Euthanasia is not just a private matter, writes Gerard Ansley.
The High Court in Wellington is considering an application regarding a New Zealander's right to die.
This case has been brought by Lecretia Seales who is suffering from a terminal brain tumour and would like to be able to choose when to die, with the help of her doctor.
Her situation is sad and we feel sympathy for the suffering she and her family face.
On May 17, the Sunday programme on TV One aired an interview with Lecretia and her husband, Matt Vickers.
The programme put forward her case and asked her husband how he felt.
In discussing how he felt about his wife's decision, Matt replied: ''Who am I to stand in her way?''
On the Facebook page associated with this programme, respondents have largely agreed - ''This is what she wants, and it should be her right''.
But is it her right?
She is asking that a third party, a doctor, be instructed to assist her to die when she thinks she would like to.
We do not think any person has the right to die because their decision can never be made in isolation, and any society that legalises euthanasia puts its most vulnerable people at risk of harm.
This case will set a legal precedent and the decision will inevitably impact on all New Zealanders.
Why is this not debated in the public domain?
If a wider debate is circumvented, the possibility of raising broader valid objections will be denied.
An important concern, beyond this particular case, is the law's ability to provide sufficient safeguards and to prevent the occurrence of a ''slippery slope'' where the use of euthanasia is continually extended to include more categories of people.
The experience of places like Belgium, the Netherlands and Oregon, where euthanasia legislation has been introduced, is that legal protections cannot be guaranteed.
We need to be very alert to the prospect the sick, elderly and those with disabilities will be increasingly vulnerable if euthanasia is legalised.
This case cannot be just about Lecretia.
When euthanasia is introduced there tends to be a shift in societal attitudes.
In Belgium, for example, legislation has now changed so that children can ask to die.
Likewise in other places where euthanasia has been legalised there have been requests for assisted suicide for reasons that had not previously been imagined.
Have we had sufficient opportunity as a nation to consider these sorts of cultural shifts?
It is argued this is a singular request concerning only Lecretia and her doctor.
But the decision of the individual doctor will also impact on the entire medical profession.
There are good reasons why the New Zealand Medical Council consistently opposes efforts to introduce physician-assisted dying.
Such a change to our society would mark a change in the role of the medical professional and would potentially jeopardise the relationship between doctor and patient; in particular undermining trust.
Is this simply Lecretia Seales' decision?
We do not believe it is.
Every individual choice occurs within a web of relationships.
Our lives are interconnected, and, while we can make personal choices in regard to our day-to-day lives, these decisions always arise within a communal context and with regard to the impact on others.
That is why this discussion should be in the public domain.
This case is not just about one person, and an individual's right to die.
It has widespread implications for all New Zealanders.
We need a good rigorous debate on the extent of medical intervention for those facing terminal illness.
There also needs to be broad discussion of our society's understanding of dying, the availability of adequate funding for universal palliative care and about how we may best care for the sick and vulnerable.
The way the present case is being played seems to rule out such wider debate.
So why are we concerned?
As a group of Dunedin Catholic lay and religious people - who have been meeting regularly to consider the effects of law changes on New Zealand society - our concern is that there are important factors, relevant to all New Zealanders, that are not being sufficiently reflected upon, and that a change in the law, or its interpretation, allowing euthanasia to occur, would be harmful to the most vulnerable in our society.
Euthanasia is not just a private matter.
• Fr Ansley is parish priest of the Dunedin South parishes and chairman of Caritas' justice and peace committee. He wrote this for and on behalf of a group of Dunedin Catholic lay and religious people.
