Is section 59 necessary for the good order of society and the protection of the vulnerable or is it just a case of one section of society imposing its values on everyone else? There are some things that are immoral and some things that are illegal and some things that are both. I have always understood that the purpose of civil law was to preserve good order in society and to protect those who cannot protect themselves. What some one considers immoral, good or bad,  however depends on how they perceive reality, not on laws.

For example, if some one I does not believe, as I do, that there is life after death and that  “no man is an island” – my being is woven into the tapestry of the universe connecting me intimately to all other beings – then I can understand why that person would see nothing at all wrong with euthanasia. The question then arises is a law prohibiting euthanasia necessary for the good order of society and for the protection of the vulnerable? That is where the discussion should be, otherwise we are talking past each other.

Now that we live in a society in which there is no shared understanding of what life is all about and consequently no agreement about what is moral and what is immoral – what is good and what is bad-, there is a growing tendency to impose morality by means of law and to ask policeman to take over from ministers and priests the task of persuading and sometimes imposing morality on the masses. Is section 59 a case in point?