- The court authorises urgent amputations to treat an irreversible condition and overrules parental refusal.
- Medical evidence confirms gangrene was irreversible and that any delay risked further infection and harm.
- With no medically accepted alternative presented, the best interests of the child determined the outcome.
A six-year-old girl required urgent amputations after developing a severe infection that caused irreversible damage to both feet.
Her parents refused to give consent, citing their cultural and religious beliefs. However, the High Court in the Western Cape stepped in and authorised the surgery after carefully considering the medical evidence and the legal framework governing consent to treatment for children.
Judge M Pangarker was unequivocal on the guiding principle, noting that in all matters involving minor children, the best interest of the minor child is paramount.
Background and parties
Red Cross War Memorial Children’s Hospital approached the court on an urgent basis, seeking authorisation for surgical intervention for a young child who had been admitted in a critical condition. The hospital was left with no choice but to seek court intervention after the parents continued to refuse consent to the proposed treatment.
The child had been diagnosed with meningococcal septicaemia, a serious bacterial infection that caused necrosis and gangrene in both feet. The medical team determined that the damage was irreversible and that amputation was the only way forward.
Initially, the matter was unopposed, with the father attending court on the first day while the mother remained at the hospital with the child. The court also requested input from the Family Advocate, who provided a memorandum addressing the child’s best interests.
By the time the matter was formally heard, the mother had consented to the surgical intervention. The father, however, did not attend court and continued to withhold his consent, holding firm to his belief that the child should undergo traditional healing instead.
The hospital’s case
The hospital presented medical evidence confirming that the gangrene affecting the child’s feet could not be reversed and that surgical intervention was the only viable treatment.
The evidence further showed a significant risk of infection developing around the necrotic tissue, which could spread if treatment was delayed any further. The proposed procedures were a Syme amputation of the right leg and a below-knee amputation of the left leg.
The medical findings left little room for doubt. As the judgment records, “The child’s condition was irreversible and… the only acceptable… treatment available… was surgical intervention.”
The hospital had also engaged with the parents over a period of time, going as far as involving traditional healers and family members in an attempt to reach an agreement and obtain consent. Despite these efforts, no medically accepted alternative treatment was put forward.
Time was not on the child’s side. In Judge Pangarker’s words, “Any further delay would therefore mean that the child’s constitutional rights… would continue to be infringed.”
The parents’ position
The parents refused consent on the basis of their religious and cultural beliefs and made clear that they wished to pursue traditional healing. They went so far as to seek the child’s discharge from the hospital so that this could take place outside of a medical setting.
The court carefully considered this position in light of all the evidence before it. Crucially, “neither of the traditional healers… provided a medically accepted alternative choice to the surgical operation.”
The court did not mince its words, finding that “the father’s objection… placed the child’s health, dignity and life at risk.”
Legal framework and arguments
The court turned to Section 129 of the Children’s Act, which governs consent to medical treatment and surgical operations for children, including situations where consent is refused. Under this provision, a High Court is empowered to authorise treatment where a person who is required to give consent refuses to do so.
The Act is clear that “a High Court… may consent to the medical treatment… where another person… refuses… to give such consent.”
The court also applied section 129(10) of the Act, which makes clear that a refusal of consent grounded solely in religious or other beliefs cannot stand where no medically accepted alternative has been provided.
Section 129(10) draws a firm line, providing that “no parent… may… withhold consent… by reason only of religious or other beliefs… unless… There is a medically accepted alternative choice.”
Throughout the judgment, Judge Pangarker said, “A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child.”
The court’s reasoning
In reaching its decision, the court weighed the medical evidence, the father’s continued refusal of consent, and the complete absence of any medically accepted alternative treatment. It was also acutely aware of the urgency of the situation and what further delay could mean for the child.
Judge Pangarker acknowledged the weight of the decision, describing it as a difficult and grave matter which weighed heavily on all.
The urgency was beyond question. As the judgment put it, “this was not a case where the child… had time at their disposal.”
Ultimately, the court exercised its powers under the Children’s Act to authorise the surgical intervention, stepping in where parental consent had been refused.
Order of the court
The court authorised the surgical intervention, including the below-knee amputation of the left leg and the Syme amputation of the right leg, as well as any further treatment deemed necessary by the medical team. It also directed that the child remain in the hospital until both the surgical intervention and rehabilitation were completed, and prohibited the parents from removing her during that time.
The court granted the order in terms of Section 129(9) of the Children’s Act, finding that consent to the surgical intervention had been refused and that no medically accepted alternative had been presented. The child’s best interests prevailed.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
