The terminally will not be able to approach the courts and ask for the right to die after the SCA upheld the government's appeal against a High Court judgment in which euthanasia advocate Robin Stransham-Ford won the right to doctor-assisted suicide last year‚ but died two hours before the ruling was given.

Stransham-Ford‚ who had terminal cancer‚ argued that his constitutional rights to dignity and bodily integrity were impaired because he was in pain and unable to look after himself. Gauteng High Court (Pretoria) Judge Hans Fabricius ordered that he had the right to die with a doctor’s help‚ and that the doctor would not face sanction. The Departments of Health and Justice‚ and the Health Professions Council of SA appealed.

A TimesLIVE report notes the SCA yesterday upheld the state's appeal‚ saying the separation of powers doctrine meant it was Parliament’s – not the courts – job to make new laws. The SCA said it would ‘welcome’ Parliament being involved in a debate about doctor-assisted suicide. The judgment found that the issues about choosing when to die were ‘engaging profound moral questions beyond the remit of judges to determine‚ (and) should be decided by the representatives of the people of the country as a whole’.

Full TimesLIVE report

Minister of Justice and Correctional Services v Estate Stransham-Ford

The court also found that Stransham-Ford's death may have been kept from his advocates‚ so that the judgment would be made in the High Court, says a second TimesLIVE report. He died at 8.07am. However‚ his doctor was called hours later after the ruling. One of the first things his ex-wife Penelope Stransham-Ford said to the treating doctor was that Stransham-Ford had won his case‚ according to court papers. The judges found that ‘we do not know why Judge Hans Fabricius was not informed of Mr Stransham-Ford’s death before he handed down his order’. But it noted with ‘disquiet’ the fact that his treating doctor was informed after the death and ruling. ‘It is difficult to avoid the inference that his death was not reported because it was thought that it might affect the decision.’ The judges also found that the order was specific to his wish to die with help and on a day of his choosing. They said that he died before the ruling‚ meaning it didn’t apply, and for this reason had to be overturned. ‘The nature of the relief claimed by Stransham-Ford makes it clear that this was a personal action. His death extinguished his claim for relief.’ The court said it could not decide on constitutional issues relating to his case because the case itself was not valid. ‘The court must wait for litigants to bring an appropriate case before them that warrant such development.’

Full TimesLIVE report

Dignity SA founder Sean Davison mentions the possibility of the Constitutional Court challenge in a Beeld report, saying it is a ‘basic human rights issue’ that is unlikely to be handled by Parliament soon. According to Davison, politicians are afraid to tackle the controversial issue. Ethicist Willem Landman, who is also part of Dignity SA’s executive, noted that laws were drafted as early as 1999 in order of then President Nelson Mandela, but ‘gathered dust on the desk of Manto Tshabalala-Msimang for the next 10 years’.

Full Beeld report