Content-Type: text/html

# Euthanasia/Talk

HomePage | Euthanasia | RecentChanges | Preferences
You can edit this page right now! It's a free, community project

Wow, is it possible that some people seriously question the use of the word "killing" in this context and think "termination" should be used instead?

Does the wikipedia neutral language policy actually require the use of such extreme euphemism?

If so, shouldn't the policy apply throughout? (Wouldn't want to offend anyone by saying that Nazis killed people!)

- Considering that euthanasia is legal in some countries and morally accepted by quite a few, and that genocide belogs to the heaviest crimes, using "kill" for Nazi expressed and teaches contempt. Using "kill" in reference to enuthanasia may be painful to those who are partially or solely responsible for the death of a relative. All forms of terminating assistence when it no longer stands to reason, practised in ALL hospitals around the word, fall into the definition of euthanasia.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. The word "kill" means "to deprive of life". It does not convey any implication as to motive or moral valuation. Using "kill" in reference to active euthanasia is simply a matter of recognizing reality. Avoiding its use is intellectual and moral evasion. On the other hand, if you are referring to situations wherein a person is simply allowed to die naturally, by refraining from extraordinary medical intervention, I would agree that "kill" is not accurate. But that is not the context in which the substitution I objected to was made.

HomePage | Euthanasia | RecentChanges | Preferences
You can edit this page right now! It's a free, community project
Edit text of this page | View other revisions
Last edited August 9, 2001 12:40 am (diff)
Search: