ES v AC (57 of 2012) [2015] NASC 11 (24 June 2015)

ES v AC (57 of 2012) [2015] NASC 11 (24 June 2015)

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to give proper weight to the appellant's advance directive and consistent refusal of blood transfusion, and by granting orders on an ex parte basis without notice to the appellant or her health-care agent. The appellant's constitutional rights to autonomy and dignity required that her refusal of treatment be respected, as she was competent when the directive was made and there was no evidence of change of mind or undue influence. The interests of her children, while significant, did not override her right to refuse treatment.

Citation
[2015] NASC 11
Parties
Appellant: ES; Respondent: AC
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
24 June 2015
Case Number
57 of 2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Orders
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Patient Autonomy, Informed Consent, Religious Freedom, Parental Rights, Children's Rights, Medical Treatment Refusal, Advance Directives
Source Language
English
Constitutional Law Medical Law Family Law Patient Autonomy Informed Consent Religious Freedom Parental Rights Children's Rights +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ES

Appellant

AC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Appeal From High Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court erred in appointing a curator and authorising forced medical treatment against the appellant's wishes
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was compos mentis and capable of refusing treatment
  3. 3 Whether the rights of minor children to parental care override a parent's right to refuse life-saving medical treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred by failing to give proper weight to the appellant's advance directive and consistent refusal of blood transfusion, and by granting orders on an ex parte basis without notice to the appellant or her health-care agent. The appellant's constitutional rights to autonomy and dignity required that her refusal of treatment be respected, as she was competent when the directive was made and there was no evidence of change of mind or undue influence. The interests of her children, while significant, did not override her right to refuse treatment.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Order of the High Court dated 13 September 2012 set aside and substituted with an order dismissing the application.
  • Order of the High Court dated 25 September 2012 set aside and substituted with an order rescinding and setting aside the previous order and dismissing the counter-application.