law, and you should report it the local department of adult protective survices in your state. I guarantee you'll get a response.
[/quote]

[quote]
[quote]The police seemed to be under the impression that the hospital was not within their jurisdiction, sort of like an embassy.[/quote]

If your main gripe is that hospitals don't follow the law, and when you call the cops they won't come, then I can only say you don't live in the same country I do, and are communicating from an alternatate universe.
[/quote]

Have you ever actually talked to the police about this sort of thing? If they see someone bleeding enough, they think it's the paramedics' god-given right to kidnap the person.

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277207' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 8:32pm']
Hell, even if the patient is awake and shouting (well, as loudly as one can when one is having trouble breathing) that the patient wants to live and breathe, they continue to hold the patient hostage against the will of both the patient and any representative of the patient.

Thus subjecting the patient to painful lungache and oxygen deprivation headache. One would hope that the hospital is question is an exception rather than the rule... but given the reluctance of the police and the AMA to do anything to punish the hospital in question, I have my doubts. [/quote]
"Oxygen deprivation headache"?? Lungache? Not from oxygen lack (chest discomfort may happen in asthma and other respiratory conditions, but we do not euthanize people for asthma). I have spent enough time in rebreather diver training, and seeing people with low pulse oximetry, to know better. Don't give me nonsense about oxygen deprivation and how it causes many symptoms. The problem in diving is that it does NOT. Dying people may have respiratory discomfort and dyspnea, but not from lack of oxygen. In hospice, the answer to this is morphine.
[/quote]

First dehydration and starvation, and now oxygen deprivation? Yes, oxygen deprivation does indeed cause pain:
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5544673_headache...ack-oxygen.html

There may be some loopholes -- I don't know. Maybe something to do with pressure changes. Consider drowning near the surface after having tired and lost the ability to keep afloat. Or, for that matter, falling in the bath and being unable to get up.

Here's a first hand account of a near-drowning experience. No, not a deep-sea diver.

"...When the cramp hit me, I sank to the bottom of the lake 12 feet down, in a doubled-up position. Compounding the wracking pain in my trunk was a mounting choking sensation. (Try holding your mouth and nose after taking a deep breath. Hold your breath until it becomes unbearable; then try holding it a few seconds past the unbearable point. It's a horrible sensation and would give you a dim idea of just one aspect of how it feels to drown.) The pressure of the water caused a stabbing pain in my eyes and ears... try to keep your head when water begins to seep into your already tortured lungs and your body is a mass of pain and you know you are dying... I remember that I screamed down there against a solid wall of water. I remember that I threshed and bobbed, but only succeeded in burrowing my head into the slime of the lake floor...."
http://www.lib.niu.edu/1992/ip920721.html

Do you really think millions of years of evolution neglected to provide us with motivation to breathe, drink, and eat?

[quote]
I really have no idea what you're talking about above. You seem to move on from issue to issue without a pause. A patient is awake and shouting that they are having trouble breathing, and the hospital refuses to do WHAT? Intubate them? So that they can no longer shout or talk due to being on a ventilator? People who can't breathe don't do much shouting. And how does this relate to euthanasia or consent? We seem to be on a different topic altogether, now. Nor do people die of oxygen deprivation while shouting to be put on a ventilator.
[/quote]

No, that example had little in common with the other examples, except that it was a case of the hospital ignoring the wishes of someone who wanted to live, and was very clear on the point. The air of the hospital itself was the asthma trigger: the hospital staff refused to let the patient leave and seek clean, asthma-friendly air. (Fortunately, the asthmatic did manage to escape.)

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277207' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 8:32pm']
That is what I'm complaining about. Doctors taking drastic measures like euthanasia without even asking the patient, and in many cases, against the explicit wishes of the patient and/or his family.
[/quote]
Well, that's illegal everywhere, including the Netherlands. And if you have any cases of it being done against the explicit wishes of the patient, you should call the police. In fact, you should post the name of the patient and when and where they died, and why you think they were euthanized against their wishes, and I'll call the police FOR you. Stop balthering on about iit here. You're being a troll, showing up and reporting a crimewave and wanting us to do something about it.
[/quote]

It's legal in the UK.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4721061.stm

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277207' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 8:32pm']
People who genuinely want to die painful deaths are a different matter. The statistics in the Netherlands are particularly horrible.
[/quote]
Cite? Not the Huffington post or your right-to-life website. Something with statistics and not an axe to grind.
[/quote]

This more recent article gives an estimate closer to 1 in 6 involuntary. Human nature doesn't really change much over such a short time period.
http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/archive/l...10/jun/10061607

Dehydration would seem to account for a significant portion of the euthanasias.

"Schadenberg points out that figures from 2007 indicate approximately 10% of all deaths in the Netherlands were connected to the practice of terminal sedation.

'Many of those deaths were caused by dehydration, by the physician sedating the patient and then withholding hydration until death occurs, which usually takes 10 - 14 days,' he said."

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277207' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 8:32pm']
Advance directives won't do you any good if the doctors are dead set on doing what they think is best, your wishes be d***ed. Although, the advance directive might help your family sue for wrongful death, so they are good to fill out for that, so you can at least dream of being avenged.
[/quote]
Again you're changing topics. Are you talking about active or passive euthanasia (passive being withdrawal of care when somebody didn't want it withdrawn). The last can happen, but it's usually because the family was in denial and wasn't paying for futile and expensive care, anyway.
[/quote]

No, the above was more about the consent issue generically. Further from euthanasia and closer to active reckless endangerment.

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277198' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 6:05pm']
In that case, I was probably wrong about morphine being painless. Suffocation may be fast, if it is abrupt enough, but it doesn't feel fast when you are panicking that much. If breathing were abruptly terminated, it might take five minutes for you to go unconscious, but it doesn't feel like five minutes. In my experience, if feels more like an hour. Of course, even if it really was an hour rather than just a particularly slow five minutes, that's still a lot faster than the dehydration patients die. It's possible the morphine would knock you unconscious first. And suffocation isn't always fast. Consider carbon monoxide poisoning.
[/quote]
Which is why, before they take you off the ventilator, they give you a big dose of morphine in your IV BEFORE they do it.
[/quote]

Morphine could probably help a lot. Of course, some patients are opposed to painkillers, so consent is still a crucial issue.

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277198' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 6:05pm']
On the contrary, it's hard to find information on the internet to explain what I've seen. Not everyone gets dialysis, and toxins building up in your body can be rather painful.
[/quote]
Well, it's easy to get on the internet and get information for what I've seen, which is that generally it's not painful. Okay? Once again, you're reporting your private experience which isn't generally the case. And you want us to get all incensed about it. One begins to get the message about why the makers of Wikipedia are so gung-ho about keeping their mantry about what is verifiable with sources (common, published experience) and not what you personally think is true.
[/quote]

Aha! Found one!
http://ndtplus.oxfordjournals.org/content/2/2/111.full

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277198' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 6:05pm']
This U.S. woman was wide awake and capable of telling her doctors that she did not want to remain in the hospital, and did so, yet they held her hostage anyone. Legally, I think all they can do is offer her a form stating that she is leaving against medical advice, but what good are laws if no one enforces them? Religious fanatics generally make bad doctors. So do anti-religious fanatics, for that matter.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appe...e_b_434497.html
[/quote]
This is an article about a pregnant woman who was confined to a hospital on a judge's orders for the health of her unborn children. It has nothing to do with euthanasia or failure to follow laws! Moreover, the ACLU is suing over it! (N.B. for those reading along, the ACLU is run by people who believe that a fetus does not become a person until it leaves its parents' NYC appartment after finding a job, or graduates medical school, whichever comes first).
[/quote]

But it is relevant to the topic of consent. She was confined against her will. If she was wide awake and telling them she didn't want to be there, what use would a living will be?

She wasn't trying to have an abortion. Sometimes pregnancies fail naturally.

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277198' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 6:05pm']
In the case of the Netherlands, with loads of people afraid to go to the hospital for fear of being killed, and filling out paperwork stating that they do not want to be helped to die.
[/quote]
You got that off a fearmongering website, and the date was the late 1990's. So now you're arguing with me on the basis of outdated hearsay about the anxieities of foreigners which may or many not have been justified by facts. Lovely.[/quote]

Would you prefer the Telegraph?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthne...asia-cards.html

What do you have against people fighting for their lives, anyway?

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277198' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 6:05pm']
If you don't care about children in Africa, do you care about elderly and disabled Dutch? A hospital in Canada declares any representative of the patient (read: VICTIM) who refused to consent to murdering the patient (read: VICTIM) by starvation to be incompetent of making decisions for the patient (read: VICTIM), and you don't see a problem.

The last link in my first post.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2574608/posts
The guy was a priest -- not the sort of person likely to consent to such a thing.
[/quote]
Apparently you didn't read the thing carefully. The person had left no advanced directives and was brain damaged from a failed resuscitation. The family refused to "let the person fall into the hands of the public guardian" and instead signed him up for palliative care including removing of his feeding tube. Then they were unhappy the hospital removed the feeding tube. They said they were forced to choose this option but they clearly had another choice. The public guardian wasn't going to order euthanasia!

It's another nonsense scare story. Yes, in Canada, if you're brain-damaged on a ventilator with no advanced directives, the state might not keep you that way forever. Thus, if you live in Canada, you'd better fill out your paperwork.

Again, you're arguing with me about hospitals ignoring the law and paperwork, and using cases where they followed the law and had no paperwork, as your evidence.
[/quote]

"His family, who live in Sri Lanka, and his supporters here have rejected these suggestions. [...] The court first rejected Joshua's sister, Mallika Arumugan, as his (SDM) because they did not consider her capable of making medical decisions for Joshua, but she also did not agree to the demands of the hospital.

After the court rejected Joshua's sister as his SDM, a friend for 25 years became the next option. We were told that this friend would only be accepted as the SDM if he agreed to the preconditions – palliative care with the removal of all medications, IV hydration and nutrition."

[quote]
[quote name='Anna' post='277198' date='Sat 18th June 2011, 6:05pm']
Still, if someone is going to consent to be killed, or if you are just going to murder someone in cold blood because you don't think their life is worth anything, there are less painful, or at least quicker, ways of doing it. The only argument for dehydration and starvation is that they're passive and thus makes physicians feel less like murderers. Ridiculous reasoning, really. Why should the patient have to suffer more just to ease the physician's conscience so he can say to himself, "I didn't really kill him. I just didn't prevent him from dying."
[/quote]
You're preaching to the converted, there, with me. That is the Dutch argument, in fact. The chronic US argument is that acceptance of this leads to a slippery slope, and that voluntary euthanasia of those who really, really want it, and are articulate about it, is a "gateway law" (just like marijuana is a gateway drug!) to people doing anything they want. Soon there will be euthanasia on the streets!

So it's really people like you complaining about active euthanasia in the Netherlands, that has led to passive euthanasia with lots of morphine and dehydration, in the US. Aren't you proud of yourself?
[/quote]

Without consent, it's still murder even if they use a more merciful method.

[Anna]

What does all of this have to do with Wikipedia?

Another non-reader!

First link in the first post.

[Anna]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

What's your offer? However, gratis:

Wikipedia is wrong. I'm right. If you don't see it, you are stupid and lazy. And wrong.

How'm I doin'?

Not bad. However, I believe the word I used was "sloppy", rather than stupid. And you completely missed the part about the lives of elderly and disabled people in the Netherlands and elsewhere hanging in the balance.

Okay, "If you don't see it, you are sloppy and lazy."

Of course, if you really wanted to try to be detailed, you'd note that "sloppy" was for people who missed glaring details, while "lazy" was for people who don't like reading long things but, rather than doing the sensible thing and watching television, feel the need to complain at people on the internet for failing to entertain them, as if it were our job to do so.

As to the elderly and disabled, they, and healthy people, have their lives hanging in the balance all over the world. I didn't miss that part, it's a detail that is part of your belief in your own rightness. That is, it's true -- lives are hanging in the balance, at least in this way or that way -- but that is not the meaning of your communication in context. Have you forgotten where you are?

As some have pointed out, if someone's life is hanging in the balance, do you rant about it on at the local bar -- this is the local bar for Wikipedia -- or do you call 911? If people are breaking the law, do you complain to the bar denizens or call the police? If the police are breaking the law, do you, again, just kvetch about it over your beer or whatever you drink, or do you take legal action within the system, start a revolution, or leave the country to go to a safer place?

Usually, I sign Change.org petitions, write letters to senators, call some secretary who passes brief notes on to the President, and things like that, but sometimes a good debate is good for the spirit.

The police are useless. Well, maybe not everywhere, but it is a recession, and even the well-meaning ones are generally underfunded.

BTW, welcome, Anna, I can see that you have gotten right into the swing of things here. Endless debates with Milton can be fun -- I speak from experience.[/i]

Hello.

[melloden]

No one cares about old people on Wikipedia. Unless they're female.

[Kevin]

Can we get Abd to summarize this? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/confused.gif)

What's your offer? However, gratis:

Wikipedia is wrong. I'm right. If you don't see it, you are stupid and lazy. And wrong.

How'm I doin'?

Works for me (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Milton Roe]

No one cares about old people on Wikipedia. Unless they're female.

There are no old people on Wikipedia. Even male. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif)

[Milton Roe]

This thread clearly belongs in the support group forum. Or in the teenage angst forum. Or perhaps in the teenager impersonators' forum (hard to know around these parts).

Tarpit. It's got nothing to do with Wikipedia.

Anna is already in the tarpit of uneven [quote] hell. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Bruhahhahaha.

[Abd]

Anna is already in the tarpit of uneven quote hell. (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) Bruhahhahaha.

It's a special WR torture. For a moment there, I was tempted to fix it for her. Then sanity returned.

Like, why?

Anna, if you are going to massively quote stuff here, and if you intersperse response, you are going to create these messes. It's a pain to fix. Milton tossed a little newbie-killer there, a [quote] sitting alone, like this one, after all quoted text. That will display, but if you quote it, your quotes will be unbalanced. Cruel, vicious, evil. Or really funny, depending on the framing.

Nobody cares, as you will find that nobody cares about what you imagine is IMPORTANT, DAMN IT! I REALLY MEAN IT, I'M SERIOUS NOW!

Reminds me of a children's book, one of my Ethiopian daughters favorites, about Mary Guy and the governor of this quiet little Caribbean island, too small for any map, and the Governor, Beaupatree, who passes laws against that travesty, Mary Guy singing all day long, "Linky Loo, America too, add along, add along, Linky Loo." She ignores his laws and keeps singing. He finally tosses her in a cage and locks it. She just keeps singing. He resolves to really stop her, he didn't want to do it, but it was time for the Sticky Molasses treatment, so he prepares a batch of molasses pudding hauls a big vat of it to the cage, and unlocks the door, telling her she has to eat this pudding. He's amazed when she stops singing and smiles at him. Then she pushes him into the vat, locks the cage with him inside, and goes home. "Linky Loo, America too, you eat that pudding that looks like glue!"

Too make a long story short, after an unpleasant night in the rain, the governor realizes that he was a fool, and throws away all the laws except one, he proclaims a certain day as Mary Guy day, when there is a big party (he'd outlawed all parties before), and, I suspect, he and Mary Guy are a Number.

People die every day, Anna, it's part of life. Often it's painful, but pain is part of life. It's not avoidable. A far larger question is how we live the life we have. Do you think that Wikipedia is an important part of this? If somehow the plug were pulled on Wikipedia, would it ease the pain of one of these people you think you are concerned about?

Can you imagine one of these people, as they die, saying, "At least all this pain accomplished something worthwhile, they pulled the plug on that awful Enemy of All that is Good and Decent, Wikipedia!"

The people involved are almost all terminally ill, and even if there was some error, it's well to remember that we all have a terminal illness that results inevitably from being born, we will die. If we were intended to avoid suffering, we wouldn't be born, because that's the only way to accomplish it.

I'm not at all saying that you are wrong about whatever it is that has you so fired up, that is not at all the point. The point is that you are caught in a dramatic story of your own creation, the MEANING of what you know or imagine. There is no way for this story to bring one moment of solace to those people, nor to change, at all, the situations you consider to be so horrible, because you are far too disconnected to be able to influence the people involved. You don't have the detachment and equanimity that it would take to even recognize the real problems, much less to change things.

Hey, I'd love to be wrong, it's the fast way to learn. You are free to respond, however you choose.

And we are likewise free to attend to it or ignore it. It's a choice.

[gomi]

[Modnote: Annexed.]

[Anna]

Gomi wrote, "Modnote: Annexed."

Hmmm.... "The Wikipedia Annex: For topics that could be discussed on Wikipedia, should be discussed there, but for some reason ended up here"

Hardly.

From what I've read in the news, "But it could be that the collaborative aspect itself is driving people away. Disenchanted ex-volunteers say they are burned by squabbling with established editors over their contributions, and some claim the site is run by an impenetrable inner circle that controls all its content. 'It's colloquially known as the cabal, although it's more like a hierarchy of power cliques, each one staking out its territory,' says former contributor Barry Kort."
http://mg.co.za/article/2009-11-26-wikiped...-a-war-of-words

I don't really have the energy to take on "an impenetrable inner circle". Wikipedia does not sound like a welcoming place for open debate.

There is no point in continuing the debate in this sub-forum.

I know, I registered at the wrong forum, didn't I? Could you please give me directions to the forum that does welcome critical debate about information found on Wikipedia?

It was nice meeting you, Milton. Thanks for being a worthy opponent.

[thekohser]

Anna, it's hard to take you very seriously when you come here with a rather bossy tone toward some of the long-time regulars here, purportedly speaking about important issues on the Internet, but you yourself say that your computer is too old to run YouTube videos.

Your credibility thereby is weakened.

(And, no, I'm not at all sure whether I just used the word "thereby" correctly, but this morning, I don't care. I have a cross-dresser on another thread insulting my wife.)

[Kelly Martin]

Anna, let's be clear here. We all know that Wikipedia's article are full of eels. It's not news, and we're really not that interested in hearing a polemic argument from someone who is just upset that Wikipedia's house point of view doesn't agree with theirs.

Rather, for most of us our main concern is in the broader trends that go wider than one, or a small number, of articles, in the dysfunctional social environment that underlies Wikipedia, in Wikipedia's recurrent use as a vehicle for defamation and for advocacy generally, and related such things.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

The chronic US argument is that acceptance of this leads to a slippery slope, and that voluntary euthanasia of those who really, really want it, and are articulate about it, is a "gateway law" (just like marijuana is a gateway drug!) to people doing anything they want. Soon there will be euthanasia on the streets!

Actually that's not so far-fetched. There have been numerous reports of doctors and nurses making ad hoc decisions to euthanize in the Netherlands, to the extent that elderly Dutchpersons have taken to carrying cards that say, "Please, Doctor, DON'T Kill Me!"

[Milton Roe]

The chronic US argument is that acceptance of this leads to a slippery slope, and that voluntary euthanasia of those who really, really want it, and are articulate about it, is a "gateway law" (just like marijuana is a gateway drug!) to people doing anything they want. Soon there will be euthanasia on the streets!

Actually that's not so far-fetched. There have been numerous reports of doctors and nurses making ad hoc decisions to euthanize in the Netherlands, to the extent that elderly Dutchpersons have taken to carrying cards that say, "Please, Doctor, DON'T Kill Me!"

So? People in the U.S. have taken to carrying cards that say "Please do not take my organs! I want to die and take them to Heaven with me!". They are called driver licenses, and the purpose is to circumvent the default, which is "Yes, I'm a donor, so long as my spouse or a simple majority of my children (but not necessarily all) agree." Which was made the default because so many people refused to think about the issue long enough to say yea or nay.

When people refuse to decide something, society decides for them. As for example who inherrits your estate if you have no will. Usually the default is that everybody gets what only the majority deserve (welcome to democracy). Strictly speaking, euthanasia in the Netherlands is illegal without explicit consent, but many people think there are many other cases, and perhaps there are are few. But most of these are likely to collusion between family and doctor with a patient who clearly has no chance, but hasn't done the paperwork. I've mentioned the case of England's George V, who was euthanized in 1936 so his death would make the respectable TIMES, and not be scooped by evening tabloids. That's what the family wanted, and George was in no position to say. This is not a new thing in medicine.

[Angela Kennedy]

Anna, let's be clear here. We all know that Wikipedia's article are full of eels. It's not news, and we're really not that interested in hearing a polemic argument from someone who is just upset that Wikipedia's house point of view doesn't agree with theirs.

Rather, for most of us our main concern is in the broader trends that go wider than one, or a small number, of articles, in the dysfunctional social environment that underlies Wikipedia, in Wikipedia's recurrent use as a vehicle for defamation and for advocacy generally, and related such things.

But agenda pushing on Wikipedia and its real world effects do matter. The fact Wikipedia HAS a 'house point of view' is itself a problem.

Milt- you have to watch ALL of Logan's Run, you know, not just the first 15 minutes...

[Kelly Martin]

But agenda pushing on Wikipedia and its real world effects do matter. The fact Wikipedia HAS a 'house point of view' is itself a problem.

Oh, I agree. But I'm not interested in an argument about whether Wikipedia's house point of view is right or not, which has been what this thread is all about.

[Abd]

But agenda pushing on Wikipedia and its real world effects do matter. The fact Wikipedia HAS a 'house point of view' is itself a problem.

Oh, I agree. But I'm not interested in an argument about whether Wikipedia's house point of view is right or not, which has been what this thread is all about.

Right. The fundamental neutrality policy means that Wikipedia should not have an effective House POV, but it does, and the core doesn't care. After all, it's their POV. If you hold, in some area, a non-majority opinion, as to opinion among administrators, you are easily labelled a "fringe POV-pusher," even if you are very careful to only "push" for neutrality.

It's a huge trap. People believe the policy, but when they try to rely on it, they are blocked and banned.

The issue is not whether the "house POV" is right or not. It's quite possible that it's usually right, in some sense. But that it is not neutral is not right. It might be right as to "fact," but wrong as to process.

This post has been edited by Abd:

[Anna]

Insulting someone's wife certainly is low. Thekohser, if someone insults you, your wife, or someone else you care about, are you really going to consider how many posts that person has written relative to you before deciding how you wish to respond?

I do not take how many posts someone has written into account after they have insulted me or anyone I care about, and I don't expect others to take people's post counts into consideration after they or people they care about have been insulted.

I wish you luck in giving hell to the person who insulted you wife, or, alternatively, whatever you think is the appropriate response to such a situation, within reason.

As for my computer, I have no desire to keep up with upgrade frenzy, as I have better things to do with my money than ensure I can watch youtube videos. My life is just fine without youtube videos. However, as you obviously have different expectations of your own computer, I am sure you will spend your own money accordingly.

Kelly Martin, it's part of the larger picture of some Wikipedia articles sometimes discriminating against the elderly and disabled, which is in turn part of the even larger picture of random or not-so-random people generically sometimes discriminating against the elderly and disabled, which I suppose is part of the even larger picture of some people sometimes discriminating against some other people for no good reason, which in turn of the even larger perfect of humanity in general falling far short of perfection. I suppose in the Wikipedia portion of it, it is a sort of vicious cycle; people who either hold discriminatory views knowingly, or have unwittingly bought anti-disabled/anti-elderly propaganda, bring said views to Wikipedia, where the label of "encyclopedia" makes readers think that said discriminatory views are perfectly reasonable.

However, I get the message: this is apparently the wrong forum to post any more topics about the overlap of Wikipedia and discrimination against the elderly and disabled. If you could please direct me to a forum that welcomes such discourse, then I can get on with that, and you can get on to doing whatever it is that you do here, without the temptation of links leading to topics about discrimination against the elderly and disabled, which you clearly have no interest in reading.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

But agenda pushing on Wikipedia and its real world effects do matter. The fact Wikipedia HAS a 'house point of view' is itself a problem.

Oh, I agree. But I'm not interested in an argument about whether Wikipedia's house point of view is right or not, which has been what this thread is all about.

Anna, Kelly is giving you an accurate picture of the lay of the land here. Most long-term members are here to discuss the mechanisms by which Wikipedia disinforms the public, not the specific issues over which the disinformation takes place. Typically, people initially come to this forum outraged because Wikipedia has misrepresented some issue that they feel passionate about. And often enough, they continue to call attention to that issue, despite the fact that other posters here are likely to be ambivalent about it. Some members, like Milton, or even myself on rare occasions (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) , relish the opportunity to enter into protracted debates about the issues of the day, and these debates (or brawls) typically wind up in an off-topic forum. Others will complain, or ignore these debates. But I hope this little public service announcement gives you an idea of what to expect.

[Anna]

But agenda pushing on Wikipedia and its real world effects do matter. The fact Wikipedia HAS a 'house point of view' is itself a problem.

Oh, I agree. But I'm not interested in an argument about whether Wikipedia's house point of view is right or not, which has been what this thread is all about.

Anna, Kelly is giving you an accurate picture of the lay of the land here. Most long-term members are here to discuss the mechanisms by which Wikipedia disinforms the public, not the specific issues over which the disinformation takes place. Typically, people initially come to this forum outraged because Wikipedia has misrepresented some issue that they feel passionate about. And often enough, they continue to call attention to that issue, despite the fact that other posters here are likely to be ambivalent about it. Some members, like Milton, or even myself on rare occasions (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/smile.gif) , relish the opportunity to enter into protracted debates about the issues of the day, and these debates (or brawls) typically wind up in an off-topic forum. Others will complain, or ignore these debates. But I hope this little public service announcement gives you an idea of what to expect.

Well, falsely labeling a topic as something "that could be discussed on Wikipedia, should be discussed there, but for some reason ended up here", when, so far as I can discern, that is not the case, is a fairly clear way of communicating to the poster of that topic that the poster is not welcome. That's fine; it's your forum, although I find the title "Wikipedia Review" somewhat misleading. So, again, could someone please direct me to a more appropriate forum for me to register at?

Kelly Martin could easily choose to not click on any topic that I start. Even if this had been the right forum for me to register at, it is highly unlikely that I would have ever posted anything that she would have found interesting to read. I'm not sure why she continues to click on this one. However, once I have found the proper forum to register and post at, I am sure it will become a moot point.

That is, unless you really believe I could just waltz on over to Wikipedia, remove the offending text, and be done with it? Somehow, I really doubt it.

[Milton Roe]

Well, falsely labeling a topic as something "that could be discussed on Wikipedia, should be discussed there, but for some reason ended up here", when, so far as I can discern, that is not the case, is a fairly clear way of communicating to the poster of that topic that the poster is not welcome. That's fine; it's your forum, although I find the title "Wikipedia Review" somewhat misleading. So, again, could someone please direct me to a more appropriate forum for me to register at?

That would be the Wikipedia Article Content Review Forum. That's where they discuss the factuality of any article on Wikipedia, if somebody has a complaint about it. There are a lot of polymaths and geniuses that hang out there, ready to fix the kinds of problems you're having, Anna. It's an internet site with giant brains who all have a lot of spare time.

Does anybody have the url for the Wikipedia Article Content Review Forum site? I seem to have mislaid it.

MR

[Milton Roe]

Milt- you have to watch ALL of Logan's Run, you know, not just the first 15 minutes...

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/pinch.gif) Eh? You're going to suggest that my knowledge of SF, geriatrics and gerontology is deficient? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) You have no idea. The problem is more that I know too much about these, than too little.

If you want a scene better than the dippy English preppy York asking Peter Ustinov if his wrinkles hurt, I suggest you review the scene in Soylent Green where Edward G. Robinson makes very sure he gets his full 30 minutes of Fantasia-like production at the euthanasia center. Robinson knew he had cancer at the time (as the director did not), so this is the genuine article.

[radek]

But agenda pushing on Wikipedia and its real world effects do matter. The fact Wikipedia HAS a 'house point of view' is itself a problem.

Oh, I agree. But I'm not interested in an argument about whether Wikipedia's house point of view is right or not, which has been what this thread is all about.

A "house point of view" would probably be alright - in fact, it's sort of hard to avoid having one - if they were upfront about it.

[Angela Kennedy]

Milt- you have to watch ALL of Logan's Run, you know, not just the first 15 minutes...

(IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/pinch.gif) Eh? You're going to suggest that my knowledge of SF, geriatrics and gerontology is deficient? (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/laugh.gif) You have no idea. The problem is more that I know too much about these, than too little.

If you want a scene better than the dippy English preppy York asking Peter Ustinov if his wrinkles hurt, I suggest you review the scene in Soylent Green where Edward G. Robinson makes very sure he gets his full 30 minutes of Fantasia-like production at the euthanasia center. Robinson knew he had cancer at the time (as the director did not), so this is the genuine article.

WELL! I have intricate first-hand knowledge of gerontology, geriatrics, terminal illness AND severe stigmatised disability in the young (that's actually all true). So I TRUMP you! SO THERE! (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/tongue.gif) (IMG:smilys0b23ax56/default/rolleyes.gif)

But seriously, your particular position scares the bejabers out of me, yet Anna gets the rebuke, which also scares me.

My position - voluntary euthanasia has precedent of slipping easily into involuntary euthanasia: we've seen it at least twice, in Holland and in Nazi Germany. The evidence is there in those links Anna posted that no-one can be arsed to read, and Michael Burleigh documented the Nazi policies (and demonstrated how easily the slippery slope looms) in his book 'Death and Deliverance'.

I don't like any of that cos I want the freedom to live as long as life is available to me naturally, whatever my impairments, and I want the same for my daughter. Call me selfish. But I want it for everyone else as well. And I think those that want to deny that to the sick tend to use utilitarian health economic reasons- mm - irrationally, usually from a position of (temporary) health, and contempt for the unhealthy.

This is actually a huge issue which I can't do justice to here. I'm only speaking about it now because Anna's got mighty short shrift while Milty's waxed lyrical on this issue without rebuke, which has made the "we don't deal in specific issues Anna- you silly girl for bringing it to us" refrain somewhat inconsistent.

Anna's come here with a fair reason. She's aware of the real-world effects of wikipedia's 'house' POV on this issue. Her concerns are exemplary of key problems of wikipedia (the House POV, the agenda pushing), and she's shown good knowledge of that in her posts. I do think WR should be at the forefront of understanding that 'House' POV also- and how/why it's evolved. That should come under WR's remit.

[Anna]

Disabled people, and family, friends, and other allies of disabled people, unite! :-)

It is a pleasure to make your acquaintance, Angela. For what it's worth, you sound as if you'd probably be a pleasant person to by phone. Good health and long life to you and your family. May you not be murdered by euthanasia extremists!

"Not one of us is responsible for the happiness of others. Ironically, we can be responsible for another's unhappiness." Gold star to anyone who can guess the author of that quote. In any case, on that basis, anyone complaining about excessive length or the subject matter being boring to them, or any variation thereof, can expect to be mercilessly mocked, if I am in the mood to do so. The same goes for enablers who like to stick words in other people's mouths. I did not come here to entertain anyone; however, there are television producers and script writers and actors who specialize in that sort of thing. I must be a much more horrible person than I think if I can force people I have never even met to click on links to things they have no interest in.

I was under the impression that the "Articles" forum was the place to put concerns about specific articles. I was lead to believe this by the label that said "Articles: In-depth evaluation of specific Wikipedia articles". If the Articles forum is not, in fact, the correct place to evaluate specific Wikipedia articles in-depth, then I suggest a less misleading title would be "Articles: Discussion of generic trends about how generic articles come to be screwed up. People wishing to evaluate specific articles are advised not to register at the Wikipedia Review." Or perhaps, even less misleading, "Articles: Discussion about matters which interest Gomi and/or Kelly Martin". Accurate labeling could reduce number of incidents of misunderstandings like these.

[Herschelkrustofsky]

Anna's come here with a fair reason. She's aware of the real-world effects of wikipedia's 'house' POV on this issue. Her concerns are exemplary of key problems of wikipedia (the House POV, the agenda pushing), and she's shown good knowledge of that in her posts. I do think WR should be at the forefront of understanding that 'House' POV also- and how/why it's evolved. That should come under WR's remit.

Personally, I agree with every word of this, although I know my views are not universally shared.

My position - voluntary euthanasia has precedent of slipping easily into involuntary euthanasia: we've seen it at least twice, in Holland and in Nazi Germany.

We have been over this issue before, in our marathon debate about Obamacare. My position -- the most vocal advocates of euthanasia are motivated not by compassionate or humanitarian concerns, but rather by the proverbial bottom line: insurance companies and HMOs, whose profit goes up as the level of care delivered goes down. And, the definitive statement on the "slippery slope" comes from Dr. Leo Alexander at the Nuremberg trials:

Whatever proportions these crimes finally assumed, it became evident to all who investigated them that they had started from small beginnings. The beginnings at first were merely a subtle shift in emphasis in basic attitude, basic in the euthanasia movement, that there is such a thing as a life not worthy to be lived.