{"id":1254,"date":"2015-04-11T12:29:35","date_gmt":"2015-04-11T03:59:35","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.peacefulpillhandbook.com\/?p=1254"},"modified":"2020-11-01T22:28:32","modified_gmt":"2020-11-01T13:58:32","slug":"nunc-viverra","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.euthanasia.net\/pph\/nunc-viverra\/","title":{"rendered":"Lucretia Seales is a New Zealand lawyer dying of a brain tumour"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"Lucretia\"<\/a>

Lucretia Seales on ABC TV<\/p><\/div>\n

Lucretia Seales is a New Zealand lawyer dying of a brain tumour.<\/p>\n

She was interviewed on ABC TV’s Lateline<\/em> show on Friday 10 April 2015.\u00a0 The interview has many points of note:<\/p>\n

Lucretia was asked in detail about the desired manner and timing of her death<\/strong>. Her response was the same as that of many Exit Members; she wants to die at home after a lovely meal, surrounded by family and her beloved cat. In regard to the timing of her death, she stated that it would be at a time prior to her losing her mental faculties ‘because that is not who I am’.<\/p>\n

When asked of her end of life options at the current time, Lucretia’s responses focused on refusing food and liquids<\/strong>, in essence starving herself to death. Hardly dignified and hardly desirable. A point she would come back to reference at the end of the interview.<\/p>\n

In regard to her legal battle, Lucretia spoke about the disjunction between the NZ Crimes Act<\/em> and the NZ Bill of Rights<\/em><\/strong>. She is seeking a declaration to assert her right to choose when and how she dies. She stated it is not the role of the doctor or the family. She wants a framework for people who are terminally ill to die in a dignified manner.\u00a0 This is especially since suicide is not a crime in New Zealand (as is the case for most western countries).<\/p>\n

Legally speaking, a ‘declaration’ falls within the law of equity.\u00a0 A declaration is a remedy to settle a real legal controversy.\u00a0 A similar approach was taken in the Canadian case of Gloria Taylor where it was held in February 2015 that the criminal laws of Canada had violated the section 7 protections of ‘life, liberty and security’ of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms<\/strong><\/em>.<\/p>\n

A similar approach was taken by the partner of Exit’s Tom Curran, Marie Fleming<\/a>, in Ireland in 2013. In that case, Marie had sought a declaration from Ireland’s Supreme Court that under the Irish Constitution<\/strong><\/em> where the right to life is protected, so there is a corresponding right to die assisted by others. Marie lost her case.<\/p>\n

4. When asked who should have access to life ending drugs<\/strong>, Lucretia replied that it should only be for ‘competent adults’. While this view is understandable, it would mean that a younger person who is also terminally ill would be refused help to die.\u00a0 The terminally ill nineteen year old would have their suffering prolonged.<\/p>\n

This is not the case in either the Netherlands or Belgium where children now have access to voluntary death laws.\u00a0 It is to the ABC’s shame that the interviewer, Emma Alberici, then tried to tease out whether Lucretia supported voluntary euthanasia for those with dementia or depression<\/strong>, ‘as is the case in Switzerland’ she argued.<\/p>\n

In Switzerland<\/strong>, the legal model is entirely different. Helping someone to die is not predicated upon a particular illness or suffering. Rather, as long as the act of helping is not done for selfish reasons, the assistance provided is not unlawful. And besides, a personal with a terminal diagnosis is often depressed. Who wouldn’t be. But does this mean they have lost their decision-making capacity? Of course not.<\/p>\n

And on the issue of dementia, it is only the Netherlands who allows, controversially, an advance directive to include a direction to voluntary euthanasia at a time when capacity is lost due to dementia.\u00a0 Given the increase in rates of dementia amongst a population that is living longer than ever before, and given the concern amongst the elderly of what will happen to them should they be diagnosed with dementia, this is the elephant in the room that few commentators as yet have had the courage to discuss.<\/p>\n

The ABC would do well to involve themselves in the more rigorous and intellectual aspects of this debate, rather than creating a moral panic of slippery slopes and lack of safeguards.<\/p>\n

To her credit Lucretia stated that people with dementia should be allowed access to a law<\/strong>.\u00a0 This echoes the 2012 ‘End of Life Choices Bill’ of former NZ MP for Nelson, Maryann Street. No doubt Lucretia was aware of this legislative attempt for change, even though Street withdrew this Bill from the ballot prior to the 2014 New Zealand general election. It was the nail in the coffin of legislative change in NZ that Street went on to lose her seat and is now out of the NZ Parliament altogether.<\/p>\n

5. Continuing on the same well-trodden, scare-mongering line of questioning, Alberici continued by asking what sort of safeguards<\/strong> would be necessary to ensure the elderly or the vulnerable were not subjected to ‘intolerable pressure’ to do the right thing and die.<\/p>\n

The response from Lucretia was that the request would need to come from the patient themselves, the request would need to be repeated, the doctor would need to be satisfied that there was no coercion, and the death was formally reported.<\/p>\n

These are the exact same requirements<\/strong> that operated under the Northern Territory’s Rights of the Terminally Ill Act<\/em> 1995<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The safeguards under Section 7 of\u00a0 that Act were that the patient had to:<\/p>\n