Mandatory reporting obligations within the context of health research: Grappling with some of the ethical-legal complexities

Mandatory reporting of various forms of abuse, from violence to corruption, is an attempt by the state to intervene in circumstances where there is a public or a private interest that ought to be protected. This intrusion of the state into what is often a very personal space, such as the home, is largely justified on the basis of the need to provide protection to prevent further harm, and in services to vulnerable populations such as children, the disabled or the elderly. In some instances, researchers and other members of the study team may encounter reportable information requiring the consideration of mandatory reporting in the design, implementation and review of health research. This is not simple. There are complex and competing interests at play, particularly as there are differing approaches in law and ethical guidelines. This article aims to describe the mandatory reporting obligations in South African law, discussing the ways in which these provisions apply within the context of health research, and to propose some factors that could be used to determine whether it is ethical or not to report information

Obtaining informed consent for a sterilisation in the light of recent case law

The need to obtain informed consent prior to any sterilisation is a very well-established ethical and legal obligation. South African law, however, does not specifically state who is responsible for obtaining informed consent before performing a sterilisation. This has implications for the liability of a surgeon or gynaecologist in circumstances where the informed consent is defective. Due to the vagueness of the applicable law, a surgeon or gynaecologist might be held liable, even in situations where he/she did not obtain the consent and relied on a nurse or assistant to procure the relevant informed consent. This article explores the relevant statutory law and canvasses two legal cases that came before the court regarding defective informed consent and the resultant liability for damages. We also make recommendations for proposed amendments to the current law to provide further clarity

Obtaining informed consent for a sterilisation in the light of recent case law

The need to obtain informed consent prior to any sterilisation is a very well-established ethical and legal obligation. South African law, however, does not specifically state who is responsible for obtaining informed consent before performing a sterilisation. This has implications for the liability of a surgeon or gynaecologist in circumstances where the informed consent is defective. Due to the vagueness of the applicable law, a surgeon or gynaecologist might be held liable, even in situations where he/she did not obtain the consent and relied on a nurse or assistant to procure the relevant informed consent. This article explores the relevant statutory law and canvasses two legal cases that came before the court regarding defective informed consent and the resultant liability for damages. We also make recommendations for proposed amendments to the current law to provide further clarity

Sterilisations at delivery or after childbirth: addressing continuing abuses in the consent process

Non-consensual sterilisation is not only a historic abuse. Cases of unethical treatment of women around the time of a pregnancy continue in the Twenty-First Century in five continents. Sterilisation is being carried out by some healthcare professionals at the time of delivery, or soon afterwards, without valid consent. A range of contemporary examples of such practices is given. Respecting women's autonomy should be the touchstone of the consent process. Avoidance of force, duress, deception and manipulation should go without saying. Ethnic minority communities and women living with HIV, in particular, are being targeted for this kind of abuse. Attempts have been made in various countries and by international professional organisations to introduce clinical guidelines to steer health professionals away from this malpractice. Survivors have sought justice in domestic and international courts. This paper critically assesses the evidence on the practical, ethical and legal issues around the handling of consent for these procedures. Suggestions are made about possible regulatory responses that address abuse, whilst maintaining access for those individuals who freely elect to undergo these procedures