Postmodernism & euthanasia
In 2015, Judge Fabricius authorised the euthanasia of Robin Stransham-Ford, who thankfully died before this could be carried out. The case brings into it the issue of postmodernism in both philosophy and law.
* Firstly, Fabricius own personal philosophy from his judgement reasoning appears to be postmodernism, which he wishes to impose on the rest of South African society. No longer are there any absolutes, but rather just relative undefined ideas of such as dignity and the autonomy of the individual. Similar postmodern philosophical arguments dominate the university medical bioethics faculties and appear to have influenced him.
* Secondly, he bases his decision not on South African law but on one of the worlds most postmodern countries, Canada and specificially a judicial elite within that country also seeking to impose its will on the majority.
* Thirdly, he decides as postmodernists usually do to base his interpretation of the Bill of Rights not in the stated words in the text nor in the intent of the writers of the Bill of Rights (most of whom are still alive and the discussion is on public record), but rather on his own intepretation of the definitions of the meanings of the terms which he bends and stretches to suit his own agenda to legalise euthanasia.
The above philosophy of law is similar to that used to reach the decision to legalise so called ‘same-sex marriage’ in both South Africa and the United States. The dissenting judges Thomas and Scalia of the American Supreme Court condemned their 2015 decision in favour of so-called ‘same-sex marriage’, saying only was it incorrect but that the court had become a threat to democracy. “I write separately to call attention to this Court’s threat to American democracy.” https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf
All of this shows how postmodernism is harmful judicially and politically to the morals of society and to democracy.