Report comment

"Because the courts have stated that this is a question for parliament. The SC has already made it abundantly clear that under no circumstances other than legislative change will the judiciary sanction assistance to suicide. The courts have already been looked to, and we already have our answer. It is a clear, unambiguous answer."

This is absolutely not the issue. It will never be, and rightly so, the place of the Judiciary to alter, selectively apply or override the laws made by an elected Parliament. That is a basic premise of the system, and at any rate it isn't the reason Mr Conway's application was dismissed.

What the Court is able to do, however, is declare that they consider legislation to be incompatible with human rights, which is the contention in this case. While the Court cannot compel Parliament to change the law, it may cause them to rethink the position, and until the Court does adopt this stance, of course people in such desperate and unacceptable situations will keep trying.

This is, of course, a highly subjective issue, and there will always be dissenting opinions. Accordingly, I do not claim to be 'correct' in considering it is a human right to be able to end your own life as you see fit. But when you consider that many people once thought that slavery, a clear violation of human rights, was acceptable, I don't think it is too obscure to suggest that to not allow someone free will over the termination of their life is against human rights, despite people believing otherwise.