In 2009 the legislature, judges & DPP each turned their attention to issues around assisted suicide. The legislature decided not to change the law. The judges decided the existing law was insufficiently clear & required the DPP to clarify it. The DPP flirted with reforming the law, but then drew back from such a legislative role. His published policy has been considered as a contribution to the regulation of death & dying, & as such has been found wanting. However, considered in the context of the proper roles of Parliament, courts & prosecutors, & seen as an exercise in constitutional restraint, the DPP's approach should be appraised rather differently. From this perspective, the decision of the HL in Purdy raises significant concerns for the legitimacy of decision making in the contested moral issues that arise in healthcare ethics. In our democracy, courts should be wary of usurping legislative authority in areas where the Parliamentary position is clear. …