SACHS J terms with our mortality. It is precisely here, where scarce artificial life-prolonging resources have to be called upon, that tragic medical choices have to be made. [58] Courts are not the proper place to resolve the agonising personal and medical problems that underlie these choices. Important though our review functions are, there are areas where institutional incapacity and appropriate constitutional modesty require us to be especially cautious. Our country’s legal system simply “cannot replace the more intimate struggle that must be borne by the patient, those caring for the patient, and those who care about the patient.”14 The provisions of the bill of rights should furthermore not be interpreted in a way which results in courts feeling themselves unduly pressurised by the fear of gambling with the lives of claimants into ordering hospitals to furnish the most expensive and improbable procedures, thereby diverting scarce medical resources and prejudicing the claims of others.15 [59] The applicant in this case presented his claim in a most dignified manner and showed manifest appreciation for the situation of the many other persons in the same harsh circumstances as himself. If resources were co-extensive with compassion, I have 14 In re Jobes 529 A2d 434 at 451 (NJ SCt, 1987). And see Lo et al “Family Decision-making on Trial: Who Decides for Incompetent Patients?” (1990) 322 New England Journal of Medicine 1228 at 1231. 15 Gostin commenting in “Session II Defining the Right to Adequate Health” Economic and Social Rights and the Right to Health: An Interdisciplinary Discussion Held at Harvard Law School in September, 1993 (Harvard Law School Human Rights Program, Cambridge MA 1995) 17 at 20. 33