Saturday 6 June 2015

Lecretia's Legacy: A Matter Of Life And Death.

A Lover Of Life: It was a brave and deeply ethical thing that Lecretia Seales did. In a society that seems at times positively terrified of thinking seriously about anything, she invited us to shake off our more familiar roles as consumers, viewers, texters and takers of endless selfies, to become, if only for a little while, citizens.
 
LECRETIA SEALES has delivered into our hands a grim but important legacy. Though her bid to have assisted death declared legal by a judge of the High Court of New Zealand has failed; and though her tragic death has rendered the issues she raised moot; Lecretia has not been defeated.
 
What she sought, in bringing her case to court, was a clear statement of the legal principles relevant to assisted death and euthanasia, as well as a setting forth of all the legal impediments to realising those objectives. This she has achieved.
 
Judge Collins’ judgement has, quite correctly, declined Lecretia’s invitation to legislate from the Bench, and handed over the responsibility for resolving the stark challenges of euthanasia and medically assisted dying to the people of New Zealand through their elected representatives in Parliament.
 
The New Zealand constitution reserves to Parliament, as the ultimate distillation of the people’s will, the right to frame and fashion the laws that govern its citizens. Judge Collins was not about to overturn that core constitutional convention, and it is likely that Lecretia never seriously entertained the slightest hope that he would.
 
What this quiet and reportedly rather self-effacing woman did understand, however, was that by bringing her case to court she would focus the attention of the whole of New Zealand society upon her tragic circumstances and the means she sought to prevent them from obliterating the person that she was. Win or lose, she knew that her actions would require people to think about and, hopefully, come to a decision about the rights and wrongs of the legal changes she was proposing.
 
It was a brave and deeply ethical thing that Lecretia Seales did. In a society that seems at times positively terrified of thinking seriously about anything, she invited us to shake off our more familiar roles as consumers, viewers, texters and takers of endless selfies, to become, if only for a little while, citizens.
 
We have been asked to engage in a serious discussion about the meaning of life and the experience of death. To test our own feelings about when it might be acceptable to put aside the great commandment “Thou shalt not kill”, in favour of the even greater exhortation to “Love thy neighbour as thyself”.
 
For that is the calculation that Lecretia was forced, by her illness, to make. Which self are we being asked to cherish? Is it our healthy self; the self that showed the world the full extent of what it had to contribute? Or, are we being asked to cherish with equal care a damaged and agonised self; a self distorted by disease and pain? A self that presents only a bitter parody of person it used to be?
 
If a human-being, in full possession of her faculties, and facing the truth of her situation rationally and honestly, decides that she wishes to exercise control over the way she takes leave of this world, who dares claim the right to prevent her from doing so? In the past, the answer to that question was, God. It was a sin for anyone other than God to take a human life – even if that life was their own.
 
But New Zealanders decided long ago that, when it comes to persons determined to take their own lives, God’s wishes need not be considered. Suicide is legal. And, since that is the case, why should it be illegal for a doctor to facilitate his or her patient’s decision to end their life at a time of their own choosing?
 
Such is Lecretia’s legacy: the gift of choice. Either to accept the duty of formulating a citizen’s judgement on the weighty matter of voluntary euthanasia; or, to simply turn away and put off all consideration of life’s meaning until the moment that Death’s dark hand knocks loudly upon our door. Praying that when this dread summons finally comes, the person he carries off is still recognisable to both our loved ones and ourselves.
 
In that, too, Lecretia left us a powerful and enduring example.
 
This essay was posted simultaneously on The Daily Blog and Bowalley Road blogsites on Saturday, 6 June 2015.

12 comments:

greywarbler said...

Your essay on Lecretia speaks well of all the matters and emotions raised from her situation. What a fine person she was. It is so hard for some people to see beyond their own self-regarding desires and fears to the issue of people having this ultimate human right. This choice of time of death made rationally, with the rational desire to have assistance if needed to facilitate one's passing raises the hackles of many. Lecretia helped to break through the barriers constantly raised, to get to the nub of the matter.

There are people who fear that family will hasten death because of financial reasons, so choice of dying should not be considered. But actually ethics, compassion and practical considerations may combine in the mind of the person wishing death. The disabled community fear they will be less valued than now and not have life extending assistance offered if there is another option. Medical, hospice and palliative care personel would deny the person choice, they take ownership of this body and mind in total, it seems. Religious also, talk about God's rights and then themselves assume control in his name, not considering
that they are deliberately denying the person from meeting their God when they wish. All put their own interests before that of the person wishing to remove themselves from the angst of living.

A legal process that was reasonable and accessable enabling the capable person to follow set steps is necessary. It would be rational and ethical, considering individual rights. We also cannot just shy away from the fiscal and physical requirements to care for the unnatural growing numbers of long-lived people that heart and other medication facilitate. The people who are past the stage of consciousness, or of rationality, dying slowly with loss of mind and body, are another case needing their particular legal controls, bearing in mind financial and physical cost considerations ensuing from such long-term enduring half-life.

I don't know whether this is too long, rather than a short comment on your points Chris. If you think it is, could you indicate and I will limit in future.

greywarbler said...

Thoughts on Chris's caption to Lecretia's image.
In a society that seems at times positively terrified of thinking seriously about anything, she invited us to shake off our more familiar roles as consumers, viewers, texters and takers of endless selfies, to become, if only for a little while, citizens.

Janis Ian wrote a plaintive little song about the angst of living and dealing with the real world, called At Seventeen. It touches on girls who find an easy path early on then cease to wrestle with the world and its problems as would a responsible adult with integrity and empathy. Men would have their own, but similar, path

And the rich-relationed hometown queen
Marries into what she needs
With a guarantee of company
And haven for the elderly
So remember those who win the game
Lose the love they sought to gain
In debentures of quality and dubious integrity

Their small town eyes will gape at you
In dull surprise when payment due
Exceeds accounts received at seventeen.
metrolyrics.com

Mark Hubbard said...

Great post Chris. And great to see David Seymour, who I have been giving a hard time, is drafting a euthanasia bill (or that it should be debated). Personally, I don't want this up to a vote, it's too important, and further example of why we need a rights nased political system, not a votes based one, but finally, thanks to Lecretia Seales, hope exists we get ownership of our bodies and health outcomes.

peterlepaysan said...

Unfortunately, I cannot imagine any nz political party making this a debatable issue.

It is a debate that is long overdue.

It is my body. Why cannot I, or those responsible for it, decide when to terminate it's life.

I can make a will that disposes of my assets after I die.
This will stand up legally as long as it clear that the will is genuine and made by a person of sane,logical mind at the time.

Why cannot I make a similar document allowing certain people, under certain circumstances to dispose of my life?

We daily kill animals, especially humans, on vast scales. The slaughter of plants is applauded by vegetarians and vegans.

What is so sacrosanct about humans not in a war situation?
Why do we persecute pacifists? They do not want to die or kill?

This topic has , and, I fear, will be, for along time,
bedevilled by superstition and fear.

Mind you there is hope. I am sure that the nats and ther cronies among so called neo con liberal economists will see economic advantages, unless the retirement village industry scream too loudly. They won't if euthanasia gifts the estate to the retirement village company.

I am sure a a Hawaiian based Wall Street trader and a (double ) Dipton Treasury ideologue would have no problem with that.

Imagine the economic benefits of ridding the economy of the wasteful dying.

jh said...

The New Zealand constitution reserves to Parliament, as the ultimate distillation of the people’s will, the right to frame and fashion the laws that govern its citizens.
.......
Representative government started as people were working on the farm and so would send a representative to vote on issues and (I imagine) back then people were much more in agreement. This model no longer works: people vote for the apples at the front of the shop but get the dirty books under the counter. I recall Meteria Turie saying "and all our other policies" after an election result.

I support voluntary euthanasia the morphine can guarantee a trip to heathen (at least briefly).

greywarbler said...

@JH
I don't understand why Metiria Turei is mentioned in conjunction with dirty books under the counter?? If it refers to policies that are not totally understood it doesn't mean they are hidden. The Greens policy direction is well known and they are aspirational to improve NZ resilience and conditions in as many ways as affordable and politically possible.
They would be for examining change issues for social policies such as assisted dying.

And what's the connection of morphine with being a heathen? Perhaps you could proof read your comments to give a clear window to your thinking.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Apart from the fact that I can't understand what an Earth's being said JH, it's Metiria Turei. It's the woman's name for Christ's sake you should make an effort to spell it correctly. It's not as if it's fat finger or anything looks like.

Victor said...

In abstract, it's hard to argue against the right of people to choose when they want to die and to solicit help to that end. In reality, however, I can envisage all sorts of situations in which what looks ostensibly like a wholly voluntary choice is actually something other than that.

By all means let us have a debate on this issue. But let us not assume that the conclusion is foregone or obvious.

MPledger said...

I am getting more and more worried about the power the state has over our lives. It's becoming less and less helpful to people and more and more benevolent to business and corporations at the expense of people. So it worries me that the state could have so much power over people.

However, if voluntary euthenasia did come into law, I'd rather health professionals were left out of the equation. Let some other group of people do the assisting otherwise people will be to scared to interact with their doctor in case any their private comments are used as evidence of wanting death rather than just being depressed or exagerating for effect etc etc.

greywarbler said...

@ Victor
I said above
A legal process that was reasonable and accessable enabling the capable person to follow set steps is necessary. It would be rational and ethical, considering individual rights. We also cannot just shy away from the fiscal and physical requirements to care for the unnatural growing numbers of long-lived people that heart and other medication facilitate. The people who are past the stage of consciousness, or of rationality, dying slowly with loss of mind and body, are another case needing their particular legal controls, bearing in mind financial and physical cost considerations ensuing from such long-term enduring half-life.
Do you think that following a thoughtful, intelligently drafted legal process would deal to the concerns you have?

I think MPledger's point about doctors being involved could lead to a loss of trust in them as a whole, is a valid point. Perhaps some could specialised in a specialised gerontology, so that such matters could be discussed with these people with no trepidation. When you're not ready to even think of 'going' you certainly don't want to feel you might be talking to a Dr Harold Shipman, the British GP who helped people off the earth as he saw fit.

Victor said...

greywabler

"Do you think that following a thoughtful, intelligently drafted legal process would deal to the concerns you have?"

I would hope so but cannot assume this in advance.

_erudition_ said...

It is a complex issue, not amenable to pithy soundbites, suffice to say, in all jurisdictions where it has been introduced there has been"scope creep"; that is not argument against implementation, but rather, an argument for clarity and specificity for ant new legislation.