In the absence of legislation on assisted dying, we have to establish the right to a doctor - assisted death through the courts but we also hope that Paul's case will help to stimulate public debate on this issue, and convince Parliament to listen to
the massive majority opinion in this country and legalise assisted dying.»
I guess it's lawblogging day, so here's an idea I've been thinking about for years but haven't seen in the legal literature (maybe it's there somewhere): when the dissent says the
majority opinion could have
massive legal implications, the dissent is helping making those implications happen.