Wednesday, May 27, 2015

Lecretia Seales: Crown Case is Repugnant.







I find it infuriating Heron, QC, is being paid money taken from me by force to argue a case against my rights, and the right – the most basic right to own our health outcomes - of all individuals to die with dignity.

Yesterday he admitted that at some future stage New Zealand will have a euthanasia law, yet then went on to make sure that Lecretia Seale must possibly die in a painful manner, or undignified fashion, she would find appalling – hence her case: that’s bullshit. Worse, what Heron, QC, and the Crown want forced on Seales is in her terms - and mine for myself, if it came to that - cruel and unusual punishment: I hope the QC is not sleeping well.

Today Heron, QC. reaches peak stupidity with his argument against Seales desire of the choice to die with dignity - ‘what if it goes wrong’?

If the criteria for performing a medical procedure is the risk of it going wrong, then there would be no medical procedures: indeed, if you look at the side effects on any pill box, a doctor couldn’t prescribe an asperin. That risk is borne by Lecretia, or the individual concerned; it is no valid argument against euthanasia, and shows how weak the Crown case is. And of course it’s a weak case because it is arguing the Crown’s, and via that, the mob’s, ownership of our bodies. Plus all arguments against euthanasia invariably end up mired in the superstitious fantastical, fairy tale beliefs of Christianity, and are against lives lived based on reason.

Finally, yes, an adversarial justice system is crucial to the proper functioning of the free society, wrong-doers must have their day in court to argue their case, however in this instance, voluntary – and there’s the clue, voluntary - euthanasia, the only victim is likely to be Lecretia Seales, and her victimhood is being argued for by the Crown. That's why this case in which the Crown is arguing against our basic rights, and for a brave, intelligent woman to die in conditions she finds anathema, is pissing me off. It should piss you off too, and all people of reason.

There has only been one point on which Heron QC is correct throughout: this question should not have been up for Seales to take to court in such poor health with so much at stake for her; it's the true ambit of a properly functioning legislature founded in protection of our rights. But the number of our politicians even talking about this most important case being conducted in our courts this week? NONE.

Mob rule was always a broken concept: in this case its vicious.


Further Reading:

Lecretia Seales Fight for the Right to Die: RNZ Interview.

Lecretia Searle Takes Her Case to High Court | MIA Our Politicians.

Why this Government Urgently Needs to Pick Up Maryan Street’s Bill.

Email to Dr. Mark Peterson, Chair of New Zealand Medical Association I.

Email to Dr. Mark Peterson, Chair of New Zealand Medical Association II – The Response.


at

4 comments:

  1. Angry ToryMay 27, 2015 at 7:27 PM

    Finally, yes, an adversarial justice system is crucial to the proper functioning of the free society

    Because an inquisitorial justice system is somehow antithetical to "freedom"?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark HubbardMay 27, 2015 at 9:15 PM

      Whatever. Entirely not the issue, which is euthanasia.

      Delete
  2. chocJune 5, 2015 at 10:56 PM

    You have no clue what you're talking about and are either unwilling or incapable of the critical thinking needed to get one.

    You choose conclusions and then rationalize about them. This is anathema to the functioning of the courts and every theory in modern jurisprudence regarding how justice is possible for courts to deliver at a better rate than random chance. You're not in any position to comprehend the workings of our justice system.


    People who arrive at conclusions by reasoning to them find them important the way your teachers found how you arrived at the answer to questions important. A broken analogue clock displays the right time for 2 minutes a day, and during those 2 minutes, no matter that I agree it is displaying the right time, I still maintain that it is broken.

    If you reasoned to conclusions instead of picking the one like and then rationalizing to legitimatize that to yourself, you'd appreciate why someone would find flawed reasoning important enough to discuss whether they agree with the conclusion or not, and you wouldn't jump to wild assumptions about peoples' opinions on your conclusions based on them being critical of your rationalizations.

    You'd be able to at least conceive that assessment of the quality of the argument you propose is distinct from opinions on the conclusion you've attached it to if you used reasoning to arrive at conclusions even occasionally.

    What you're pissing and moaning about here is that the adversarial system you assert is crucial to proper functioning of a free society was complied with. That's your issue - someone had the nerve to do what has to be done for a system you claim is crucial to function and that's an outrage to you. Absurd.

    But if you don't understand the role of precedent in our court system, there's no way you'd comprehend why someone obliged to take every reasonable step to win their case would be obliged to present arguments that address existing jurisprudence. To you, appropriate legal arguments should be dictated by what you think makes sense or what fits your ideological slant, but in reality, most arguments made are not the invention of the counsel arguing them, but an iteration of how existing jurisprudence applies to the specifics of the case being argued.

    Does the existing body of jurisdiction give no weight to the potential risks the state seeks to mitigate when considering the appropriate scope of state intervention between an individual and a health care provider? You have no clue right? You didn't even know it was relevant. You just pick the conclusions you like so systematic processes intended to produce reliably consistent results is not something you understand or are interested in learning about. That's why you're not in any danger of even comprehending how our courts work, much less being qualified to comment sensibly.

    You're certainly not advancing the cause of euthanasia rights - perhaps you're just completely impotent rather than actively detracting from your cause by associating it with a mockery of ignorance and incomprehension. You don't have much reach so the prospects are in your favor there at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Mark HubbardJune 6, 2015 at 7:14 AM

      So after I blocked you on Twitter you stalk me here? Right.

      Can't be bothered readig.

      Euthanasia is my basic right, read every blog post listed here. There is NO valid argument against it.

      Delete