Kgothatso Keeps Up With Medicine - medical student at Sefako Makgatho Health Sciences University, Kgothatso Legong, discusses a case where a patient's request clashed with the law.

______

Consider this scenario which I and my registrar encountered when we were consulting with patients in Ante-Natal Care (ANC): A 30-years-old married woman goes visits a local hospital where on examination the doctor determines that the woman is indicated for an elective caesarean section. The woman states that according to her culture, c/section are taboo and only her husband can consent to such a surgical procedure on her body. 

In South Africa, the issue of informed consent in medical treatment is highly regarded and protected by law. Section 12(2) of the Constitution of South Africa states that everyone has the right to bodily and psychological integrity, which includes the right to refuse any medical treatment. However, this right is not absolute and can be limited in certain circumstances.

In the scenario given, the doctor is faced with a complex situation where the patient is indicating that she cannot consent to an elective caesarean section due to cultural beliefs and insists that only her husband can make decisions regarding her medical treatment. This raises important questions regarding the patient's autonomy, her right to refuse treatment, and the role of her next-of-kin in making medical decisions on her behalf.

From a medicolegal perspective, the doctor must first ensure that the patient is competent to make decisions regarding her medical treatment. Competence refers to the ability to understand the nature and consequences of the treatment, and to make an informed decision based on this understanding. If the patient is deemed competent, then her refusal of the caesarean section must be respected, regardless of her husband’s wishes.

However, if the patient is not competent to make decisions, then the doctor must turn to the next-of-kin to make decisions on her behalf. In South Africa, the next-of-kin is typically the spouse or a close family member who is able to act in the best interests of the patient. In this case, if the patient’s husband insists on the caesarean section despite the patient’s refusal, the doctor may have to explore legal avenues to determine the best course of action.

One important legal principle to consider is the concept of substituted judgment, which allows the next-of-kin to make decisions on behalf of an incompetent patient based on what the patient would have wanted if she were competent. This principle requires the next-of-kin to consider the patient’s values, beliefs, and preferences when making medical decisions.

In the landmark case of Stransham-Ford v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services, the South African courts ruled that an individual has the right to decide how and when they want to die, and that this right extends to medical treatment decisions. This case highlights the importance of respecting a patient’s autonomy and right to make decisions regarding their own body.

In conclusion, the doctor in this scenario must carefully navigate the medicolegal complexities of the situation by ensuring the patient’s competence, respecting her refusal of treatment if she is competent, and considering the principles of substituted judgment if she is not competent. While cultural beliefs and family dynamics may play a role in medical decision-making, the patient’s autonomy and right to bodily integrity must always be upheld in accordance with South African law. Beyond this, consider treating the patient holistically. Post-operation, there is a possibility that such patients could be marginalised by the cultural adherent family members which they will go back to.