Article Sidebar
Published:
May 5, 2017Article Details
Copyright remains in the Author’s name. The work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution - Noncommercial Works License. Authors are required to complete and sign an Author Agreement form that outlines Author and Publisher rights and terms of publication. The Agreement form should be uploaded along with other submissions files and any submission will be considered incomplete without it [forthcoming].
Material submitted for publication in the SAMJ is accepted provided it has not been published or submitted for publication elsewhere. Please inform the editorial team if the main findings of your paper have been presented at a conference and published in abstract form, to avoid copyright infringement. The SAMJ does not hold itself responsible for statements made by the authors.
Previously published images
If an image/figure has been previously published, permission to reproduce or alter it must be obtained by the authors from the original publisher and the figure legend must give full credit to the original source. This credit should be accompanied by a letter indicating that permission to reproduce the image has been granted to the author/s. This letter should be uploaded as a supplementary file during submission.
Main Article Content
Human dignity and the future of the voluntary active euthanasia debate in South Africa
Abstract
The issue of voluntary active euthanasia was thrust into the public policy arena by the Stransham-Ford lawsuit. The High Court legalised voluntary active euthanasia – however, ostensibly only in the specific case of Mr Stransham-Ford. The Supreme Court of Appeal overturned the High Court judgment on technical grounds, not on the merits. This means that in future the courts can be approached again to consider the legalisation of voluntary active euthanasia. As such, Stransham-Ford presents a learning opportunity for both sides of the legalisation divide. In particular, conceptual errors pertaining to human dignity were made in Stransham-Ford, and can be avoided in future. In this article, I identify these errors and propose the following three corrective principles to inform future debate on the subject: (i) human dignity is violable; (ii) human suffering violates human dignity; and (iii) the ‘natural’ causes of suffering due to terminal illness do not exclude the application of human dignity.
