Parliament should give "serious consideration" to a law legalising euthanasia. Pretoria High Court Judge Hans Fabricius - in his written judgment explaining his reasons for allowing Robin Stransham-Ford a doctor's assistance to die - calls for a debate on such a bill.The draft law should be based on the 1998 Law Reform Commission report on assisted suicide and viewed through the lens of the Bill of Rights.Substantiating his judgment in the Stransham-Ford case, Judge Fabricius said that "rather than religious or moral ideas", the constitution should inform the public's view. "The applicant's rights, which were sacrosanct to him, could not be sacrificed on the altar of religious self-righteousness."Stransham-Ford died hours before the verdict was handed down.The judge quoted the ruling of former Justice Kate O'Regan that the right to life is not separate from the right to dignity. This meant the constitutional right to life could not be used to deny Stransham-Ford's request that he be allowed a dignified death, says Fabricius.The state argued that the right to life meant euthanasia was illegal and unconstitutional.Judge Fabricius found it contradictory that humans could choose whether to marry, what to study and even to refuse medical care but "could not choose how to die".He questioned how people "tolerate a horrendous murder rate" and "slaughter on roads" yet allow "the government to refuse a suffering person a dignified death".He agreed with Stransham-Ford's contention that it was a crime and cruel when an owner allows a suffering pet to stay alive instead of putting it down.But Fabricius conceded he could not tell the government what to do.In 1998, then president Nelson Mandela asked the Law Reform Commission to research "assisted suicide and the artificial preservation of life". The commission did extensive work, found in favour of assisted suicide and wrote a draft bill to legalise it.The bill, handed to the then health minister in 1999, has yet to be debated in parliament.Fabricius said that had Stransham-Ford's application not been so urgent, due to his impending death, the judge would have expected the Department of Justice to explain its position on the draft euthanasia law and what it intended doing about the commission's proposals.In his 60-page judgment, he pointed out that in 1999 the commission said the Department of Health agreed with allowing terminally ill people to die with the help of a doctor.The commission drew up safeguards that would ensure only terminally ill adults who were mentally competent could request euthanasia. An adult also needed time to change their mind, had to ask for euthanasia repeatedly and prove they were acting voluntarily.Stransham-Ford, 65, referred to these safeguards in his affidavit and proved he had met all the criteria.He died of advanced cancer on Thursday, before Fabricius ruled on his case later that day.Because Stransham-Ford died before the ruling, Lesego Montsho SC, representing the director of public prosecutions and the health and justice departments, asked that the order be rescinded - as if it never happened.The judge refused to withdraw his order and said an appeal must decide whether his judgment was moot.The state advocate indicated an appeal would be requested. ..