In modern society, children are acknowledged as bearers of both children‟s rights and all other rights in the Bill of Rights which generally apply to children. One important right, outside of section 28, is that of bodily integrity or the right to control and decide what happens to their body. Therefore, children theoretically have the right to consent to medical treatment and surgery. However, children are generally deemed to lack the necessary maturity to make decisions of this nature and require parental consent before any medical procedure may be performed. Following the enactment of the Children‟s Act 38 of 2005, the age of consent for medical intervention was lowered to the uniform age of twelve. Children above the age of twelve are recognised as having the capacity to make their own decisions in respect of bodily integrity, whereas those under twelve still require parental consent. While this may be a positive evelopment, it is potentially problematic for two groups of children, known as „benefactor children‟ and „saviour siblings‟. In the last 50 years, there has been a noticeable advancement in the field of genetic research. One such development is the possibility of creating one child to save the life of another through tissue or organ donation. This has provided options to parents of children with life threatening conditions where before, there was little hope of a cure. Now, at the request of these parents, children can be specifically “genetically engineered” as an embryo, to become a tissue or organ match to a sick sibling. These children are known as „saviour siblings‟. Another group of children has emerged. While not the result of “genetic engineering”, they serve a similar purpose in being potential life-saving donors to an ill sibling and are known as „benefactor children‟. Both categories of children enjoy the protection of fundamental rights. For those who are under twelve years of age however, the right to bodily integrity can be infringed upon by the proposed surgical removal of organs or tissue for the benefit of a sick sibling, based purely on a parent‟s consent. At stake too, is the right to reproductive autonomy. Parents bear children for a number of different reasons, which can include raising a child to save the life of another. As they have the right to reproductive autonomy, adults are able to decide when they want children and for what reason they want children, which can include the various techniques used to bring about „saviour siblings‟. However, as rights are mutually interrelated and nterdependent, they cannot be viewed in isolation. Therefore, it must be asked: does a person‟s right to reproductive autonomy, as guaranteed by the Constitution, justify interference with an embryo? As an embryo is not recognised in South African law as a legal subject, it will be difficult to justify interference with this right on this basis. The right to consent to medical intervention only from age twelve was described as potentially problematic for „benefactor children‟ and „saviour siblings‟, as parents with seriously ill children may become so emotionally burdened, that they place the welfare of the sick child over that of the healthy child. Thus, it is possible that parents will consent to any and all procedures on the „benefactor child‟ or „saviour sibling‟, regardless of the implications to the health and suffering of the healthy child. Section 28(2) of the Constitution states that the child‟s best interests are of paramount importance but, it must be asked, whose best interests are more important when more than one child is involved? As this is a decision parents are incapable of making at that time, the decision should be made by a neutral, impartial and unemotional third party such as the Court, which can be assisted by the Family Advocate and an ombudsman, who are experts in assisting children and promoting their best interests. Presently, South African law does not expressly address „saviour siblings‟. However, with few changes to the National Health Act and other Regulations, this is an area which could be regulated in time. These changes could include finalising the draft regulations as well as providing a list of the medical and dental purposes for which blood and tissue can be removed and should make specific reference to the removal of tissue, blood or blood products to treat a sick sibling. It is also imperative that South Africa regulates these matters now, as „saviour siblings‟ are no longer simply a matter for the future. Furthermore, legislation needs to be amended and enacted to prevent the law from becoming out-dated and redundant, leaving „benefactor children‟ and „saviour siblings‟ vulnerable while law is being drafted. In that international law is silent on the matter, South Africa would be well advised to consider foreign law such as the United Kingdom, in developing its law. As the United Kingdom has developed a National Board, so too should South Africa, as this would assist in regulating „saviour siblings‟ by allowing members to review each proposed case of „saviour siblings‟. This is merely one recommendation of several which could facilitate a smooth, controlled regulation of a highly emotional topic. Children remain one of the most vulnerable groups in society and their rights are often susceptible to infringement or abuse. It is incumbent on the law to ensure that, wherever possible, these rights are protected, especially as science continues to advance and it becomes more difficult to determine what is morally correct.
| Identifer | oai:union.ndltd.org:netd.ac.za/oai:union.ndltd.org:nmmu/vital:10283 |
| Date | January 2011 |
| Creators | Du Plessis, Emma Kate |
| Publisher | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University, Faculty of Law |
| Source Sets | South African National ETD Portal |
| Language | English |
| Detected Language | English |
| Type | Thesis, Masters, LLM |
| Format | iv, 156 leaves, pdf |
| Rights | Nelson Mandela Metropolitan University |
Page generated in 0.0065 seconds