Lecretia Seales: What’s Worrying Me About Her High Court Case #Euthanasia

Desperately trying to keep this short to make a point.

I have backgrounded Lecretia Seales High Court case for the right to die with dignity here.

But afraid to say, her case has started badly with three applicants who should have kept their agendas – for and against – out of Lecretia’s trial now being granted leave by Justice Collins to be heard, albeit on restricted terms.

My background to the selfish actions of these three applicants is here.

Blogger Lindsay Mitchell has written summarising the Justice’s (woeful) decision to allow these applicants time to grind their agendas, (despite, per Lecretia's own latest press release, her health status is worsening, with chemo stopped and her moving to palliative care, meaning as her husband Matt wrote she does not have the luxury of time for this).

Getting to the point of this post, it raises questions for me regarding the judicial process.

 Lecretia has been plain that her case is ‘her own’: she doesn’t mean it as precedent setting in context of the euthanasia debate in New Zealand, she wants several specific determinations made that would absolve her doctor in helping her to die with dignity if that is what she chooses – without same, obviously, the doctor cannot as he will be on serious criminal charges. Her case turns on her particular facts, and points of law.

In light of this Justice Collins reasons for allowing these applicants to needlessly divert Lecretia’s case are troubling.

In the broad context he has justified his decision as follows:

“The declarations Ms Seales seeks are cast very precisely and are not intended to have a wide application. Nevertheless, the issue of whether or not a person in Ms Seales’ circumstances can be assisted to end her life, or have her health professional deliberately hasten her death raises significant legal and ethical issues that are of intense public importance.”

No. There is no ‘nevertheless’. Her case is on matters of law. In this manner Justice Collins now introduces all those wider issues that belong to the public debate, not that apply to the matters of law on which Lecretia is taking her – non precedent setting – case. [Again, per husband Matt’s post, the wider debate is for the politicians who are cowardly missing in action on this important issue – as they are in debate around Lecretia’s case - not for his wife’s case because she does not have the time.]

As troubling, Justice Collins also allowed the three applicants to meddle because:

I am exercising my discretion to grant the applications primarily because I am satisfied that I may be assisted by the conditional participation of the interveners in reaching my decision in relation to Ms Seales’ application for declarations.

This means his decision is not going to be based on the points of law Lecretia has taken her case on. The decision will be deriving its foundation in the wider agenda-torn debate on euthanasia that can’t possibly be conducted in this case within Lecretia’s lifetime, (to put it bluntly, sorry – given the doctors have stopped her chemo as it has not worked), and which Collins himself admits here he is not qualified alone to decide on.

In my mind, remembering my admonition that Lecretia doesn’t know of me, and thus nothing I say can be attributed to her, this calls Justice Collins competency to hear her case into question, period.

And another matter flows from that. It would be wholly inappropriate for a Christian Justice, or Muslim, or any such faith, to take this case: is there a procedure that ensures this in the selection of a judge for any particular case? Are any religious convictions held by Justice Collins on public record anywhere?


Update:

Lecretia's partner, Matt, has blogged after reflecting for two days on Justice Collins decision: it's more optimistic than their initial press release (and myself above). Fingers crossed the optimism proves well founded.




Tailpiece.

 That’s the substantive matters I wanted to deal to via this post. But also a potshot at Progressivestan on social media to end:

Also there are currently 3 loosely Libertarian blogs covering Lecretia Searles's #euthanasia case, not a single Progressive/Left blog, 1/2
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) April 24, 2015

@MarkHubbard33 ... all of which have chosen petty partisanship over a bloody ponytail as being more important. So fucked up.
— Mark Hubbard (@MarkHubbard33) April 24, 2015