MADALA J regard could not stand.5 [45] The fundamental issue is whether this Court, as the guardian of the Constitution, as the protector of human rights and as the upholder of democracy, should in this case require a health authority, acting through its authorised medical practitioner, to adopt a course of treatment which in the bona fide clinical and incisive judgment of the practitioner will not cure the patient but merely prolong his life for some time. Dr Naicker’s qualifications as head of the Renal Unit at Addington Hospital are undoubted and her 18 years experience as a specialist physician in the field of renal medicine puts her in a singular position when it comes to the exercise by her of her own professional judgment on renal matters. She states in her affidavit in the present matter that patients who suffer from chronic renal failure, the condition which has afflicted the appellant, have as their only hope, either an organ transplant or long-term dialysis. It is always envisaged when such patients are put on the dialysis programme, that in due course a suitable cadaver transplant may be carried out or that organ donation may be made by a suitable living person. The appellant is not a suitable candidate for renal transplant; also he does not qualify for long-term dialysis because of the scarcity of facilities and his state of health. 5 Harksen v Lane NO and Others CCT 9/97, 7 October 1997, as yet unreported; President of the Republic of South Africa and another v Hugo 1997 (4) SA 1 (CC); 1997 (6) BCLR 708 (CC); Prinsloo v Van der Linde and another 1997 (3) SA 1012 (CC); 1997 (6) BCLR 759 (CC); and Brink v Kitshoff NO 1996 (4) SA 197 (CC); 1996 (6) BCLR 752 (CC). 25