This week we are exploring values and their role in decision-making.
To help better understand the diversity of our values and the implications of this on collaborative decision-making consider the following case recently before the NZ courts:
This time last year, Lecretia Seales sought a legal ruling for her doctor to have the right to give her a lethal dose of drugs.
Ms Seales, 42,died from brain cancer but in the latter stages of her life argued for the right to end her life with medical assistance before her suffering became unendurable.
In a hearing in the High Court at Wellington in 2015, three groups sought to have their say on whether Ms Seales could take a lethal dose of drugs.
The Human Rights Commission, Care Alliance Trust and Voluntary Euthanasia Society wanted to participate in Seales' trial.
Ms Seales' lawyer Dr Andrew Butler opposed applications from these other parties to join the legal challenge. He felt their involvement was elongating the court proceedings and while this held benefits for NZ society as a whole it would impacted megatively on Lucretia, personally.
Care Alliance, a coalition opposed to euthanasia and assisted suicide, said groups that worked with the elderly, infirm and in the field of suicide prevention had to be heard.
The coalition's lawyer Victoria Casey said Care Alliance had special expertise and wanted to present evidence the courts could benefit from.
She said changing the Crimes Act to allow Ms Seales' euthanasia would have impacted 'the whole of society'.
'There is harm to the vulnerable in society by lifting the ban,' she told Justice David Collins. 'These are not lightweight matters.'
Ms Casey said allowing Ms Seales to be administered a lethal dose of drugs would also create 'indirect or subtle pressure' on other people.
She said overseas evidence showed 'the concern about being a burden' was a major reason for older people exploring euthanasia as an option.
Ms Casey said respected medical associations around the world regarded euthanasia as unethical.
She said it was wrong to suggest the Attorney-General alone could tackle the case without input from special interest groups.
Ms Casey said overseas, many people lived 'every day' with the kind of suffering Ms Seales described.
Kate Davenport QC, the Voluntary Euthanasia Society's lawyer, said Ms Seales' legal challenge would not have created 'a personal decision in isolation'.
Instead, she said the issue was one of public policy and would 'affect the rights and obligations of many in the future'.
Ms Davenport said the Attorney-General already acknowledged he could not provide all the necessary evidence for the case.
She said the Society did not advocate euthanasia for the disabled, or for people unable to make decisions for themselves.
But Ms Davenport said other New Zealanders were in a similar position to Ms Seales, and the Society could play a useful valuable role in discussions about the 'wider public importance' the case raised.
Human Rights Commission lawyer Matthew Palmer QC said the Commission could play a helpful role as a neutral, independent party assisting the court.
Dr Palmer also said the outcome of Ms Seales' bid would not be 'confined' but would have impacts on other people.
'If ever there was a case of widespread public importance, this is it.'
He said the Commission did not take a view on the morality of euthanasia but had helped courts navigate tricky public policy issues before.
'The Commission recognises that the proceedings were sensitive and of intense personal concern to the plaintiff.'
The Commission had 'independent expertise' on human rights relevant to the euthanasia debate and was seeking to file written submissions, but not evidence, Dr Palmer said.
For the Crown, Professor Paul Rishworth said the Seales case raised debates about palliative care, ethics, euthanasia in other countries, and definitions of culpable homicide.
Prof Rishworth said the Crown could not exclude the possibility other parties could help the court with Ms Seales' case.
It is illegal under the Crimes Act to incite, encourage, aid or abet anybody to commit suicide.
Ms Seales' case relied on provisions in the Bill of Rights Act protecting the rights to not be deprived of life or subjected to cruel treatment.
Read the 2015 article in full here: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/lifestyle/news/article.cfm?c_id=6&objectid=11436259
Now, with this case in mind, consider the following questions.
Image source NZ Herald