Robert Stransham-Ford‚ who won the right to die with a doctor’s help‚ was wrong when he said his terminal cancer robbed him of his constitutional right to dignity.

This is according to the Health Professions Council of SA’s (HPCSA) appeal papers against the landmark ruling that Stransham-Ford be allowed to commit doctor-assisted suicide.

In legal papers Stransham-Ford‚ 65‚ argued that his slow death‚ his pain‚ and inability to get to the toilet or eat was undignified.

He wanted to choose when he would die‚ without using morphine for pain‚ and with his family around him.

In appeal papers filed this week‚ the HPCSA said: “The process of dying does not constitute an insult upon human dignity.”

“Infirmity‚ incompetence‚ dementia and immobility‚ all of them of natural origins‚ limit human possibility. But sooner or later they are unavoidable‚ the products of inevitable bodily and or mental decay.”

Appeal papers for the state‚ filed by the ministers of health and justice and the director of public prosecutions‚ state “dying is part of life‚ its completion”.

Three weeks ago‚ Judge Hans Fabricius ruled the doctor who helped Stransham-Ford die would be protected from criminal and civil sanction and would not lose his medical licence.

Fabricius found Stransham-Ford was constitutionally entitled to a dignified death.

Ironically‚ Stransham’s Ford died naturally two hours before the ruling‚ unbeknown to his lawyers or the judge at the time.

The state has asked that the order be rescinded‚ arguing it is moot because it only applied to Stransham-Ford‚ who died before the ruling. The order is precedent-setting‚ allowing other patients of a sound mine and only weeks from death to approach the courts to ask for doctor-assisted suicide.

In his ruling‚ Fabricius found that the law reform commission‚ which examined the issue of assisted suicide in 1998‚ found in favour of the procedure. His findings were slammed by the state and professions council in their appeal papers who

point out this was not the case.

The law reform commission concluded its investigation into assisted suicide with three scenarios to be debated in Parliament. Two of the scenarios were in favour of euthanasia and one suggesting it remain illegal.

The state also argues the judge overstepped his judicial authority by making a precedent-setting ruling which allows patients who are weeks away from death to approach the courts for doctor-assisted suicide. They say law changes must be dealt with by Parliament.

“Overzealous judicial reform is not to be countenanced.”

 The HPCSA argued that South Africa is not a place that euthanasia should take place due to the lack of good quality “palliative” care that helps dying people manage their physical and emotional pain. A lack of palliative care could lead terminally ill people to request assisted suicide out of desperation‚ it argues.

“In South Africa‚ with severe constraints on health care facilities‚ the totally inadequate allocation of resources for effective medical treatment and the pervasive lack of an ethos of respect for human life‚ there is a real risk of euthanasia becoming a substitute for proper care for terminally ill and other patients in dire medical straits.”

It also questioned the judge’s finding that animals in severe suffering had to be put down‚ but humans could not request the same treatment.

“Dignity is a quality peculiar to human beings not animals.”

Dignity SA’s spokesman Professor Willem Landman said the organisation welcomed the appeal saying the Constitutional Court was best placed to deal with issues raised by the court case.