A Research Report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements of the Degree of Master of Arts, Applied Ethics for Professionals. Johannesburg, 2017 / Many asylum seekers and refugees in South Africa reportedly find it difficult to access basic health care services. The issue about foreign nationals in relation to health care can be considered from different angles. The concept of access, though, points to gate-keeping. Gate-keeping is the practice that guides decision making about who has access to what and to what extent they might enjoy benefits. In this essay, the question of whether gate-keeping is a morally justifiable practice in South Africa in relation to asylum seekers and refugees’ right to basic health care services is explored. It is concluded that carefully considered and consistently implemented gate-keeping might be a morally justifiable practice that could contribute to ensuring that resources are distributed fairly. It is also argued that the kind of gate-keeping often observed is inconsistent with human rights and Ubuntu precepts. These moral frameworks seem to be the main ones shaping the view of most South Africans as well as our institutional arrangements. Considering the current South African context in which asylum seekers and refugees have difficulty in accessing basic health care services, patriotic bias claims are considered. However, it is concluded that partiality towards compatriots ought not to hold sway when any human being’s basic needs are at stake. / MT2018

The purpose of the study is to investigate lived experiences of refugees when accessing healthcare services in Pretoria, South Africa. A qualitative phenomenological research approach was followed which assisted in exploring and describing the day-to-day lives of refugees living in Pretoria regarding their health outcomes. Face-to-face interviews were conducted on purposively selected participants, representing refugees from different African countries ranging from age 27 to 58 years. Collected data were transcribed, coded, and relevant themes were extracted and analysed by employing Colaizzi's seven-step analysis framework. Main findings demonstrated that the public healthcare services accessed by refugees, compared to private healthcare services, can be described as mostly dysfunctional. Also, healthcare providers from public healthcare services are often hostile towards refugees of African descent. Failure to speak a local language, unofficial documentation as viewed by a healthcare provider on duty, being a foreigner, and failure to pay undue consultation fees led to refugees being denied access to healthcare or receiving negative treatment in the public healthcare sector. Recommendations for programmes to promote human rights and refugee awareness in healthcare facilities could subsequently contribute to alleviating complications around access to healthcare services, which would denote improved health outcomes for the refugees. / Health Studies / M. P. H. (Health Studies)