-

Consider the following hypothetical scenario: A patient suffering constant abdominal pain is referred to State Hospital A from her local clinic after not responding to simple analgesics for chronic pelvic pain associated with irregular menstruation. The doctors at State Hospital A discover that she has a suspicion of adenomyosis. She gives written informed consent for a hysterectomy. During routine postoperative check-ups she reports no alleviation of the pelvic pain, urinary frequency along with burning on micturition and a persistent vaginal discharge. Preoperatively, she was not told that the surgeons had inserted a surgical mesh to prevent vault prolapse. She is given antibiotics and further simple analgesia. As her symptoms do not improve she self-refers to State Hospital B. She is informed that she needs a CAT scan. However, the hospital’s scanner has been out of order for three years. She is advised to go to State Hospital C, where the scanner works, but is not given a referral note. She is told by Hospital C that the doctors are too busy to see her, and as she does not have an appointment, and is not an emergency case she should go back to Hospital A. She does not want to go back to Hospital A, as during her last visit there, nursing staff accused her of being a nuisance and escorted her off the premises. She approaches Private Hospital D, where her abdomen and pelvis are scanned. The scan shows the surgical mesh inside her pelvis which had disintegrated. She is told that it is too risky to remove all the fragments, but that some could be removed at a cost - which she could not afford. The surgeon refers her back to State Hospital A with a referral note and copy of the CAT scan report.

The legal framework governing claims of medical negligence is extensively documented within South African (SA) jurisprudence, with a predominant focus on the liability of medical practitioners. In contrast, the liability of pharmacists has received comparatively scant attention. This issue was recently highlighted by a case in which a woman from the Western Cape initiated legal action against Clicks, a leading health, beauty and wellness retailer and SA’s largest retail pharmacy chain, alleging that the provision of incorrect medication nearly cost her life. At the time of writing, the case has yet to advance to trial. This article explores the legal and ethical dimensions of medical negligence attributed to pharmacists within the context of their professional duties. Additionally, it investigates how similar cases are adjudicated in foreign jurisdictions, with a specific focus on the US.

Scientific and technological innovations have increasingly enabled humans to overcome biological limitations. Assisted reproductive technologies (ARTs), for instance, offer persons facing medical or social barriers to parenthood the opportunity to realise their dream of building a family. However, in many African Anglophone countries, persons who are socially infertile—gay and single persons—are legally excluded from accessing ARTs to build their families. Relying on reproductive rights to argue against these inhibitive legal provisions may offer some hope, but reproductive rights are often narrowly interpreted to apply only to natural reproduction, excluding ARTs. This paper addresses this gap by exploring the possibility of relying on the right to benefit from scientific progress as a basis for challenging the inhibitive legal provisions. The right to benefit from scientific progress seems promising, as it is widely recognised in international human rights instruments and clearly encompasses ARTs as a scientific advancement. The right could therefore be essential in expanding access to ARTs for socially infertile persons in Africa.

This article provides a comparative analysis of the regulatory landscapes governing artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare in the European Union (EU) and South Africa (SA). It critically examines the approaches, frameworks and mechanisms each jurisdiction employs to balance innovation with ethical considerations, patient safety, data privacy and accountability. The EU’s proactive stance, embodied by the AI Act, offers a structured and risk-based categorisation for AI applications, emphasising stringent guidelines for risk management, data governance and human oversight. In contrast, SA’s regulatory environment is characterised by its infancy and lack of specificity, with existing legislation such as the National Health Act and the Medicines and Related Substances Act providing a foundational but limited framework for addressing the unique challenges posed by AI in healthcare. The article delves into the dynamic nature of AI technologies, highlighting the need for continuous risk assessment, the importance of transparent and responsible data governance and the critical role of human oversight in ensuring patient safety and autonomy. It discusses the obligation of clear liability frameworks to address potential malfunctions and security breaches in AI applications. Through this comparative lens, the manuscript identifies regulatory gaps and proposes that the South African Law Reform Commission (SALRC) should play a predominant role in developing draft legislation for AI prior to the evolution of challenges related to these technologies.

Chapter 19 of the Children’s Act No. 32 of 2005 regulates the practice of surrogate motherhood in South Africa and provides legal certainty regarding the rights of the children born as a result of surrogacy, including the rights of the different parties involved. Despite the clarity regarding the legal consequences of human reproduction by artificial fertilisation of women acting as surrogate mothers, some legal gaps and inconsistencies regarding certain medical and ethico-legal issues remain. The purpose of this article is to critically examine selected provisions whose implementation is hampered by a lack of detail or clarity, compromising compliance by the different parties to the surrogate motherhood agreement. The article concludes with recommendations on how some of these issues may be addressed to provide for legal certainty and transparency.

In recent years there has been increasing concern about the various forms of abuse faced by birthing patients during labour and childbirth. Common examples include being scolded, slapped, pinched, stabbed with scissors or struck with a ruler or other instruments. This mistreatment is collectively termed obstetric violence.A growing body of literature examines legal responses to obstetric violence including the potential use of the criminal law. The present article explores whether, in South Africa, common-law crimes or statutory offences could be used to prosecute healthcare workers for the range of harms falling within the broad definition of obstetric violence. It does not question whether criminal law is an appropriate response in this instance.The article concludes that existing crimes are sufficient to address obstetric violence. It is clear that the common-law crimes of crimen iniuria, assault, assault with intention to commit grievous bodily harm and the statutory offence of involuntary sterilisation, could be used to address both physical and emotional forms of obstetric violence. It is submitted that they cater adequately for the broad range of conduct that potentially falls into the definition of obstetric violence. Further research is required in this area and it may mean that prosecutorial guidelines are needed.

Background.The SA DTA was updated to better serve the South African research community by providing clarity on exactly when – at what stage during research – institutions hold rights to the data they generate in collaborative research contexts where raw data are received and integrated with other data. SA DTA 1.1 introduces significant enhancements in data governance, focusing on the explicit definition and management of ‘inferential data’.Objectives.To introduce SA DTA 1.1 and demonstrate its practical application in real-world research contexts.Methods.Using a descriptive design, the study presents two practical case studies: one involving two universities and another a university and a pharmaceutical company. The first case focuses on identifying genetic markers for neurodegenerative diseases, while the second addresses genetic markers for chronic diseases.Results.In the first case study, the entity conducting the analysis generated inferential data independently, thereby gaining sole rights in such data. In the second case study, both collaborating entities contributed to the data analysis, leading to joint rights in the inferential data. These findings demonstrate the flexibility and clarity provided by SA DTA 1.1 in managing data ownership and intellectual property rights.Conclusion.SA DTA 1.1 significantly advances data governance by providing clear and adaptable guidelines for data rights in collaborative research. It supports ethical and efficient data sharing, protecting researchers’ interests and fostering global scientific innovation.

-

-