,LCR4802 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS) Semester 2
2025 - DUE 2025; 100% trusted ,comprehensive and complete
reliable solution with clear explanation.
Assignment: Emergency Medical Intervention and Legal/Ethical
Obligations
Dr Rammage and her husband are out on a sunny Sunday morning, hiking
on Table Mountain. They come across a person, to whom we will refer as
John Doe, who is unresponsive and appears to be unconscious. John Doe
is not accompanied by anyone else. He is lying precariously on a loose
rock on a precipice, making it very dangerous for Dr Rammage to
properly examine him properly or move him. She can, however, reach his
wrist to feel his pulse. There is no evidence of any physical injuries but
he appears to have vomited. He appears severely dehydrated, his
breathing is rapid and deep and his breath has a fruity odour. Dr Rammage
notices that he is wearing a medical bracelet stating that he is a diabetic.
She finds insulin and a syringe in his backpack. Dr Rammage strongly
suspects he is in a state of diabetic ketoacidosis and in urgent need of
insulin, electrolytes, and intravenous fluids. She has an emergency kit in
her backpack containing everything required for setting up an intravenous
line for the purposes of administering fluids.
(a) Suppose Dr Rammage were to inject John Doe with insulin and
administer fluids and electrolytes intravenously. Discuss whether she
can have recourse to any statutory ground of justification for acting
, without John Doe’s consent, were she to face a claim for civil assault
or iniuria. (5)
Answer (a):
Dr Rammage’s actions, though without consent, fall under statutory and
common-law grounds of justification:
1. Statutory ground – s 5(1) of the National Health Act 61 of
2003: No person may be refused emergency medical treatment.
This authorises medical intervention in emergencies where the
patient cannot consent.
2. Necessity (common law): Acting to save John Doe’s life and
prevent serious harm constitutes necessity, which excludes
wrongfulness.
3. Implied consent doctrine: The law presumes a reasonable person
in John Doe’s position would consent to life-saving treatment if
conscious.
✅ Therefore, Dr Rammage can rely on these grounds of justification
and will not be liable for civil assault or iniuria.
(b) Discuss whether Dr Rammage can rely on any common-law
ground of justification for providing the care set out in Question (a)
without John Doe’s consent. (7)
2025 - DUE 2025; 100% trusted ,comprehensive and complete
reliable solution with clear explanation.
Assignment: Emergency Medical Intervention and Legal/Ethical
Obligations
Dr Rammage and her husband are out on a sunny Sunday morning, hiking
on Table Mountain. They come across a person, to whom we will refer as
John Doe, who is unresponsive and appears to be unconscious. John Doe
is not accompanied by anyone else. He is lying precariously on a loose
rock on a precipice, making it very dangerous for Dr Rammage to
properly examine him properly or move him. She can, however, reach his
wrist to feel his pulse. There is no evidence of any physical injuries but
he appears to have vomited. He appears severely dehydrated, his
breathing is rapid and deep and his breath has a fruity odour. Dr Rammage
notices that he is wearing a medical bracelet stating that he is a diabetic.
She finds insulin and a syringe in his backpack. Dr Rammage strongly
suspects he is in a state of diabetic ketoacidosis and in urgent need of
insulin, electrolytes, and intravenous fluids. She has an emergency kit in
her backpack containing everything required for setting up an intravenous
line for the purposes of administering fluids.
(a) Suppose Dr Rammage were to inject John Doe with insulin and
administer fluids and electrolytes intravenously. Discuss whether she
can have recourse to any statutory ground of justification for acting
, without John Doe’s consent, were she to face a claim for civil assault
or iniuria. (5)
Answer (a):
Dr Rammage’s actions, though without consent, fall under statutory and
common-law grounds of justification:
1. Statutory ground – s 5(1) of the National Health Act 61 of
2003: No person may be refused emergency medical treatment.
This authorises medical intervention in emergencies where the
patient cannot consent.
2. Necessity (common law): Acting to save John Doe’s life and
prevent serious harm constitutes necessity, which excludes
wrongfulness.
3. Implied consent doctrine: The law presumes a reasonable person
in John Doe’s position would consent to life-saving treatment if
conscious.
✅ Therefore, Dr Rammage can rely on these grounds of justification
and will not be liable for civil assault or iniuria.
(b) Discuss whether Dr Rammage can rely on any common-law
ground of justification for providing the care set out in Question (a)
without John Doe’s consent. (7)
