Answer to Question #228368 in English for Neo

Question

Find the case of soobramoney v minister of health, KwaZulu-Natal 1997 12 BCLR 1696 (CC)

WRITE AN ESSAY ABOUT THE CASE COVERING THE FOLLOWING
1.The facts of this case
2.The legal questions
3.The decision of the court

Your essay must include footnotes in the prescribed format and a bibliography. You must consult and use at least one book, journal articles, one act of parliament or legislation and one court case in preparing for your essay.

Answer 1

Soobramoney v Minister of Health, KwaZulu-Natal

The case was delivered in 1997 and concerned the universal constitutional right to medical treatment as against the problem of an under-resourced health care system. The facts included that Mr. Soobramoney was ill from heart problems due to coronary thickening and blood vessels damage and cerebral circulation. Since his kidneys had failed, he required renal dialysis which would enable him to survive. He had used his savings on previous medications since his kidney had failed in 1996 and therefore sought medical assistance from the state-funded organizations and landed at Addington Hospital but declined since they argued that his situation had deteriorated and required a kidney transplant. It is then that he sought a court order at the Durban High court so that he could be accorded the necessary treatment on the grounds that the constitution requires the right to access medication on emergency medical treatment and also he is protected from his right to life by the constitution of South Africa.

The legal questions raised included; firstly; Did the non-treatment constitute a violation of his rights? Secondly, Does the state's limited resources accommodate such a burden? and thirdly, how does the right to emergency medical treatment apply? Fourthly, Was Soobramoney's situation an emergency medical need?

The decision of the court

Upon answering the questions, the court argued that non-treatment did not constitute a violation of his rights since if everyone in his condition was to benefit then the ministry of health. The court stated that the country's limited resources cannot satisfy the needs of such people countrywide and that could burden the country exchequer. The court argued that the right to emergency treatment only applied to one who suffers sudden catastrophe and calls for immediate medical attention. Lastly, it argued that Soobramoney's was an ongoing concern and not an emergency medical condition and thus could not be accorded the medical help he needed and that Addington's resources were planned and could not interfere with state organs budget to accommodate Mr. Soobramoney.