Talk:Groningen Protocol
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
People seem to forget that only the adults can start the procedure, not the physicians! And they can only procede with it as parents and physicians and social workers agree about the unbearable and incurable suffering of the child.
I don't have a clue how much pain and love parents must have if they decide that death is the best option for their child. I hope no one knows how it feels. Eddylandzaat (talk) 16:29, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
Recent reversion by eddy
editEddy, please show me where your edits can be cited to in the source given. Here is the full text [1]. Thanks. OzOke (talk) 23:36, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
- Could you please keep in mind that the English-WP is NOT my home WP! Sometimes I skip a few days. Eddylandzaat (talk) 18:32, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
- I admit that I gave the wrong references. And I can't find the right one at the moment. And seeing your way of communicating, I don't even want to look for it. Have it your way. Eddylandzaat (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Nazi comparison
editI've started a discussion on this revert here. Gabbe (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
Verification issue
editThis sentence failed verification: "The protocol, as suggested by Dr. E. Verhagen, was agreed upon by the Prosecutors Office in Groningen and in July 2005 declared mandatory by the Dutch Society for Pediatrics." It is cited to a March 2005 article in the New England Journal of Medicine. First and most obviously, a March 2005 article cannot verify something that happened in July 2005. But it also doesn't indicate that the protocol was agreed upon the Prosecutors office in Groningen; it says, "With that aim, we developed a protocol in 2002, in close collaboration with a district attorney." It might be accurate if the Prosecutors office consists of a single district attorney, but that's not indicated and it does not identify Groningen as the district attorney's work area. I've flagged the sentence but believe it should be removed if not properly supported, especially with regards to the Prosecutors office in Groningen as this borders on being a potential WP:BLP issue. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:14, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- I do agree, one thing is the authors of the protocol to claim they have been working in collaboration with a prosecutor and another different and misleading info to say that the protocol was agreed upon by the Prosecutors Office. And due the other concerns it should be immediately corrected or removed. -- ClaudioSantos¿? 13:57, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
- True, two claims in one sentence. So I have split the sentence and gave each a proper source. The Banner talk 15:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
Two different things
editThis article appears to be taking about two distinct things and switching between them in a very confusing manner. One second I am reading about killing infants with no hope for a happy/healthy life and the next I am reading about how Dutch law allows a 12+ person to request euthanasia for themselves.Wisnoskij (talk) 14:05, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
- The Groningen Protocol is developed to aid children under 12 years of age because they have no legal right to ask for euthanasia, as children of 12 years of age and older do. Does that clear the case? Ow, and the Groningen Protocol is not about a happy/healthy life, but about living in agony and pain and what to do about that. The Banner talk 21:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- agony and pain is an antonym of happy/healthy.... I did not ask to get clarification, but because I believed that that article needed it. But it does not read as quite as confusing now that I know why it started talking about non-infants. But it might be improved by adding to the beginning something like: "There is no actual legal status is Dutch law for the ending of a infants life, but +12s have ...". Specifically, making it clear right away that there is no absolute guaranteed legal status, and this +12 stuff is just the most related law and shows that the Dutch legal system believes that that individual has the right to end their life. Wisnoskij (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- The info you want in the article, can be found in the article Child euthanasia. I agree that that is not the best option. By now, I have copied the sentence In the Netherlands, euthanasia remains technically illegal for patients under the age of 12. to the section Legal Status. That should solve the case, I hope. The Banner talk 22:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
- agony and pain is an antonym of happy/healthy.... I did not ask to get clarification, but because I believed that that article needed it. But it does not read as quite as confusing now that I know why it started talking about non-infants. But it might be improved by adding to the beginning something like: "There is no actual legal status is Dutch law for the ending of a infants life, but +12s have ...". Specifically, making it clear right away that there is no absolute guaranteed legal status, and this +12 stuff is just the most related law and shows that the Dutch legal system believes that that individual has the right to end their life. Wisnoskij (talk) 22:08, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
POV
editWhat is the problem that a section is templated? The Banner talk 22:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
- Why didn't you first asked that question on User talk:82.21.7.184 instead off twice removing the POV-template. After the first time you removed that template it was restored with the message from the template: "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved" and soon after that you did another revert! Even now you didn't contact that user on his talk page. That would be a much better first step. - Robotje (talk) 09:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- You (re)placed the template, so what is the problem with that section? Obviously, you have seen more problems than I did... The Banner talk 10:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
- The POV template was put there on 25 July 2014 by 82.21.7.184 and you removed it within one hour. In the POV template however there is the text "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." and I see no indication the dispute was resolved that morning between 8:14 (UTC) and 9:08 (UTC). That is why I restored the template. Please explain why you are so sure the dispute was resolved during that 54 minute interval. - Robotje (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- As usual you coldly apply rules instead of looking at the problem. Or better, the non-existing problem. The Banner talk 11:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is difficult to resolve a dispute when we don't know what the dispute is about. :) That said, I would have thought that a controversy section would tend to be be negative, as it would, by definition, be focused on the controversy. So I'm not sure what the particular problem with that section would be. - Bilby (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- @The Banner, as I asked you already before (see my edit of 26 July) why didn't you first asked this user on his talk page (User talk:82.21.7.184) about this issue instead of removing that template. If you don't know what the dispute is about, how can you be sure it was resolved within 54 minutes after that user added that template? Besides, since you effectively started this article and was one of the main editors of this article which is about a sensitive issue, you should even more than others refrain from removing such a template if you don't completely understand why the template was put there. Simply stating there is no problem is not the right attitude. From the edit summary from his previous edit (see [2]) you can already understand some of the issues he has with that section. So according to that user there are problems and it is not for you to decide there is no problem. Even now, you still didn't contacted him on his talk page. Why not? - Robotje (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Because the IP should have taken the initiative for the discussion, not me. And when you start reading a bit instead of responding on my username: the IP stated that the controversy section was negative about the subject of the article. In the context of the article that is okay. Leaving that section out would make the whole article POV. So instead of blindly applying the rules, you should have looked at the content en context. The Banner talk 13:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Sure, it would help if that user would have explained on the talk page what the POV-problem(s) were, but it looks like he/she is not an active user and probably doesn't know how things should be done. So you can also take some action in contacting him instead of removing that template 54 minutes after it was put there even though you didn't understand the problem and cannot explain how the dispute was resolved in that 54 minutes interval. You just decided that you, who started this article about a sensitive topic and is one of the main editors of that article, could also be the right person to decide there is no problem although it is clear that person made it clear there is a POV issue. You still refuse to contact him on his talk page? - Robotje (talk) 14:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Because the IP should have taken the initiative for the discussion, not me. And when you start reading a bit instead of responding on my username: the IP stated that the controversy section was negative about the subject of the article. In the context of the article that is okay. Leaving that section out would make the whole article POV. So instead of blindly applying the rules, you should have looked at the content en context. The Banner talk 13:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- @The Banner, as I asked you already before (see my edit of 26 July) why didn't you first asked this user on his talk page (User talk:82.21.7.184) about this issue instead of removing that template. If you don't know what the dispute is about, how can you be sure it was resolved within 54 minutes after that user added that template? Besides, since you effectively started this article and was one of the main editors of this article which is about a sensitive issue, you should even more than others refrain from removing such a template if you don't completely understand why the template was put there. Simply stating there is no problem is not the right attitude. From the edit summary from his previous edit (see [2]) you can already understand some of the issues he has with that section. So according to that user there are problems and it is not for you to decide there is no problem. Even now, you still didn't contacted him on his talk page. Why not? - Robotje (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- It is difficult to resolve a dispute when we don't know what the dispute is about. :) That said, I would have thought that a controversy section would tend to be be negative, as it would, by definition, be focused on the controversy. So I'm not sure what the particular problem with that section would be. - Bilby (talk) 12:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- As usual you coldly apply rules instead of looking at the problem. Or better, the non-existing problem. The Banner talk 11:31, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- The POV template was put there on 25 July 2014 by 82.21.7.184 and you removed it within one hour. In the POV template however there is the text "Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved." and I see no indication the dispute was resolved that morning between 8:14 (UTC) and 9:08 (UTC). That is why I restored the template. Please explain why you are so sure the dispute was resolved during that 54 minute interval. - Robotje (talk) 10:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- You (re)placed the template, so what is the problem with that section? Obviously, you have seen more problems than I did... The Banner talk 10:09, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Robotje, I'm not sure if you understand the point of the {{POV}} template. It is meant to highlight that there's an active discussion underway on the talk page. They're not meant to be badges of shame. See WP:TC. Or the article linked by the POV template, which says "[t]he tag is intended to signify that there is an active good-faith effort, grounded in policy, to resolve the perceived neutrality concern". If an editor (anonymous or not) adds the tag without subsequently claiming what they see the problem as, it is not improper behaviour to remove it. Removing the tag doesn't necessarily mean that whatever the dispute was in the first place has been resolved. It could simply (as seems to be the case here) mean that whatever effort there was to resolve it has stalled. Gabbe (talk) 15:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I've now notified the IP on their talk page. We'll see if there's any reply. But I don't see the point in keeping the tag unless there's a discussion underway. Gabbe (talk) 15:32, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think it should be obvious. The section contains very little substance and is very heavy on the ridiculous hyperbole: "little more than an attempt to legalize infanticide", "Kodish concluded by inviting resistance to the protocol by means of civil disobedience against the medical institutionalization of infanticide". What is this? Conservipedia or something? Besides from that, ENGVAR issues, British is used in the Netherlands, therefore the article should not be written in American. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- The section "controversy" is especially for those authors who don't agree with the Groningen Protocol. So it is absolutely normal that that section is negative as it is designed to be negative. The Banner talk 17:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is negativity and there is quoting obvious complete nutjobs. The only place this is controversial is the US, therefore completely non-relevant as the legislation does not apply there. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Also, re-added tag as someone decided randomly to take it out again without addressing the issues. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- Removal of that section would make the whole article POV. When you don't agree with the present section, start rewriting it. You probably know it better, so I am awaiting your proposal for a new text. The Banner talk 20:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- @The Banner, his proposal ([[3]]) was reverted by you the next day. Why don't you come up with a proposal? - Robotje (talk) 15:04, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
- Removal of that section would make the whole article POV. When you don't agree with the present section, start rewriting it. You probably know it better, so I am awaiting your proposal for a new text. The Banner talk 20:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- There is negativity and there is quoting obvious complete nutjobs. The only place this is controversial is the US, therefore completely non-relevant as the legislation does not apply there. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC) Also, re-added tag as someone decided randomly to take it out again without addressing the issues. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- The section "controversy" is especially for those authors who don't agree with the Groningen Protocol. So it is absolutely normal that that section is negative as it is designed to be negative. The Banner talk 17:42, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
- I think it should be obvious. The section contains very little substance and is very heavy on the ridiculous hyperbole: "little more than an attempt to legalize infanticide", "Kodish concluded by inviting resistance to the protocol by means of civil disobedience against the medical institutionalization of infanticide". What is this? Conservipedia or something? Besides from that, ENGVAR issues, British is used in the Netherlands, therefore the article should not be written in American. 82.21.7.184 (talk) 17:35, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
This is stale. Removing template. Ratel (talk) 07:43, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
"Under Age 12"
editDid I read that right? This, as well as requiring only the parents' permission, and not factoring in the child's ability to communicate their preference, essentially makes a loophole for involuntary euthanasia (i.e. murder). Basically, an 11 year old can beg for their life as much as they want, it won't make a difference as long as their parents said yes. Why is there nothing in the article to address this, this is the first thing that came into my head when I read the article.
68.40.49.146 (talk) 19:03, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- No, you are wrong. Not only the parents but also multiple doctors must agree with the fact that the child has a hopeless and unbearable suffering. As soon as a child has a small change to get healthy, the doctors and parents can NOT ask for termination of a child's life. The Banner talk 19:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are right, but that doesn't contradict anything I said. A doctor stating that a terminal disease exists and causes suffering doesn't equal consent - a person may want to keep living in case a cure is invented, or just because they think life is still worth it - such a choice is perfectly legitimate. Even if they're suffering, even if the parents agree (perhaps because they don't want the medical costs), under this policy a person who did nothing wrong would still be killed against their clearly expressed wishes - making this de facto involuntary euthanasia (if not de jure). 68.40.49.146 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- Please read the article properly. A whole group of people have to agree that the child has no sensible future: parents, several physicians and several social workers and some others. As soon as one of that group of medical professionals disagrees, their will be no euthanasia. It still is legally considered murder but under the right circumstances and after the right procedure, the physicians are not prosecuted. In all other cases they are prosecuted.
- Please, bear in mind that it is a horrible choice for parents to decide that the best choice for their child is to let it die. They have to start the procedure and all have to agree. The Banner talk 21:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
- You are right, but that doesn't contradict anything I said. A doctor stating that a terminal disease exists and causes suffering doesn't equal consent - a person may want to keep living in case a cure is invented, or just because they think life is still worth it - such a choice is perfectly legitimate. Even if they're suffering, even if the parents agree (perhaps because they don't want the medical costs), under this policy a person who did nothing wrong would still be killed against their clearly expressed wishes - making this de facto involuntary euthanasia (if not de jure). 68.40.49.146 (talk) 19:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
There has been some misunderstanding that the protocol would be for children under 12. Instead, it is for newborn children or, in some cases, for babies younger than one year. There is no legal possibility for euthanasia for children one to eleven years old. This 'gap' was criticised by Verhagen and some other physicians and parents in 2014, but no new regulations have been made. Bever (talk) 08:43, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
editHello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Groningen Protocol. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100921023851/http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/thestatewerein/otherstates/tswi-080216-groningen-redirected to http://static.rnw.nl/migratie/www.radionetherlands.nl/thestatewerein/otherstates/tswi-080216-groningen-redirected
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130623043231/http://old.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200503220759.asp to http://old.nationalreview.com/smithw/smith200503220759.asp
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:11, 4 December 2017 (UTC)