S v Hartmann[1] is an important criminal case in South African law, especially in respect of its implications for euthanasia.
He had been aware, however, that his actions would end his father's life, and therefore had sufficient murderous intention, dolus directus, for legal purposes.
The Press fed like vultures blowing the truth into eye-catching headlines to sell their twisted lies.
But from the pact made between father and son as his father's wish three weeks before, to the hospital bedside, to the Supreme Court and beyond - when vindictiveness became the ugly face of medicine in place of "Mercy to the rising of the Court" which went out the window - she saw, and heard, the man they convicted, slandered, and eventually struck off the Medical Roll, while every other medic had the right to unplug a patient's life-line, without conviction instead.
- Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 - with no second thought nor terms called 'murder and punishment' for the same choice given in the fields of compassion for suffering within Animal Veterinary .