Jump to content

Talk:Brittany Maynard

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

clear example of "one event"

[edit]

This article is a clear example of a person who is notable because of his/her connection to a single event. She is not notable for being an activist. All articles about her have been written after her death. check Wikipedia:BIO1E. User:Notlogged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.134.146.56 (talk) 10:53, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Cause of death

[edit]

Brain Tumor was the cause in accordance the Oregon law. "Her death, from barbiturates, was confirmed by her husband, Daniel Diaz, who noted that in accordance with Oregon law her death certificate listed a brain tumor as the cause." http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/04/us/brittany-maynard-death-with-dignity-ally-dies-at-29.html?_r=0 You can not just put assisted suicide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.105.132.130 (talk) 15:08, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that "Cause of Death" should state she had a Secobarbital prescription (as reported by [http://www.people.com/article/terminally-ill-brittany-maynard-decision-to-die People magazine) "Because on Nov. 1, if all goes as planned, Maynard, surrounded by her husband, Dan Diaz, Ziegler, her stepfather, Gary Holmes, and her best friend, will pull apart 100 capsules of the sedative secobarbital, dissolve them in water, drink it – and slip into a final, irreversible sleep." -- Aronzak (talk) 00:25, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, Maynard notes in her article "I've had the medication for weeks. I am not suicidal. If I were, I would have consumed that medication long ago." -- Aronzak (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Her cause of death is officially assisted suicide. The details can go in the "Death" section IMO. Epicgenius (talk) 20:32, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, her cause of death is officially what is listed on her death certificate under "Cause of death", ie. brain tumor. You can't just change the meaning of the technical terms "official" and "cause of death" based on opinion. Unless one of us is a medical examiner who legally performed an autopsy on Maynard and was given legal authority to alter her death certificate, what we "think" or "believe" is irrelevant. Legally, medically, and statistically, assisted suicide is the "Mechanism of Death"[1], which is distinct from Cause of Death and Manner of Death. It's not an "official cause of death" or a "technical cause of death", it's a mechanism of death. Finally, her husband reported that she died from the barbiturate, but he is neither a medical doctor nor did he perform the autopsy. Unless there is a source that officially declares her mechanism of death to be the drugs, even claiming that her mechanism of death was assisted suicide is heresay and conjecture.96.54.245.102 (talk) 20:53, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Correction on my previous edit: Assisted Suicide would be considered a MANNER of death, not a mechanism.[2] 96.54.245.102 (talk) 22:01, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.crimemuseum.org/crime-library/cause-mechanism-and-manner-of-death
  2. ^ http://www.pathologyoutlines.com/topic/forensicscauses.html

As a matter of law Brittany's death can not be categorized as 'assisted suicide' because the statue in Oregon addresses that specifically: 127.880 s.3.14. Construction of Act. Actions taken in accordance with ORS 127.800 to 127.897 shall not, for any purpose, constitute suicide, assisted suicide, mercy killing or homicide, under the law. [1995 c.3 s.3.14] It further states that the underlying disease is what will be stated on the Death Certificate. That is submitted by the Physician, the medical professional allowed to fill in that section of a Death Certificate. Therefore to borrow the phrase someone above used: "Legally, medically, and statistically," the only appropriate cause of death is Brain Tumor. Any mention of 'suicide' is by law incorrect. I changed that section to state "Aid in Dying Medication" however it was changed back. (Strange, one would think this site would revere accuracy.) Here is the link to the entire Oregon Statue: https://public.health.oregon.gov/ProviderPartnerResources/EvaluationResearch/DeathwithDignityAct/Pages/ors.aspx DanDiaz1184 (talk) 01:40, 24 April 2015 (UTC) DanDiaz1184 (I am Brittany Maynard's husband)[reply]

Comment - A USNews article based on Associated Press reporting states in the title that the California proposal is an "aid-in-dying proposal" and in a caption states "Debbie Ziegler, center, the mother of Brittany Maynard, speaks in support of proposed legislation allowing doctors to prescribe life-ending medication to terminally ill patients" - I believe USNews is a Reliable Source that meets Neutrality guidelines, establishing that the terms "aid in dying" and "life-ending medication" are appropriate phrases. The Oregon law says "medication for the purpose of ending his or her life" (127.805 s.2.01) - the word "medication" is used 41 times in the law. -- Aronzak (talk) 02:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
DanDiaz1184, there is nothing in the law that applies to how outside parties, such as Wikipedia, refer to Brittany's death. How the law looks at her death has no bearing on the truth. It is accurate that she committed suicide and was assisted by the doctor who wrote the prescription. The official cause of death per Oregon Law is not what she actually died of. I do believe we need to be as accurate as possible. The way Oregon looks at her death is not accurate. -- GB fan 11:53, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's a verifiable fact that Maynard's death certificate states that the cause of death is from a brain tumour. ("Her death, from barbiturates, was confirmed by her husband, Daniel Diaz, who noted that in accordance with Oregon law her death certificate listed a brain tumour as the cause." - NYT and SMH).
In a CNN op-ed piece she uses the term aid in dying once and medication four times: "It would enable me to use the medical practice of aid in dying: I could request and receive a prescription from a physician for medication that I could self-ingest to end my dying process if it becomes unbearable." She further states "I've had the medication for weeks. I am not suicidal. If I were, I would have consumed that medication long ago." She said in People Magazine "For people to argue against this choice for sick people really seems evil to me," she told PEOPLE. "They try to mix it up with suicide and that's really unfair, because there's not a single part of me that wants to die. But I am dying." ABC News uses the term "medication that would allow them to die in their sleep." News.com.au, owned by News Limited, uses the term "life-ending medication." syracuse.com uses the term "lethal medication" and does not use the term "suicide" - I believe following the clearly expressed wishes of Maynard and her family does no disservice to readers.
Maynard herself used the phrase "aid in dying" and "life-ending medication" on numerous occasions, and objected to the word "suicide" in various outlets. New York Times reporting on Mr Diaz's comments uses the term "medication" and "barbiturates" and does not use the word "suicide."
I believe a wikilink to the Oregon law is more appropriate than any other page, as that law is the law that permitted the prescription of secobarbital. Maynard herself described the law as an "aid in dying" law, and I believe it's appropriate to call it that. -- Aronzak (talk) 17:51, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is confused at best ... Wikipedia articles aren't governed by Oregon law. 2600:8802:5913:1700:88AD:4ABE:AC49:BEB8 (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid being caught up in labels and legalities, in this case maybe it would be a good idea to avoid the above arguments altogether and simply insert an accurate descriptive phrase. Just a suggestion. RCraig09 (talk) 23:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anything wrong with the phrase "Aid in Dying Medication" ?-- Aronzak (talk) 23:46, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Roughly speaking, by "accurate descriptive phrase" I meant something along the lines of: "Witting ingestion of doctor-prescribed (drugname) after diagnosis of terminal (diseasename)" or something similar. More knowledgeable editors can work out the details, but I think an objective descriptive phrase like this would avoid arguments involving labels, categorizations, characterizations, and legalities. RCraig09 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

The op-ed link that was added by Larry Hinman was simply an external link. It was not in any way shape or form being passed off as WP:RS, so the stated Edit Summary reason for reverting it is inapplicable. Random op-eds probably violate WP:EL. Choor monster (talk) 15:28, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2014

[edit]

Please change: Cause of death Assisted suicide[note 1][1] Brain tumor[note 2][2] to: Cause of death Brain tumor[note 2][2] Manner of death Assisted suicide[note 1][1] because "Cause of Death", as noted on the cause of death page, is a specific legal and medical term, and not a matter of opinion. The official cause of death, as noted on her death certificate, is "Brain Tumor". A heart attack, for example, is not a cause of death but a mechanism of death, with heart disease being the cause of death. Eogan (talk) 04:37, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done - due to a limitation of the existing infobox template. The template containing the text you mention (the infobox in the upper right of the article) has defined parameters of what can be displayed. It has a parameter for "cause of death", but at this time it does not have parameters for "manner of death" nor "mechanism of death" - so unless the template {{Infobox person}} is changed, it's not possible to make the wording change you are requesting. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:57, 4 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published source?

[edit]

The LA Episcopal Diocese is not a reliable source, even though Maynard went to an Episcopal school as a child, and this source refers to Maynard as "our famous alumna"? Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No it's not reliable because it's self-published -- Aronzak (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not an SPS. It's the on-line version of their newsweekly. Here's a copy of the print version. Maynard is front page. Choor monster (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's highly POV ("we're praying for Brittany") and not an RS. Quoting WP:SPS " self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters" -- Aronzak (talk) 23:42, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RS are allowed to have POV. We leave the POV bits out. Meanwhile, your quote is inapplicable: it refers to self-published newsletters, not all newsletters. Read it again: would you ever emphasize it as "self-published media, such as books, patents, newsletters" as grounds for calling every last book self-published? Choor monster (talk) 00:03, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even a religious organization with connections to Maynard, as Maynard went to a school operated by the LA Episcopal Diocese? Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:04, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Uh, why not? Choor monster (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An SPS source is an SPS source no matter who publishes it. A newsletter is a newsletter. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The newsletter is self published by the diocese. A self-published book is a book with no publisher with no independent oversight. The newsletter of an LA Episcopal diocese, self-published by the LA Catholic diocese, is self-published. An LA Episcopal diocese self-published newsletter is not RS -- Aronzak (talk) 00:24, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An SPS can be an RS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." We refer to corporate SPS all the time. Choor monster (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That refers to people like Brian Krebs and Bruce Schneier - this is not from an established expert. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:33, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was referring to company documents for information about the company and employees, not third-party journalists. The diocese is an expert about the diocese.
Anyway, I've just posted on this to WP:RSN, we're wasting our time going around in circles here. Choor monster (talk) 00:49, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If there was ever a time for borderline RS decisions approving POV religious sources in BLP/recently deceased articles, the time is not when a euthanasia campaigner has died, and is being actively slandered by highly controversial religious groups. Maynard was never an employee, the religious group is not a company -- Aronzak (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments about the timing are completely WP:NOTHERE. I don't see what's borderline, and I never claimed or implied Maynard was an employee or the diocese was a company. I was referring to the fact that we treat company newsletters, even when self-published, as generally reliable. Choor monster (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You admit the addition is WP:UNDUE. Euthenasia is on Wikipedia:List of controversial issues, Talk:Euthanasia has the controversial tag. WP:CONTROVERSY states that extra care is needed to achieve NPOV. The PDF from the religious group includes a paragraph on the Reverend's moralising essay and gives a link to it, making it POV, and inappropriate for WP:CONTROVERSY standards. If the claim is UNDUE, on a BLP/WP:CONTROVERSY. A self-published article from a company making a claim about an uncontroversial employee may meet BLP standards, but a highly POV essay from a religious group about a controversial/polarising figure does not meet BLP and especially not WP:CONTROVERSY standards. Nobody on RSN has commented on your statement there, and unless you can convince anyone there that RS/SPS standards should be weak on controversial articles, I would ask that you don't argue in circles here. -- Aronzak (talk) 22:56, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The moralizing paragraph is POV and inherently controversial, and should normally be excluded no matter what the source. The identification of her high school is not POV and not the least bit controversial, and normally would be included if it were actually relevant (which I do not believe). Really, this is a no-brainer. No one commenting on RSN means exactly nothing. Choor monster (talk) 15:33, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You don't want it included, I dont' want it included, if anyone wants a source like this included they should take the issue to NPOVN or a wiki project. I'll add a WikiProject Death header to the article, someone there may suggest improvements, highlight issues, or offer their perspectives if I'm wrong on this. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:55, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject death is there, I would appreciate impartial/uninvolved third party to be contacted in any future disputes. -- Aronzak (talk) 12:57, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
User:Arbor to SJ put it there in the first place, I have no idea if his opinion has changed or not. Meanwhile, I think the correct pronunciation of "Maynard" is relevant, and I consider this newsletter more accurate and reliable (on this one data point) than Anderson Cooper. Choor monster (talk) 13:59, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Self-published source? (part 2)

[edit]
Still an SPS newsletter, a source that isn't third party RS. -- Aronzak (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We don't require third-party RS.
As it is, I don't think the school should be mentioned, since it's fairly unencyclopedic. Has any other source named the school? Choor monster (talk) 00:30, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that's why the editors are keen to include POV sources are running themselves into circles trying to convince themselves this is RS. This has a stench of bad faith editing. -- Aronzak (talk) 01:00, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is just ridiculous ranting. Stick to the issues. Choor monster (talk) 16:40, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Brittany Maynard. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 01:40, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brittany_Maynard&oldid=1218030785"