LCR4802/202/1/2019
Tutorial Letter 202/1/2019
Medical Law
LCR4802
Semester 1
Department of Criminal and Procedural Law
This tutorial letter contains important information
about your module.
Bar code
, LCR4802/202
Dear Student
FEEDBACK ON ASSIGNMENT 02
This tutorial letter contains feedback on Assignment 02. Study the comments carefully,
and compare them with your own answers.
We would like to remind you that the semester mark contributes 20% towards your final
mark for this module. The average of the marks you obtained for the two compulsory
assignments will constitute your semester mark.
Question 1
The correct option is (4).
In Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC), Mr Soobramoney
was not admitted to the kidney dialysis programme at a state hospital because the hospital
did not have the funds to supply dialysis treatment to all patients with chronic kidney failure.
As there were far more patients with chronic kidney failure than dialysis machines to treat
these patients, guidelines were set up to help medical personnel make the soulwrenching
decisions on who will receive treatment. Why could Mr Soobramoney not be admitted to the
dialysis programme in terms of these guidelines?
(1) He did not suffer from acute kidney failure and only patients who suffered from acute
kidney failure were eligible for dialysis.
Incorrect: In terms of the hospital’s policy, patients with acute kidney failure who
could be cured by dialysis were automatically admitted to the dialysis programme.
Patients with irreversible chronic kidney failure (such as Mr Soobramoney) were not
automatically admitted, although they were not automatically excluded either. They
could be admitted to the programme provided they complied with certain guidelines.
According to these guidelines, the patient with irreversible chronic kidney failure had
to be eligible for a kidney transplant in order to be admitted, and Mr Soobramoney
was not eligible for a kidney transplant because he suffered from ischemic heart
disease and cerebro-vascular disease. See 1.6 of the study guide.
(2) His case was not serious enough.
Incorrect: In fact, his case was dire. Dialysis could have kept him alive for some
time, but could not cure him. He was not eligible for a kidney transplant because he
suffered from a number of other serious conditions. There were far more patients with
chronic kidney failure than dialysis machines. It was therefore not possible to treat all
chronically ill patients. The hospital’s guidelines were intended to help the medical
personnel make the soul-wrenching decisions on who will receive treatment.
Application of these guidelines meant that far more patients benefitted from the
programme than would have been the case had the limited number of dialysis
machines been used to keep people with chronic kidney failure alive. Application of
the guidelines ensures a greater probability of more beneficial treatment, as it is
aimed at a cure and not merely at caring for patients in a chronically ill state. See 1.6
of the study guide.
2
Tutorial Letter 202/1/2019
Medical Law
LCR4802
Semester 1
Department of Criminal and Procedural Law
This tutorial letter contains important information
about your module.
Bar code
, LCR4802/202
Dear Student
FEEDBACK ON ASSIGNMENT 02
This tutorial letter contains feedback on Assignment 02. Study the comments carefully,
and compare them with your own answers.
We would like to remind you that the semester mark contributes 20% towards your final
mark for this module. The average of the marks you obtained for the two compulsory
assignments will constitute your semester mark.
Question 1
The correct option is (4).
In Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC), Mr Soobramoney
was not admitted to the kidney dialysis programme at a state hospital because the hospital
did not have the funds to supply dialysis treatment to all patients with chronic kidney failure.
As there were far more patients with chronic kidney failure than dialysis machines to treat
these patients, guidelines were set up to help medical personnel make the soulwrenching
decisions on who will receive treatment. Why could Mr Soobramoney not be admitted to the
dialysis programme in terms of these guidelines?
(1) He did not suffer from acute kidney failure and only patients who suffered from acute
kidney failure were eligible for dialysis.
Incorrect: In terms of the hospital’s policy, patients with acute kidney failure who
could be cured by dialysis were automatically admitted to the dialysis programme.
Patients with irreversible chronic kidney failure (such as Mr Soobramoney) were not
automatically admitted, although they were not automatically excluded either. They
could be admitted to the programme provided they complied with certain guidelines.
According to these guidelines, the patient with irreversible chronic kidney failure had
to be eligible for a kidney transplant in order to be admitted, and Mr Soobramoney
was not eligible for a kidney transplant because he suffered from ischemic heart
disease and cerebro-vascular disease. See 1.6 of the study guide.
(2) His case was not serious enough.
Incorrect: In fact, his case was dire. Dialysis could have kept him alive for some
time, but could not cure him. He was not eligible for a kidney transplant because he
suffered from a number of other serious conditions. There were far more patients with
chronic kidney failure than dialysis machines. It was therefore not possible to treat all
chronically ill patients. The hospital’s guidelines were intended to help the medical
personnel make the soul-wrenching decisions on who will receive treatment.
Application of these guidelines meant that far more patients benefitted from the
programme than would have been the case had the limited number of dialysis
machines been used to keep people with chronic kidney failure alive. Application of
the guidelines ensures a greater probability of more beneficial treatment, as it is
aimed at a cure and not merely at caring for patients in a chronically ill state. See 1.6
of the study guide.
2
