Proving Too Much

Man Up, Everybody

A euthanasia case is currently being argued before NZ courts.  One blogger reviews the case, making reference to an article published in the NZ Law Journal which gives the case a strong chance of success.  Amidst the review, we find the following:

. . . . This alternative meaning would distinguish between the sorts of intentional self-inflicted deaths we ordinarily think of as being “suicide” (the lovesick teen, the family breadwinner facing financial crisis, etc.) and the act of a competent, terminally ill person who is seeking (as in Ms Seales’ case) to choose a more peaceful death when brought to death’s door by the advance of disease and enduring unbearable suffering. Are these scenarios distinguishable from each other, and can that distinction be given effect under the specific wording of the Crimes Act?

I think that the two situations are very different. Not helping a depressed teenager kill themselves is very different to not helping someone who is facing an agonising death, from avoiding some suffering.

The situations referred to have differing accidents to be sure.  But what is common to both is the alleged sovereign will of an individual human being to take his or her own life.  One cannot have a sovereign will at 65, and not at 16.
  There is no standard by which one can claim a sovereign right to die at 65, and not at 16--and any attempt to manufacture one is subject to just charges of hypocritical cant and gross subjectivity.  Why should society be allowed to decide that circumstance A does give a right to assisted suicide, but circumstance B does not.  For both cases inevitably turn around the assertion of a sovereign will over one's own existence.  What society wants or chooses is irrelevant, once the sovereignty of the individual's will is granted.


Why a 65 year old should have such a sovereign will acceded to whilst a 16 year old's will is traduced is impossible to maintain--at least by any rational principle.  Circumstances and accidents cannot compromise an autonomous, sovereign human will, such that it can be overridden by someone else.  If it can be, then the will is not sovereign.  The only rational limitation is to assert or prove that one is not in his or her right mind.  But by what standard will one establish that the 65 year old is not in his right mind, and the 16 year old is when it comes to a desire to die?  By what standard can it be established that the 16 year old who wants to die is "depressed", whilst the 65 year old is not? 

Both the 16 year old and the 65 year old are criminally liable for their actions: the law holds them responsible.  The sovereignty of their respective wills is acknowledged throughout their life: both are held accountable for every decision taken.  But why, then, when it comes to self-willed dying, the 65 year old's will is magically regarded as more sovereign and of greater authority than the 16 year old's?  Let's all roll our eyes and express a huge sigh.  PULEEEZE.  Man up, everybody.