UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
School of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
LCR4802: Medical Law
Assignment 1 | Semester 2, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
LCR4802
Module Code:
Medical Law
Module Name:
Unlawful refusal of treatment, structuring
Assignment Topic:
a medical practice, indemnity clauses and
patient complaints
Assignment 1
Assignment Number:
August 2026
Due Date:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Medical Law, UNISA 2026
, UNISA | LCR4802 Medical Law – Assignment 1
Question 1: Refusal of Admission at Ubuntu Health Centre
Sipho’s grievance engages two distinct legal relationships: his interaction with Ubuntu Health
Centre as a health establishment, and his interaction with Mr Khumalo as the treating practi-
tioner. Both relationships are governed by an overlapping set of constitutional, statutory and
common-law duties that limit the extent to which a patient requiring urgent care may lawfully
be turned away for want of immediate payment.
1.1 The constitutional foundation
Section 27(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to have access to health
care services, but this right is qualified: the state need only take reasonable legislative and
other measures, within available resources, to achieve its progressive realisation.1 Section
27(3), by contrast, is unqualified: ‘No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.’ 2
This distinction was drawn sharply by the Constitutional Court in Soobramoney v Minister of
Health, KwaZulu-Natal, where the applicant, who suffered from chronic renal failure, could
not bring himself within the ambit of s 27(3) because his need for ongoing dialysis was an
incurable, continuing state of affairs rather than a sudden catastrophe calling for immediate
remedial treatment.3 The corollary of Soobramoney is that where a patient’s condition gen-
uinely does call for immediate remedial treatment to avert harm, s 27(3) applies in full force
and admits of no resource-based limitation.4
1.2 Statutory reinforcement: the National Health Act
Section 27(3) is given direct legislative effect, and extended horizontally to private actors, by
s 5 of the National Health Act, which provides that a health care provider, health worker or
health establishment may not refuse a person emergency medical treatment.5 This provision
is not confined to organs of state; it binds private hospitals such as Ubuntu Health Centre and
individual practitioners such as Mr Khumalo in precisely the same terms as it binds public
institutions. An inability to pay, whether immediately or at all, is not a recognised ground on
which either a hospital or a practitioner may decline emergency treatment.
1
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 27(1)(a) read with s 27(2).
2
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 27(3).
3
Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC) para 21.
4
Soobramoney (n 3) para 20.
5
National Health Act 61 of 2003, s 5.
Page 2 of 14
School of Law
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
LCR4802: Medical Law
Assignment 1 | Semester 2, 2026
⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄ ⋄⋄
LCR4802
Module Code:
Medical Law
Module Name:
Unlawful refusal of treatment, structuring
Assignment Topic:
a medical practice, indemnity clauses and
patient complaints
Assignment 1
Assignment Number:
August 2026
Due Date:
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for Medical Law, UNISA 2026
, UNISA | LCR4802 Medical Law – Assignment 1
Question 1: Refusal of Admission at Ubuntu Health Centre
Sipho’s grievance engages two distinct legal relationships: his interaction with Ubuntu Health
Centre as a health establishment, and his interaction with Mr Khumalo as the treating practi-
tioner. Both relationships are governed by an overlapping set of constitutional, statutory and
common-law duties that limit the extent to which a patient requiring urgent care may lawfully
be turned away for want of immediate payment.
1.1 The constitutional foundation
Section 27(1)(a) of the Constitution guarantees everyone the right to have access to health
care services, but this right is qualified: the state need only take reasonable legislative and
other measures, within available resources, to achieve its progressive realisation.1 Section
27(3), by contrast, is unqualified: ‘No one may be refused emergency medical treatment.’ 2
This distinction was drawn sharply by the Constitutional Court in Soobramoney v Minister of
Health, KwaZulu-Natal, where the applicant, who suffered from chronic renal failure, could
not bring himself within the ambit of s 27(3) because his need for ongoing dialysis was an
incurable, continuing state of affairs rather than a sudden catastrophe calling for immediate
remedial treatment.3 The corollary of Soobramoney is that where a patient’s condition gen-
uinely does call for immediate remedial treatment to avert harm, s 27(3) applies in full force
and admits of no resource-based limitation.4
1.2 Statutory reinforcement: the National Health Act
Section 27(3) is given direct legislative effect, and extended horizontally to private actors, by
s 5 of the National Health Act, which provides that a health care provider, health worker or
health establishment may not refuse a person emergency medical treatment.5 This provision
is not confined to organs of state; it binds private hospitals such as Ubuntu Health Centre and
individual practitioners such as Mr Khumalo in precisely the same terms as it binds public
institutions. An inability to pay, whether immediately or at all, is not a recognised ground on
which either a hospital or a practitioner may decline emergency treatment.
1
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 27(1)(a) read with s 27(2).
2
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, s 27(3).
3
Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC) para 21.
4
Soobramoney (n 3) para 20.
5
National Health Act 61 of 2003, s 5.
Page 2 of 14
