wrongfully if she were to do so," even if death were to ensue. Although "her conduct would not be justifiable in law on any of the grounds of justification ('regverdigingsgronde')," it was not necessary that Mrs Clarke's actions fit neatly into one of the established grounds of justification; rather, the concept of wrongfulness had itself to be examined. If the legal convictions of the society did not regard such actions as wrongful, they could not be wrongful in law; and it was no obstacle to this reasoning that legal convictions are very often shaped by moral convictions. "The distinction between what is wrong and what is right," Thirion noted, "cannot always be drawn according to logic. Logic does not dictate the formation of society's legal or moral convictions." He added that "law is but a translation of society's fundamental values into policies and prescripts for regulating its members' conduct." The application was therefore granted, and the court ordered that Mrs Clarke would not be acting wrongfully or unlawfully "if she authorises or directs the discontinuance of the naso-gastric or any other non-natural feeding regime for the J patient"; and/or "if she withholds agreement to medical or surgical treatment of the patient save such treatment as may seem to her appropriate for the comfort of the patient." References Clarke v Hurst NO and Others 1992 (4) SA 630 (D). Notes 1992 in South African law 1992 in case law Euthanasia law KwaZulu-Natal Division cases