, Question 1 of 40
3.0 Points
The ombudsman appointed by the Health Professions Council of South Africa must inter alia—
Feedback:
It is indeed one of the functions of the ombudsman to mediate in the case of minor transgressions referred
to him or her for mediation with a view to resolving such matters. See the study guide 3.8.3.
•
B.
arbitrate in the case of minor transgressions referred to him or her for arbitration with a view to
resolving such matters.
•
C.
investigate all complaints of unprofessional conduct by a registered medical practitioner.
•
D.
peruse and analyse all complaints received, categorise them according to their significance and seriousness,
and record each complaint against the name of the respondent concerned as it appears in the register.
Question 2 of 40
3.0 Points
The most important judgment on indemnity clauses in hospital admissions forms is Afrox Healthcare Bpk v
Strydom 2002 (6) SA 21 (SCA). The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 came into force some time after
the Afrox case. The provisions of this Act changed the legal position to some extent.
Which one of the following statements is correct?
•
A.
It is still unnecessary for a hospital (service provider) to draw the patient‘s (consumer‘s) attention to an
indemnity clause contained in a hospital admissions form.
•
B.
Since the coming into operation of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, an indemnity clause contained
in a hospital admission form is always null and void and unenforceable.
•
C.
It is still uncertain whether an indemnity clause purporting to exempt a hospital (service provider) from
liability for any loss attributable to the gross negligence of the hospital is valid and enforceable.
•
D.
, Since the coming into operation of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, an indemnity clause purporting
to exempt a hospital (service provider) from liability for any loss attributable to gross negligence on its part
is void to the extent that it contravenes the provisions of the Act.
Feedback:
See 4.1.2.3 of the study guide.
The Consumer Protection Act answers the question that was left hanging in Afrox, namely whether an
indemnity clause could be applied to avoid liability for gross negligence. Section 51(1)(c) now provides that
a supplier must not make a transaction or agreement subject to any term or condition purporting to limit
or exempt a supplier of goods or services from liability for any loss directly or indirectly attributable to the
gross negligence of the supplier or any person acting for or controlled by the supplier. Section 51(3) of the
Act makes it clear that such a purported term or condition of a transaction or agreement, or notice to which
a transaction or agreement is purported to be subject, is void to the extent that it contravenes section 53.
Question 3 of 40
3.0 Points
Clarke v Hurst NO 1992 (4) SA 630 (D) confirms that passive euthanasia—
Feedback:
Clarke v Hurst NO 1992 (4) SA 630 (D) confirms that passive euthanasia might be lawful if the person whose
death is in question enjoys a very poor quality of life. See 6.2.3.2 of the study guide. The court stated as
follows: ―The decision whether the discontinuance of the artificial nutritioning of the patient and his
resultant death would be wrongful, depends on whether, judged by the boni mores of our society, it would
be reasonable to discontinue such nutritioning. This decision relates to the quality of life that the patient
still enjoys. ‖
Question 4 of 40
3.0 Points
In S v Hartmann 1975 (3) SA 532 (C) a medical practitioner took the life of his father who had been suffering
severely. This was an instance of—
•
A.
active euthanasia on request of the patient, resulting in an acquittal on the charge of murder.
•
B.
, active euthanasia resulting in a conviction of culpable homicide.
•
C.
active euthanasia performed on the patient‘s request, resulting in conviction of culpable
homicide.
•
D.
passive euthanasia resulting in a conviction of murder.
•
E. active euthanasia resulting in a conviction of murder.
Feedback:
Correct. Note that Hartmann was convicted of murder, not culpable homicide. See the study guide 6.2.3.1
and note the hint in the orange block.
Question 5 of 40
3.0 Points
A patient is suffering from an incurable disease accompanied by excruciating pain.
In which of the following scenarios is the doctor‘s conduct most likely to be considered lawful?
•
A.
Because of resistance consequent upon the habitual administering of an analgesic drug, the doctor
administers a very high dosage of pain medication in a genuine and reasonable attempt to relieve the
patient‘s pain. He knows that such dosage may be lethal. The medication hastens the patient‘s death.
B.
With the objective of relieving the patient‘s suffering by causing his death, the doctor administers a lethal
dosage of an analgesic substance. The medication hastens the patient‘s death.
•
C.
The doctor administers double the minimum dosage of drugs necessary to make the pain endurable
knowing that such double dosage will also cause the patient‘s death. The medication hastens the patient‘s
death.
Feedback:
This is the intentional killing of a human being. Had he administered the minimum dosage, knowing that
that may cause the death that would not have been unlawful according to Williams. It was also held in R v
Makali 1950 (1) SA 340 (N) 344 that hastening of the death is still causing it. See 6.2.2 of the study guide.
•
D.
In a genuine attempt to relieve the patient‘s pain, the doctor administers double the dosage necessary to
relieve the patient‘s pain, unreasonably believing that such dosage will not be lethal. The medication
hastens the patient‘s death.
Question 6 of 40
3.0 Points
3.0 Points
The ombudsman appointed by the Health Professions Council of South Africa must inter alia—
Feedback:
It is indeed one of the functions of the ombudsman to mediate in the case of minor transgressions referred
to him or her for mediation with a view to resolving such matters. See the study guide 3.8.3.
•
B.
arbitrate in the case of minor transgressions referred to him or her for arbitration with a view to
resolving such matters.
•
C.
investigate all complaints of unprofessional conduct by a registered medical practitioner.
•
D.
peruse and analyse all complaints received, categorise them according to their significance and seriousness,
and record each complaint against the name of the respondent concerned as it appears in the register.
Question 2 of 40
3.0 Points
The most important judgment on indemnity clauses in hospital admissions forms is Afrox Healthcare Bpk v
Strydom 2002 (6) SA 21 (SCA). The Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008 came into force some time after
the Afrox case. The provisions of this Act changed the legal position to some extent.
Which one of the following statements is correct?
•
A.
It is still unnecessary for a hospital (service provider) to draw the patient‘s (consumer‘s) attention to an
indemnity clause contained in a hospital admissions form.
•
B.
Since the coming into operation of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, an indemnity clause contained
in a hospital admission form is always null and void and unenforceable.
•
C.
It is still uncertain whether an indemnity clause purporting to exempt a hospital (service provider) from
liability for any loss attributable to the gross negligence of the hospital is valid and enforceable.
•
D.
, Since the coming into operation of the Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008, an indemnity clause purporting
to exempt a hospital (service provider) from liability for any loss attributable to gross negligence on its part
is void to the extent that it contravenes the provisions of the Act.
Feedback:
See 4.1.2.3 of the study guide.
The Consumer Protection Act answers the question that was left hanging in Afrox, namely whether an
indemnity clause could be applied to avoid liability for gross negligence. Section 51(1)(c) now provides that
a supplier must not make a transaction or agreement subject to any term or condition purporting to limit
or exempt a supplier of goods or services from liability for any loss directly or indirectly attributable to the
gross negligence of the supplier or any person acting for or controlled by the supplier. Section 51(3) of the
Act makes it clear that such a purported term or condition of a transaction or agreement, or notice to which
a transaction or agreement is purported to be subject, is void to the extent that it contravenes section 53.
Question 3 of 40
3.0 Points
Clarke v Hurst NO 1992 (4) SA 630 (D) confirms that passive euthanasia—
Feedback:
Clarke v Hurst NO 1992 (4) SA 630 (D) confirms that passive euthanasia might be lawful if the person whose
death is in question enjoys a very poor quality of life. See 6.2.3.2 of the study guide. The court stated as
follows: ―The decision whether the discontinuance of the artificial nutritioning of the patient and his
resultant death would be wrongful, depends on whether, judged by the boni mores of our society, it would
be reasonable to discontinue such nutritioning. This decision relates to the quality of life that the patient
still enjoys. ‖
Question 4 of 40
3.0 Points
In S v Hartmann 1975 (3) SA 532 (C) a medical practitioner took the life of his father who had been suffering
severely. This was an instance of—
•
A.
active euthanasia on request of the patient, resulting in an acquittal on the charge of murder.
•
B.
, active euthanasia resulting in a conviction of culpable homicide.
•
C.
active euthanasia performed on the patient‘s request, resulting in conviction of culpable
homicide.
•
D.
passive euthanasia resulting in a conviction of murder.
•
E. active euthanasia resulting in a conviction of murder.
Feedback:
Correct. Note that Hartmann was convicted of murder, not culpable homicide. See the study guide 6.2.3.1
and note the hint in the orange block.
Question 5 of 40
3.0 Points
A patient is suffering from an incurable disease accompanied by excruciating pain.
In which of the following scenarios is the doctor‘s conduct most likely to be considered lawful?
•
A.
Because of resistance consequent upon the habitual administering of an analgesic drug, the doctor
administers a very high dosage of pain medication in a genuine and reasonable attempt to relieve the
patient‘s pain. He knows that such dosage may be lethal. The medication hastens the patient‘s death.
B.
With the objective of relieving the patient‘s suffering by causing his death, the doctor administers a lethal
dosage of an analgesic substance. The medication hastens the patient‘s death.
•
C.
The doctor administers double the minimum dosage of drugs necessary to make the pain endurable
knowing that such double dosage will also cause the patient‘s death. The medication hastens the patient‘s
death.
Feedback:
This is the intentional killing of a human being. Had he administered the minimum dosage, knowing that
that may cause the death that would not have been unlawful according to Williams. It was also held in R v
Makali 1950 (1) SA 340 (N) 344 that hastening of the death is still causing it. See 6.2.2 of the study guide.
•
D.
In a genuine attempt to relieve the patient‘s pain, the doctor administers double the dosage necessary to
relieve the patient‘s pain, unreasonably believing that such dosage will not be lethal. The medication
hastens the patient‘s death.
Question 6 of 40
3.0 Points
