The purpose of this article is to address the questions as to whether a criminal conviction of a healthcare practitioner should affect his or her professional standing, and whether such conviction constitutes ‘unprofessional conduct’ in terms of the Health Professions Act. The article also explores a related matter, namely whether the Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) has a legal duty to refer complaints regarding unprofessional conduct that displays criminal elements for criminal prosecution. After considering relevant case law on (...) these issues, the article concludes that a practitioner, after being convicted of an offence, should be afforded an opportunity to explain him- or herself to the board, not only in extenuation of the conduct in question, but also in response to the question of whether the conduct constitutes improper or disgraceful conduct. Moreover, the article explains why the HPCSA and professional boards have a legal duty to refer matters of unprofessional conduct with criminal elements in terms of section 34 of the Prevention and Combating of Corrupt Activities Act to law enforcement agencies. (shrink)

The doctor-patient relationship is the foundation of any medical intervention. Over time, the relationship has changed, from the era of paternalism to the era of self-determination or patient autonomy, following changes resulting from consumerism and lately, in South Africa, socialised medicine as a result of the proposed National Health Insurance. The premise of this article is that patient autonomy is invariably limited by a determination of who will carry the cost of a medical intervention. In recent years, legislative developments have (...) affected the understanding of a patient and doctor through the introduction of new references, such as ‘user’, ‘data subject’ and ‘consumer’ for a patient, and ‘service provider’ and ‘responsible party’ for a doctor, each giving different meanings to the doctor-patient relationship. Recent statutory additions also include new remedies available to aggrieved patients as parties in the doctor-patient relationship. The article concludes with brief observations on how the NHI will alter the essence and nature of the doctor-patient relationship in future. (shrink)

Organ donation after a circulatory determination of death is possible in selected patients where consent is given to support donation and the patient has been legally declared dead by two doctors. The National Health Act (61 of 2003) and regulations provide strict controls for the certification of death and the donation of organs and tissues after death. Although the National Health Act expressly recognises that brain death is death, it does not prescribe the medical standards of testing for the determination (...) of brain death (neurological determination of death), circulatory death (circulatory determination of death) or for determination of death based on somatic criteria. However, in all cases of organ donation, including after circulatory death, the National Health Act mandates that two doctors certify the death, with one doctor possessing more than 5 years of experience. Additionally, both doctors must be independent from the transplant team. The standard for such determination, as for brain death, aligns with accepted medical standards. The Critical Care Society of Southern Africa has published South African (SA) Guidelines on Death Determination that outline rigorous standards for death determination in hospital settings by either a neurological or circulatory method. Legislation and the Health Professions Council of SA’s (HPCSA) professional guidance direct clinicians on obtaining informed consent for donation either from the patient or in cases of incapacity from their surrogate decision maker. Collectively, the legislation, regulations and professional guidelines in SA provide a robust ethical framework that supports organ donation after circulatory death. (shrink)