Talk:Euthanasia in the Netherlands

Merge

User:Jorfer proposed a merger with Euthanasia. I disagree for three reasons:

1. Articles like abortion in the Netherlands, prostitution in the Netherlands, same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, but also income tax in the Netherlands create precedents for this article.
2. The article euthanasia is huge, this makes it smaller I would actually advocate moving all the country sections out and making them separate articles.
3. This article is substantive, has some references and external links and is overall quite accurate. I think it can exist on its own.

- C mon 07:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Euthanasia in Belgium

There could maybe be an associated article on euthanasia in Belgium, given that Belgium has similar laws to the Netherlands on euthanasia. [1] ADM (talk) 00:52, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

'Euthanasia in the Benelux' ? --80.121.44.17 (talk) 12:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Mentioned in the April Fool's Day WP message?

• sigh*.... Is this supposed to be some terrible joke? Hmmwhatsthisdo (talk) 02:17, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Mentions in American Politics

Republican Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has made the Dutch euthanasia policy an issue in his 2012 campaign. Should this be added to this article?Jtyroler (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

As far as I have heard from it, Rick Santorum was talking complete nonsense. Dutch Official Is Pressed to Respond to Santorum’s ‘Scandalous Accusations’, Dutch Puzzled by Santorum’s False Claim of Forced Euthanasia, Rick Santorum Cites Bogus Statistics In Talking About Euthanasia In The Netherlands, Santorum comments on forced euthanasia cause stir in Netherlands all say that is is talking plain nonsense. As a Dutchman, I have never heard of those bracelets mr Santorum claims to know. It is some strange myth going round in, as far as I know, right wing US politics and FoxNews. So no, save your energy for the truth. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:49, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

But if you really want to put in the article, make clear that it is nonsense and contrary to verifyable facts. Night of the Big Wind _talk 00:50, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

There are many sources on American opinions of Dutch euthanasia policies, including one source specifically saying that Dutch euthanasia is often put in a bad light in America, even by proponents, and another being entirely about extreme conservationists shit-talking Dutch laws (both of those are in Dutch, though). I think I've done a decent job creating a "foreign views" sections compiling those and the specific example posted above (because damn, those are a lot of sources). This is definitely worth putting in the article if Dutch laws are used in American politics. It's also interesting for Dutch people to see what other countries think. I'd love to be able to add an "other side of the coin" thing where some American politician is all-for euthanasia laws as they are in the Netherlands. Of course, what would be even better is to compile views from other countries. I'm sure the sources are out there. It is these kind of things that influence the growth of these kinds of laws, after all. Also, this was for a large part what I was interested in when looking up this article. ~Mable (chat) 13:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

May 2017 edit

@Gumsaint: Last year, you removed a paragraph of this article with the claim that its "generalizations ... are at odds with Wikipedia guidelines." However, the content was reliably sourced to both English- and Dutch-language sources. I do not believe the type of generalization (that conservative American parties are generally opposed to Dutch euthanesia laws) present here was against any Wikipedia guideline, and would like to reinstate this paragraph. I'd like to hear what you (and possibly others) think of this, however, and link Wikipedia guidelines if needed. I apologize for the late response to this edit, but I haven't really looked at this article in a long while. ~Mable (chat) 11:28, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment. It was a long time ago - I'll take a look. Gumsaint (talk) 21:52, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

I stand by the edit I'm sorry. It may be referenced but the style shows an unencyclopedic tone. I can refer you to the notes on 'Instructional and presumptuous language' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Instructional_and_presumptuous_language Gumsaint (talk) 22:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

And I back you up on that stance, Gumsaint. The Banner talk 22:27, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I don't think 'Instructional and presumptuous language' applies here, does it? I don't believe the paragraph uses any of the words mentioned there, or similar presumptuous language. Regardless, I removed the phrase "killing senior citizens", as the phrase wasn't attributed to anyone, and I changed things around a bit about the "proponent" opinion. I would like to know if this is an improvement, or if it still needs work. ~Mable (chat) 06:48, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable with the section - I'm not convinced the article is any the worse for its removal. At the very least it should be titled 'United States Views of Dutch Euthanasia Laws' which would be a strange inclusion on a page about Dutch Euthanasia Laws. The views cited are selective and at the very least would be better placed on a page about United States Euthanasia Law. Gumsaint (talk) 09:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, I have again removed the section. It was in fact a collection of mistakes and accusations by politicians who either failed to do their home work or just were screaming something spicy for political gain. The message itself was utterly nonsense. The Banner talk 11:52, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, I did mention before that I was generally interested in foreign views of Dutch euthanesia laws. I haven't found any Dutch-language sources on countries other than the US, but maybe I'll look into how to expand this section again later this month. Either way, I'll just sum up that part in one sentence and leave it like that:

Dutch euthanasia laws are commonly criticized by conservative parties in the United States.

This gives the needed context for the paragraph that follows it. I personally don't feel like this is an improvement from the original situation, as it gives less context, but it gets the point across. ~Mable (chat) 12:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

The last thing we need is an editwar to push a certain view in... The Banner talk 15:11, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I know, I don't try to make this an edit war - hence why I'm doing my best to figure out what is wrong with the section and how to improve it. Right now, I feel like the section should say more general statements about foreign views on euthanesia in the Netherlands, rather than almost purely focusing on this one incident regarding Santorum. But I don't want to waste all of your time, so I'll just rewrite the section wholesale at some point and then get back to you, alright. Might take a while for me to get to it, but there's no deadline ^_^; ~Mable (chat) 18:24, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think if you want to add those comments, you must make clear that it is absolute nonsense without any evidence. And that those guys have no clue where they are taking about. Plain scaremongering. The Banner talk 18:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

I think most experienced editors would have an issue with the section's relevance to the article.Gumsaint (talk) 21:56, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

500 involuntary deaths per year?

Everywhere I go, the statistic of "500 involuntary deaths per year in the Netherlands" is thrown about, but I cannot find a source. It is parroted by pretty much every site that opposes euthanasia. Is there a source, or is this one of those "facts" that is considered true merely because "everyone knows"? 108.160.30.206 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Obviously, it is very dificult to assume on what basis this statistic is based. Murder and manslaughter are involuntary deaths as well, just like people who die in traffic accidents. But I presume that this figure derives from the "Evaluatie wet toetsing levensbeëindiging op verzoek en hulp bij zelfdoding" [Evaluation / Review of the law Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide] of the Netherlands Central Office of Statistics [Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek]. http://www.cbs.nl/NR/rdonlyres/F0F8C01E-B340-401A-98DC-E04722E234D7/0/2007evaluatieeuthanasiewetpub.pdf They are based on the figures of 2005 (but there might already been more recent figures). In 550 cases, doctors did not have the full and explicit consent of the patient. The majority of these 550 cases deal with newborn babies with limited life chances, but also adults in a coma. According to this report, in 88% of the cases the shortening of the life of the patient would have been less than a week. In the Netherlands, there are no guiding principles for a physician to handle in those cases that he is certain that euthanasia is the best option, for example to avoid longer suffering of the patient, but he does not have the possibility to get the full consent of the patient. In some cases, this has lead to a prosecution of the practising doctor (http://medischcontact.artsennet.nl/archief-6/tijdschriftartikel/11013/mc-20strafvervolging-na-levensbeeindiging.htm). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.87.224.98 (talk) 10:48, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

{{nl icon}}/{{nl}} or "language=Dutch"?

Right now, both are used in the same article. I reverted it once, but it seems to be redone? Why is this? Is either preferred? ~Mable (chat) 21:23, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

When possible, one should use "language=Dutch", as in most templates. But in other cases one is forced to use "nl icon". The Banner talk 21:48, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

So why the inconsistencies here then? It makes it look like only references 4, 5, 6 and 7 are in Dutch, while 10, 11, 14 and 16 need more reader attention. I would personally prefer the icons, but I don't mind using "language=Dutch" as long as it's consistent. ~Mable (chat) 10:51, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Source 5 is in English anyway. Source 6 and 7 were bare URLs and I have changed them into source templates. Source 4 needs a bit more attention.

In general, the use of source templates was inconsistent. The Banner talk 11:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Out of Date AND biased by publications/investigations since 2010

You should keep this up to date better - it reads as though it is written by the UK Government's Nudge Unit! 79.74.105.23 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)twl79.74.105.23 (talk) 18:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

May I ask: WHO do you mean with 'you'? Wikipedia is written by all users together, so you might be an editor as well. If you think the article can be improved, please do it. Erik Wannee (talk) 12:19, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

New legislation with regard to assisted suicide

This article needs to be updated in light of the new legislation of 2016, that allows for assisted suicide in some cases Cactusss (talk) 18:30, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Evidence? The Banner talk 18:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)