Question 1:
The Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1996 [No 92. Of 1996] is an important source of legislation that details a women’s right to terminate her pregnancy.
Look at the excerpt from the Preamble to this Act:
In a full sentence that makes reference to the Constitution of South Africa (1996), write a sentence that identifies which paragraph, sub-section and section of the Bill of Rights has been used to support the Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act:
In Chapter 2 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of South Africa (1996), sub-section (a) and (b) of section 12 clearly states that “everyone has the to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right to make decisions concerning reproduction; to security in and control over their body”
Question 2:
Have a look at Section 5 of The Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act, 1996 [No 92. Of 1996] below:
Using a detailed sentence, identify in this Act when a child can get a termination of pregnancy WITHOUT the consent of their parent or legal guardian:
In the Choice of Termination of Pregnancy Act, (1996), Sub-section 3 of Section 5 clearly states “In the case of a pregnant minor, a medical professional, or registered midwife, as the case may be, shall advise such minor to consult with her parents, guardian, family members or friends before the pregnancy is terminated: Provided that the termination of the pregnancy shall not be denied because such minor chooses not to consult them.”
Question 3:
Read the summary of the following seminal case in South African Case Law:
SOOBRAMONEY v MINISTER OF HEALTH, KWAZULU-NATAL 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC)
1. Who was the appellant in this case?
The appellant was a 41-year-old diabetic suffering from ischaemic heart disease, cerebrovascular disease and irreversible chronic renal failure.
2. Who were the parties in the matter?
SOOBRAMONEY v MINISTER OF HEALTH, KWAZULU-NATAL
3. What was the year of the case and which court heard the matter?
The year was 1998. The court was the Constitutional Court.
4. Read the summary of this case and briefly summarise the Soobramoney judgment with a specific focus on the legal principles and how the law was applied to the facts.
In addition, it was determined that the intent of section 27(3) appeared to be to guarantee that treatment in an emergency would not be delayed by formalities or bureaucratic requirements. A person who suffered a sudden calamity that necessitated immediate medical attention should not be turned away from a hospital that was able to provide the required treatment or from any other emergency services that were available. The subsection mandated that any and all available and required remedial treatment be administered immediately to prevent the harm. Held, further, that the appellant's condition was not an emergency requiring immediate remedial treatment due to the fact that he had chronic renal failure and would need dialysis two to three times per week to keep alive. It was an ongoing condition brought on by the applicant's irreversible decline in renal function. Therefore, this circumstance did not fall under Section 27(3). “Held, further, that the appellant's demand to receive dialysis treatment at a State hospital had to be determined in accordance with the provisions of sections 27(1) and (2), rather than section 27(3), which entitle everyone to have access to health care services provided by the State "within its available resources."
Added that there were significantly more people in KwaZulu-Natal with chronic renal failure than there were dialysis machines to treat them due to budget constraints and cuts to hospital services. As a result, guidelines were developed to help medical professionals make difficult decisions about who should and should not receive treatment. These rules were applied in the present case. By utilizing the accessible dialysis machines as per the rules more patients benefited than would be the situation assuming that they were utilized to keep alive people with persistent renal disappointment. Because the treatment was geared toward curing patients rather than merely maintaining their chronic illness, it was also likely to have a greater positive impact on the outcome.
References:
ESCR-Net - International Network for Economic, Social & Cultural Rights, Soobramoney v. Minister of Health (Kwazulu-Natal). Available at: https://www.escr-net.org/caselaw/2008/soobramoney-v-minister-health-kwazulu-natalLinks to an external site. (Last accessed: 01 November 2022).
South African Legal Information Institute, n.d. Soobramoney v Minister of Health (Kwazulu-Natal) (CCT32/97) [1997] ZACC 17; 1998 (1) SA 765 (CC); 1997 (12) BCLR 1696 (27 November 1997). Available at: http://saflii.org/za/cases/ZACC/1997/17.htmlLinks to an external site. (Last accessed: 01 November 2022).
If the typography is not come off well I have attached the Word Document below:
Comments