MADALA J interest in protecting and preserving the life and health of its citizens and to that end must do all in its power to protect and preserve life. [40] In another sense the appeal before us brings into sharp focus the dichotomy in which a changing society finds itself and in particular the problems attendant upon trying to distribute scarce resources on the one hand, and satisfying the designs of the Constitution with regard to the provision of health services on the other. It puts us in the very painful situation in which medical practitioners must find themselves daily when the question arises: “Should a doctor ever allow a patient to die when that patient has a treatable condition?” In the context of this case, the question to be answered is whether everybody has the right of access to kidney dialysis machines even where resources are scarce or limited. [41] Chapter 2 of the Constitution sets out the fundamental rights to which every person is entitled and also contains provisions dealing with the manner in which the chapter is to be interpreted by the courts. Kentridge AJ, who delivered the judgment of the Court in S v Zuma and Others,1 referred with approval2 to the judgment of Dickson J (later CJC) in R v Big M Drug Mart Ltd 3 and to the following passage in particular: 1 S v Zuma and Others 1995 (2) SA 642 (CC); 1995 (4) BCLR 401 (CC). 2 Id at para 15. 3 (1985) 18 DLR (4th) 321 at 359–60. 22