Esterhuizen v. Administrator, Transvaal: a case review

Authors

  • Poonitha Naidoo

Keywords:

informed consent, paternalism, law, superficial x-ray, Chaoul Unit, nodules, amputation

Abstract

According to South African law, a patient must be informed of risks that may arise after any medical intervention, especially in cases where the proposed treatment may imply drastic consequences [1]. The plaintiff in Esterhuizen v Administrator, Transvaal [2] was subjected to x-ray treatment without the required consent having been obtained.

Author Biography

Poonitha Naidoo

N Dip Rad (D); B Tech Rad (T); Current study: LLM (Medical Law), University of KwaZulu Natal

Downloads

Issue

Vol. 42 No. 1 (2004)

Section

Case Reports

License

Copyright on all published material belongs to the Society of Radiographers of South Africa (SORSA).

I hereby understand and declare that:

  • All proprietary rights other than copyright are reserved to the authors, as well as the right to reproduce original figures and tables from this item in their future works, provided full credit is given to the original publication The South African Radiographer ISSN 0258 0241.
  • In consideration of the reviewing and editing done by the editors of The South African Radiographer of the above named manuscript, the author/s hereby transfer, assign, or otherwise convey all copyright ownership world-wide, in all languages, to the Society of Radiographers of South Africa in the event that this manuscript is accepted for publication.
  • If the manuscript has been commissioned by another person or organisation, or if it has been written as part of the duties of an employee, that full authorization has been given by the representative of the commissioning organisation or employer to be published in the The South African Radiographer.