, LCR4802 Assignment 1 (COMPLETE ANSWERS)
Semester 2 2025 - DUE September 2025; 100% correct
solutions and explanations.
(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.
In South African law, a medical practitioner who treats a patient
without their consent ordinarily runs the risk of legal liability for
infringing that patient’s rights. The two possible delicts that could
arise are civil assault, which refers to the unlawful violation of a
person’s bodily integrity, and iniuria, which refers to the unlawful
and intentional infringement of a person’s personality rights, such as
dignity, bodily integrity, or privacy. Because informed consent is a
central requirement in medical law, treatment without consent is
usually unlawful unless there is a recognised justification.
In this scenario, John Doe is unconscious and therefore incapable of
granting informed consent. Dr Rammage, a qualified medical
practitioner, is convinced based on clear clinical signs and
information available (medical bracelet identifying diabetes, insulin
and syringe in his bag, fruity odour of breath, dehydration, rapid and
deep breathing) that he is in diabetic ketoacidosis. This is a life-
threatening medical emergency, and the failure to intervene could
lead to John Doe’s death within a short period.
The National Health Act 61 of 2003 (NHA) is the most important
statutory authority in this context. Section 7(1) requires health care
providers to obtain the informed consent of the user before
providing a health service. However, section 7(1)(d) creates an
exception: consent is not required “where failure to treat the user, or
Semester 2 2025 - DUE September 2025; 100% correct
solutions and explanations.
(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.
In South African law, a medical practitioner who treats a patient
without their consent ordinarily runs the risk of legal liability for
infringing that patient’s rights. The two possible delicts that could
arise are civil assault, which refers to the unlawful violation of a
person’s bodily integrity, and iniuria, which refers to the unlawful
and intentional infringement of a person’s personality rights, such as
dignity, bodily integrity, or privacy. Because informed consent is a
central requirement in medical law, treatment without consent is
usually unlawful unless there is a recognised justification.
In this scenario, John Doe is unconscious and therefore incapable of
granting informed consent. Dr Rammage, a qualified medical
practitioner, is convinced based on clear clinical signs and
information available (medical bracelet identifying diabetes, insulin
and syringe in his bag, fruity odour of breath, dehydration, rapid and
deep breathing) that he is in diabetic ketoacidosis. This is a life-
threatening medical emergency, and the failure to intervene could
lead to John Doe’s death within a short period.
The National Health Act 61 of 2003 (NHA) is the most important
statutory authority in this context. Section 7(1) requires health care
providers to obtain the informed consent of the user before
providing a health service. However, section 7(1)(d) creates an
exception: consent is not required “where failure to treat the user, or
