LCR4802
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 7 April 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
Legislative Provisions Prohibiting the Refusal of Emergency Medical
Treatment in South Africa
The right to receive emergency medical treatment is a fundamental aspect of
healthcare ethics and legal responsibility in South Africa. Several legislative
provisions prohibit the refusal to render such treatment, reflecting the state’s
obligation to uphold the constitutional rights of all individuals. This essay
examines the main legal instruments that protect access to emergency care,
including who is bound by these laws and how they are interpreted within the
healthcare context.
Section 27(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, serves as
the foundational legal provision in this regard. It states clearly that “no one may
be refused emergency medical treatment.” This right is part of the broader socio-
economic rights enshrined in the Constitution and is intended to ensure that
individuals in life-threatening situations are not denied potentially life-saving care
due to their socio-economic status or inability to pay. The Constitutional Court, in
Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC), clarified
that this section applies only to immediate, life-threatening emergencies and not
to chronic conditions requiring prolonged treatment. Nevertheless, it provides an
essential legal shield against unjustified refusal of care at the most critical times.
Although the Constitution primarily binds the state, the horizontal application of
rights under the Constitution means that private healthcare institutions may also
be held to this standard depending on the context (Currie & De Waal, 2005:593).
Complementing the Constitution is section 5 of the National Health Act 61 of
2003, which directly imposes a duty on all health care providers, workers, and
establishments to refrain from refusing emergency medical treatment. This
provision is broader in scope than the constitutional provision because it clearly
includes both public and private healthcare professionals and institutions. It
reinforces the constitutional right by translating it into a statutory obligation,
making it enforceable against individual practitioners and facilities. This statutory
duty is significant because it makes health professionals legally accountable for
Varsity Cube 2024 +27 81 278 3372
Assignment 1 Semester 1 2025
Unique #:
Due Date: 7 April 2025
Detailed solutions, explanations, workings
and references.
+27 81 278 3372
, QUESTION 1
Legislative Provisions Prohibiting the Refusal of Emergency Medical
Treatment in South Africa
The right to receive emergency medical treatment is a fundamental aspect of
healthcare ethics and legal responsibility in South Africa. Several legislative
provisions prohibit the refusal to render such treatment, reflecting the state’s
obligation to uphold the constitutional rights of all individuals. This essay
examines the main legal instruments that protect access to emergency care,
including who is bound by these laws and how they are interpreted within the
healthcare context.
Section 27(3) of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996, serves as
the foundational legal provision in this regard. It states clearly that “no one may
be refused emergency medical treatment.” This right is part of the broader socio-
economic rights enshrined in the Constitution and is intended to ensure that
individuals in life-threatening situations are not denied potentially life-saving care
due to their socio-economic status or inability to pay. The Constitutional Court, in
Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC), clarified
that this section applies only to immediate, life-threatening emergencies and not
to chronic conditions requiring prolonged treatment. Nevertheless, it provides an
essential legal shield against unjustified refusal of care at the most critical times.
Although the Constitution primarily binds the state, the horizontal application of
rights under the Constitution means that private healthcare institutions may also
be held to this standard depending on the context (Currie & De Waal, 2005:593).
Complementing the Constitution is section 5 of the National Health Act 61 of
2003, which directly imposes a duty on all health care providers, workers, and
establishments to refrain from refusing emergency medical treatment. This
provision is broader in scope than the constitutional provision because it clearly
includes both public and private healthcare professionals and institutions. It
reinforces the constitutional right by translating it into a statutory obligation,
making it enforceable against individual practitioners and facilities. This statutory
duty is significant because it makes health professionals legally accountable for
Varsity Cube 2024 +27 81 278 3372
