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

[Anna]

Top o' the morning to ya, Herschelkrustofsky! I tip my wide-brimmed straw hat to you.

[Angela Kennedy]

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.

Hey Hersch

Good quote from Alexander. Burleigh's collection evidence does bear that comment out.

It does appear as if a 'House Point of View' is constantly rhetorically managed on Wikipedia, to me, and, it would appear, to others. Is that an accurate perception though? If yes, why? What IS the 'house point of view' on wikipedia on various items? Is it something to do with Jimbo? Or not? Is it consistent with any known ideology, or does it conflict, all the time, sometimes? Can we predict what a 'house point of view' on any given subject will be on Wikipedia?

Or is there NOT a 'house point of view'? Is it anarchic and chaotic, for example, depending on various 'gaming' going on?

How many people here find themselves in conflict with the way an article is slated, to the point we think 'THAT'S not neutral!' I find myself doing it a LOT on wikipedia- and it can't always be dismissed as MY partial point of view. We KNOW on here that wikipedia is frequently 'partial' and does not follow it's ostensible 'neutral' or even 'scientific' point of view.

So the euthanasia thing here is an interesting case in point. Opponents of euthanasia will be able to pick up the inconsistencies and fallacies in the way that article is constructed and managed. If it were an anti-euthanasia article, pro-euthanasia proponents would be able to do the same.

I feel WR, as a forum independent and critical of wikipedia, should be discussing this more. Anna- this might not interest you, BUT- you do need to realise that this is a complex (depressingly so) issue. It isn't just a case of getting the article re-written more 'neutrally'. Wikipedia doesn't do that! And it's related to some strange and occult (as in hidden, not devil worship ) power-relations.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

'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 think that's a good description of the "House POV." Isn't that Moulton? How come he was never that coherent when he posted here?

[Kelly Martin]

It does appear as if a 'House Point of View' is constantly rhetorically managed on Wikipedia, to me, and, it would appear, to others. Is that an accurate perception though? If yes, why? What IS the 'house point of view' on wikipedia on various items? Is it something to do with Jimbo? Or not? Is it consistent with any known ideology, or does it conflict, all the time, sometimes? Can we predict what a 'house point of view' on any given subject will be on Wikipedia?

Or is there NOT a 'house point of view'? Is it anarchic and chaotic, for example, depending on various 'gaming' going on?

Wikipedia's HPOV is somewhat chaotic, in that it does change over time and that change is generally not due to any formal process. But there is fairly clearly a well-defined house point of view.

The HPOV has fairly little to do with Jimbo; as a fifty-something randroid his personal philosophy is fairly far out there and would likely freak out a lot of Wikipedia's editors if they actually knew more about it. It is, instead, largely a reflection of Wikipedia's demographics, which is, of course, teenaged and young adult American males with above-average affinity for the Internet. In general, you'll find that Wikipedia's HPOV is fairly coherent with the sociopolitical views of this demographic. This, for example, explains the issue Anna came here to complain about; in general twentysomethings care fairly little about euthanasia, and as this demographic has strong libertarian leanings anyway if they have a feeling at all about this they tend to ideologically align with the notion that you should be allowed to do away with yourself if that's what you want to do. The notion that such a right might be abused for the convenience of others (as Anna and other posters in this thread allege) does not really occur to them, and in any case most of them can't be made to care. Meanwhile they certainly don't want to be paying extra taxes or insurance premiums or anything of the sort to pay for the care of some old geezer who has nothing left to contribute to their fun and exciting lives. This is the Elmo Generation: "ME!" is their clarion cry, and if it's not about them they really don't care.

There are some areas where Wikipedia's HPOV strays from the baseline of this demographic; these areas are mainly those where an editor or group of editors have made a dedicated campaign to tilt HPOV on some issue that would otherwise be of no real concern to most of the demographic. Wikipedia's fairly strong position on Zionism (the "IP issue" as it is often called) is a good example of this. The dedicated reviewer will find countless others, each of which can generally be traced to specific groups of editors with particular, specific interests and a lot of spare time. But in most cases the Wikipedia HPOV just follows that of its demographic; this sort of thing mainly goes in in the spaces where the core demographic just doesn't really care all that much.

So to predict Wikipedia's HPOV on some topic, ask yourself first how a dozen male college-aged Americans with computers would feel about that topic. If they're likely to have a strong feeling, then that'll probably be the position Wikipedia favors. If not, then look for the existence of well-funded Internet-savvy special-interest groups with a stake on that issue. If there is, then the odds are that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by one of these, and made Wikipedia's HPOV reflect their interests. For areas not covered by either of these, the result is likely to be random or even inchoate.

[It's the blimp, Frank]

Hey Milton -- is this guy related to you?

[Milton Roe]

Hey Milton -- is this guy related to you?

Which guy?

Giving patients "control" over their own health care is fine, so long as there is a hefty deductable (except of course for paupers).

If I have "control" over what I get for dinner, but the government pays the bill for whatever I want, I'd like steak and lobster. And none of that crappy zinfandel with the argument that it pairs with both. I want a good chardonnay with the lobster AND a decently aged Pinot with the steak. Bring me your wine list.

Medical care is not all that different, surprisingly. Families who have no part of the financial burden often say "damn the expense" because then they don't have to face change. Families who do have to bear the financial burden, or even some of it, often find all kinds of reasons why grandma, now in a coma, always said she didn't want tubes and machines and wanted to let things take their natural course, rather than bankrupt and dehouse her beloved grandchildren, and leave no legacy...

Families need disinterested help in this stuff, of course. As it is, doctors in HMOs have a financial interest in killing their patients off as fast as possible, and are only restrained by morality, law, and habit. Which don't always work perfectly (I will admit). On the other hand, with Medicare, there is every financial incentive for doctors and hospitals to do everything that can be done, without any look at the big picture. So you will see dialysis-for-the-demented. And pacemakers and resuscitation for those who have only months to live with terminal cancer. And ventilators too for everybody with pneumonia, no matter what their prior functionality was. And they'd all get organ transplants and artificial hearts too, if they were available to anybody. And one day they will be.

It's not a question of rationing medical care-- we already do that by default, using waiting lists and functional lack of access. The reason is that demand for medical care is functionally infinite (enough to bankrupt any economy). The question is not whether we ration, but whether we ration rationally or irrationally. Right now, in the US, it's irrationally. In some other countries like Switzerland that do it for 75% of our cost, it's done more rationally.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Hey Milton -- is this guy related to you?

Which guy?

Giving patients "control" over their own health care is fine, so long as there is a hefty deductable (except of course for paupers).

If I have "control" over what I get for dinner, but the government pays the bill for whatever I want, I'd like steak and lobster. And none of that crappy zinfandel with the argument that it pairs with both. I want a good chardonnay with the lobster AND a decently aged Pinot with the steak. Bring me your wine list.

Medical care is not all that different, surprisingly. Families who have no part of the financial burden often say "damn the expense" because then they don't have to face change. Families who do have to bear the financial burden, or even some of it, often find all kinds of reasons why grandma, now in a coma, always said she didn't want tubes and machines and wanted to let things take their natural course, rather than bankrupt and dehouse her beloved grandchildren, and leave no legacy...

Families need disinterested help in this stuff, of course. As it is, doctors in HMOs have a financial interest in killing their patients off as fast as possible, and are only restrained by morality, law, and habit. Which don't always work perfectly (I will admit). On the other hand, with Medicare, there is every financial incentive for doctors and hospitals to do everything that can be done, without any look at the big picture. So you will see dialysis-for-the-demented. And pacemakers and resuscitation for those who have only months to live with terminal cancer. And ventilators too for everybody with pneumonia, no matter what their prior functionality was. And they'd all get organ transplants and artificial hearts too, if they were available to anybody. And one day they will be.

It's not a question of rationing medical care-- we already do that by default, using waiting lists and functional lack of access. The reason is that demand for medical care is functionally infinite (enough to bankrupt any economy). The question is not whether we ration, but whether we ration rationally or irrationally. Right now, in the US, it's irrationally. In some other countries like Switzerland that do it for 75% of our cost, it's done more rationally.

I think you will find that the population of Switzerland is quite a lot smaller than that of the US (although the amount of exchange is really quite a lot larger a percentage!)

To others: The R in WR has long since been recognised as signifying Roe - did you not get the YouTube link?

[Milton Roe]

Hey Milton -- is this guy related to you?

Which guy?

Giving patients "control" over their own health care is fine, so long as there is a hefty deductable (except of course for paupers).

If I have "control" over what I get for dinner, but the government pays the bill for whatever I want, I'd like steak and lobster. And none of that crappy zinfandel with the argument that it pairs with both. I want a good chardonnay with the lobster AND a decently aged Pinot with the steak. Bring me your wine list.

Medical care is not all that different, surprisingly. Families who have no part of the financial burden often say "damn the expense" because then they don't have to face change. Families who do have to bear the financial burden, or even some of it, often find all kinds of reasons why grandma, now in a coma, always said she didn't want tubes and machines and wanted to let things take their natural course, rather than bankrupt and dehouse her beloved grandchildren, and leave no legacy...

Families need disinterested help in this stuff, of course. As it is, doctors in HMOs have a financial interest in killing their patients off as fast as possible, and are only restrained by morality, law, and habit. Which don't always work perfectly (I will admit). On the other hand, with Medicare, there is every financial incentive for doctors and hospitals to do everything that can be done, without any look at the big picture. So you will see dialysis-for-the-demented. And pacemakers and resuscitation for those who have only months to live with terminal cancer. And ventilators too for everybody with pneumonia, no matter what their prior functionality was. And they'd all get organ transplants and artificial hearts too, if they were available to anybody. And one day they will be.

It's not a question of rationing medical care-- we already do that by default, using waiting lists and functional lack of access. The reason is that demand for medical care is functionally infinite (enough to bankrupt any economy). The question is not whether we ration, but whether we ration rationally or irrationally. Right now, in the US, it's irrationally. In some other countries like Switzerland that do it for 75% of our cost, it's done more rationally.

I think you will find that the population of Switzerland is quite a lot smaller than that of the US (although the amount of exchange is really quite a lot larger a percentage!)

It's 75% of the cost per capita, you dodo head. Total medical care spending is $4500 US dollars equivalent annually per capita in Switzerland, vs. $6000 per capita annually in the US. I'm comparing applies to applies, fair and square.

[Detective]

I'm comparing applies to applies, fair and square.

Mmmm ... square apples!

[Angela Kennedy]

It does appear as if a 'House Point of View' is constantly rhetorically managed on Wikipedia, to me, and, it would appear, to others. Is that an accurate perception though? If yes, why? What IS the 'house point of view' on wikipedia on various items? Is it something to do with Jimbo? Or not? Is it consistent with any known ideology, or does it conflict, all the time, sometimes? Can we predict what a 'house point of view' on any given subject will be on Wikipedia?

Or is there NOT a 'house point of view'? Is it anarchic and chaotic, for example, depending on various 'gaming' going on?

Wikipedia's HPOV is somewhat chaotic, in that it does change over time and that change is generally not due to any formal process. But there is fairly clearly a well-defined house point of view.

The HPOV has fairly little to do with Jimbo; as a fifty-something randroid his personal philosophy is fairly far out there and would likely freak out a lot of Wikipedia's editors if they actually knew more about it. It is, instead, largely a reflection of Wikipedia's demographics, which is, of course, teenaged and young adult American males with above-average affinity for the Internet. In general, you'll find that Wikipedia's HPOV is fairly coherent with the sociopolitical views of this demographic. This, for example, explains the issue Anna came here to complain about; in general twentysomethings care fairly little about euthanasia, and as this demographic has strong libertarian leanings anyway if they have a feeling at all about this they tend to ideologically align with the notion that you should be allowed to do away with yourself if that's what you want to do. The notion that such a right might be abused for the convenience of others (as Anna and other posters in this thread allege) does not really occur to them, and in any case most of them can't be made to care. Meanwhile they certainly don't want to be paying extra taxes or insurance premiums or anything of the sort to pay for the care of some old geezer who has nothing left to contribute to their fun and exciting lives. This is the Elmo Generation: "ME!" is their clarion cry, and if it's not about them they really don't care.

There are some areas where Wikipedia's HPOV strays from the baseline of this demographic; these areas are mainly those where an editor or group of editors have made a dedicated campaign to tilt HPOV on some issue that would otherwise be of no real concern to most of the demographic. Wikipedia's fairly strong position on Zionism (the "IP issue" as it is often called) is a good example of this. The dedicated reviewer will find countless others, each of which can generally be traced to specific groups of editors with particular, specific interests and a lot of spare time. But in most cases the Wikipedia HPOV just follows that of its demographic; this sort of thing mainly goes in in the spaces where the core demographic just doesn't really care all that much.

So to predict Wikipedia's HPOV on some topic, ask yourself first how a dozen male college-aged Americans with computers would feel about that topic. If they're likely to have a strong feeling, then that'll probably be the position Wikipedia favors. If not, then look for the existence of well-funded Internet-savvy special-interest groups with a stake on that issue. If there is, then the odds are that Wikipedia has been infiltrated by one of these, and made Wikipedia's HPOV reflect their interests. For areas not covered by either of these, the result is likely to be random or even inchoate.

Ok. THAT's a suitably parsimonious explanation that completely makes sense! Thanks Kelly.

[LessHorrid vanU]

Hey Milton -- is this guy related to you?

Which guy?

Giving patients "control" over their own health care is fine, so long as there is a hefty deductable (except of course for paupers).

If I have "control" over what I get for dinner, but the government pays the bill for whatever I want, I'd like steak and lobster. And none of that crappy zinfandel with the argument that it pairs with both. I want a good chardonnay with the lobster AND a decently aged Pinot with the steak. Bring me your wine list.

Medical care is not all that different, surprisingly. Families who have no part of the financial burden often say "damn the expense" because then they don't have to face change. Families who do have to bear the financial burden, or even some of it, often find all kinds of reasons why grandma, now in a coma, always said she didn't want tubes and machines and wanted to let things take their natural course, rather than bankrupt and dehouse her beloved grandchildren, and leave no legacy...

Families need disinterested help in this stuff, of course. As it is, doctors in HMOs have a financial interest in killing their patients off as fast as possible, and are only restrained by morality, law, and habit. Which don't always work perfectly (I will admit). On the other hand, with Medicare, there is every financial incentive for doctors and hospitals to do everything that can be done, without any look at the big picture. So you will see dialysis-for-the-demented. And pacemakers and resuscitation for those who have only months to live with terminal cancer. And ventilators too for everybody with pneumonia, no matter what their prior functionality was. And they'd all get organ transplants and artificial hearts too, if they were available to anybody. And one day they will be.

It's not a question of rationing medical care-- we already do that by default, using waiting lists and functional lack of access. The reason is that demand for medical care is functionally infinite (enough to bankrupt any economy). The question is not whether we ration, but whether we ration rationally or irrationally. Right now, in the US, it's irrationally. In some other countries like Switzerland that do it for 75% of our cost, it's done more rationally.

I think you will find that the population of Switzerland is quite a lot smaller than that of the US (although the amount of exchange is really quite a lot larger a percentage!)

It's 75% of the cost per capita, you dodo head. Total medical care spending is $4500 US dollars equivalent annually per capita in Switzerland, vs. $6000 per capita annually in the US. I'm comparing applies to applies, fair and square.

[Angela Kennedy]

Hey Milton -- is this guy related to you?

Which guy?

Giving patients "control" over their own health care is fine, so long as there is a hefty deductable (except of course for paupers).

If I have "control" over what I get for dinner, but the government pays the bill for whatever I want, I'd like steak and lobster. And none of that crappy zinfandel with the argument that it pairs with both. I want a good chardonnay with the lobster AND a decently aged Pinot with the steak. Bring me your wine list.

Medical care is not all that different, surprisingly. Families who have no part of the financial burden often say "damn the expense" because then they don't have to face change. Families who do have to bear the financial burden, or even some of it, often find all kinds of reasons why grandma, now in a coma, always said she didn't want tubes and machines and wanted to let things take their natural course, rather than bankrupt and dehouse her beloved grandchildren, and leave no legacy...

Families need disinterested help in this stuff, of course. As it is, doctors in HMOs have a financial interest in killing their patients off as fast as possible, and are only restrained by morality, law, and habit. Which don't always work perfectly (I will admit). On the other hand, with Medicare, there is every financial incentive for doctors and hospitals to do everything that can be done, without any look at the big picture. So you will see dialysis-for-the-demented. And pacemakers and resuscitation for those who have only months to live with terminal cancer. And ventilators too for everybody with pneumonia, no matter what their prior functionality was. And they'd all get organ transplants and artificial hearts too, if they were available to anybody. And one day they will be.

It's not a question of rationing medical care-- we already do that by default, using waiting lists and functional lack of access. The reason is that demand for medical care is functionally infinite (enough to bankrupt any economy). The question is not whether we ration, but whether we ration rationally or irrationally. Right now, in the US, it's irrationally. In some other countries like Switzerland that do it for 75% of our cost, it's done more rationally.

But Switzerland only allows freely chosen assisted suicide by people of 'sound' mind, not involuntary euthanasia. I can't see much savings there.

Or are you saying hidden involuntary euthanasia and/or coercion of the long-term sound mind incapacitated is making the savings here?

[Milton Roe]

But Switzerland only allows freely chosen assisted suicide by people of 'sound' mind, not involuntary euthanasia. I can't see much savings there.

Or are you saying hidden involuntary euthanasia and/or coercion of the long-term sound mind incapacitated is making the savings here?

No. Swiss savings has nothing to do with euthanasia and would be the same even if they didn't have any more of it than we in the US do.

The goverment saying that they don't have enough money to give you a liver or heart transplant, or perhaps even refuse to implant a defibrillator or admit you to the ICU if you're clearly dying and very elderly and demented and will just go back to being the same-- is not "euthanasia." It's refusing to practice futile incredibly expensive medical care on people who will benefit little from it, but whose families are not being rational.

The Swiss will not give you MRI after MRI for moderate low back pain. In the US, if you have a government health plan, you can generally get as many MRIs as your doctor wants to order. It's expensive entertainment and can lead to life-threatening worthless surgery, but hey-- the best medical care in the world is not cheap. Right?

[Kelly Martin]

A significant part of high medical costs in the US can be attributed to doctors who aren't happy with being affluent. There are far too many doctors who let their personal profit motives factor into treatment recommendations, ordering tests that are unnecessary for care decisions but which allow them to score a few extra bucks. Of course, they justify these tests by claiming they're to "protect them against malpractice claims" but that's all simply part of the game they're playing.

The US system is fundamentally broken, and is entirely a consequence of letting greed, and not compassion, be the driving force behind health care.

The reason legalized euthanasia hasn't been authorized in the US is because most of the people who would be in a position to "benefit" from it are on Medicare or Medicaid anyway. If terminal patients could end their lives earlier, it would just reduce the total amount of money that the doctors and the hospitals can siphon off the government and the patient's estate and family, and they're just not going to stand for that. They've already written the insurance policies so as to effectively force those who are in extended terminal illnesses onto government insurance programs.

[Milton Roe]

A significant part of high medical costs in the US can be attributed to doctors who aren't happy with being affluent. There are far too many doctors who let their personal profit motives factor into treatment recommendations, ordering tests that are unnecessary for care decisions but which allow them to score a few extra bucks. Of course, they justify these tests by claiming they're to "protect them against malpractice claims" but that's all simply part of the game they're playing.

The US system is fundamentally broken, and is entirely a consequence of letting greed, and not compassion, be the driving force behind health care.

The reason legalized euthanasia hasn't been authorized in the US is because most of the people who would be in a position to "benefit" from it are on Medicare or Medicaid anyway. If terminal patients could end their lives earlier, it would just reduce the total amount of money that the doctors and the hospitals can siphon off the government and the patient's estate and family, and they're just not going to stand for that. They've already written the insurance policies so as to effectively force those who are in extended terminal illnesses onto government insurance programs.

I cannot disagree that American doctors are overpaid by comparison with foreign counterparts, though there is a huge disparity between what different types of doctors get. Radiologists are overpaid. Pediatricians are not. Some of the difference disappears if it is factored in that American doctors pay for their own educations, while that is less the case in other countries. But not all of it.

The MECHANISM of how American doctors get paid is the problem, since combined they only make 10% of all US health care funding as salaries, so if you cut them by 75% you'd only save 7.5% on the whole. However, doctors have somewhat discretionary CONTROL of far more than half of medical spending. So, in the process of trying to pay off their educations, they spend the rest of the system into bankruptcy.

And they do all this without kickbacks from hospitals and radiology centers where the big bucks are spent, since that's illegal. They merely do more consults and procedures and charge fees for those. As it is, in America, the only class of doctors for whom it is accepted and expected that they take a cut of the profit from the drugs they administer, is oncologists. Which I suppose explains a lot, but concology is a small part of medicine. Radiologists only thrive by having a union, rather European style. It is now under attack by scabs who read scans from India.

If we could disconnect what doctors are PAID from what they DO, things would improve. However, that's not much of a way to run a business. Figuring out how to "incentivize" medical care in a way that doesn't drive up costs, turns out to be a VERY difficult problem-- far more than in a lot of other fields. In theory you should pay the doctor more who can make his/her patients happy and healthy, AND spend least money doing it. Good luck with that metric. Normally it would be done by the consumer as a balance, like everything else in life, but unfortunately in medical care we've disconnected the consumer's "expense" input, so they have no cost input to balance against the service input. So they basically want caviar, and more of that than you have. Which is fine with doctors who work on a cost-plus basis, not unlike defense contractors once they get the contract.

http://www.slate.com/id/2227965/