Talk:1994 Oregon Ballot Measure 16

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Foridaniela97.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:02, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

death not suicide

"physician-assisted suicide" is not an accurate name for what Measure 16 legalized. "Physician-assisted death" is, I believe, the term in common usage. Suicide is a crime, and to assist it would be a crime. (I'm not a lawyer, but that much is apparent in the simple passage quoted below.)

The act, as passed by voters, used the word "suicide" only twice. Those uses were as follows:

"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]"

-Pete 07:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal technicalities aside, it's a physician assisting someone who commit's suicide.Kairos 02:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

It's no mere legal technicality. The Act was passed by ballot initiative, and as such, is frequently considered in terms of its expression of the will of the people. That the people passed a measure that did not include the word suicide is perfectly relevant to many contexts. If the choice is between a relatively uncontroversial rendering (physician-assisted death) and a controversial one (assisted suicide), and both express the meaning clearly and accurately, the less-controversial one should be used. That will keep the article less "Point-Of-View." -Pete 06:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this idea. --Falcorian ^(talk) 15:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1)It IS a legal techinicality, I live in Oregon. So I know for fact that everyone that I've talked to with and/or heard talking about it has used the term "physician assisted suicide". SO don't talk to ME about the "will of the people".

2)If you want to be technically correct then it's not physician assisted death, It's physician assisted dying. See the http://egov.oregon.gov/DHS/ph/pas/ the official government website about the law that repeatedly talks about being neutral and uses that term, NOT Physician Assisted Death. And since a NPOV is what we're trying for here....Kairos 09:15, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

(1) I'm not sure I understand your point here. (For what it's worth, I said it's not a mere legal technicality, but I understand it's a legal technicality. Also, I made no assertion about the will of the people - only pointed out that such assertions are commonly made; an encyclopedia should serve as a neutral foundation for such discussion.)

Anyway, are you saying that the fact that people commonly refer to the law as "assisted suicide" merits mention in the article? I'd be fine with that, provided that the problems with that designation are mentioned as well. Supporting citations are out there, I remember a full OPB story on the choice of words in the last few months.

(2) Good catch, on this and on the phrase "euthanasia" (below.) I don't think the distinction between "death" and "dying" is a major issue, but I'd support editing that substitutes "dying."

-Pete 08:03, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd support editing. "Suicide" carries a POV. Calling it suicide has legal significance since the act deliberately omits the term, which means there's no prosecuting "assisting" this process under the crime of aiding and abetting suicide. There're also the bioethics thought exercises as to what counts as suicide: a soldier jumping on a bomb to save other soldiers, jumping out of a burning skyscraper when there's no alternative. Suicide? Questionable. Jordan 03:29, 30 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanotto (talk • contribs)

Thanks Jordan. It's been a while since this discussion took place, but with the passage of time…it seems to me the best thing to do would be to have a short section covering the language used, rather than try to come up with the "right" language. I'd be happy to give it a shot, but it might take me a while to get to it…feel free of course to take a stab at it yourself! -Pete (talk) 04:44, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

proposed merge

Some ballot measures are naturally related; in this case, Measure 51 was specifically related to Measure 16. I think the reader is better served if both measures are treated in one article, with a title that reflects that it's about more than just one measure. For a similar example, see Oregon Ballot Measure 40 (1996) and subsequent measures. In this case, maybe Oregon ballot measures 16 (1994) and 51 (1997), with redirects from the current pages. Any thoughts? -Pete 07:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge per Peteforsyth. They are effectively the same measure and topic. —EncMstr 03:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I would prefer to keep them seperate but I could see essensially folding measure 51 into this article, as they are connected. Just read meaure 51's entry and it's pretty much a stub. I'd have no problem with it being folded ino this article. Kairos 09:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge vs. Split

Lestatdelc, I see you've made links to the individual measures -- are you looking to split, as you did with Oregon Ballot Measures 41 and 48 (2006)?

Please look at the (admittedly thin) discussion above. I believe that for topics like this, where there's a strong conceptual tie between the measures, that the reader is better served by having a single unified article. (I do think that maps and charts, like you and Athelwulf have done for other measures, would be helpful, but I think they can be included on this article.)

But not too many people have expressed an opinion, so I'm interested what you think too. -Pete (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Error I don't know how to fix

In the analysis section it says that the 400ish deaths correspond to 19.4 deaths per 10,000. I read the source for it and it does have the 405 statistic and the 19.4 deaths per 10,000 line, but in totally different sections.

The per 10k line is only correct for the deaths in 2008 according to the source material. I don't know how to reword that in terms that makes the information useful still.S.R.Osuna (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Good catch -- but I'm not 100% sure I understand you. You're talking about this line, right?

From the act's passage to 2008, 401 patients used the DWDA, representing an estimated 19.4 deaths per 10,000 total deaths in the same time period.

And you're saying the first part of the sentence (before the comma) applies to ~1994 to 2008, while the second part refers only to the time period during 2008? Is that right? -Pete (talk) 21:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 16 July 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Not moved – No support after relisting, likely due to confusing misuse of the PRIMARYTOPIC concept. Feel free to try again more clearly. (non-admin closure) Dicklyon (talk) 05:10, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

---

1994 Oregon Ballot Measure 16 → Oregon Death with Dignity Act – I'm opening an RM because this page has been moved back and forth between the ballot measure title and the act title over the years (see: 1, 2).

Based on the sources in the article, "Oregon Death with Dignity Act" appears to be the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC comprising several different related ballot measures. Though slightly POV, it doesn't go against WP:POVNAME. Retro (talk | contribs) 23:38, 16 July 2019 (UTC)--Relisting. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:16, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.