Dr. Tobeka Mathebula is a physician working in a state subsidised hospital in South Africa.
Dr. Mathebula has been working in the aforementioned hospital since 2014. In 2022, the
Choice on Termination of Life Bill was signed into law and consequently, referred to as the
Choice on Termination of Life Act 25 of 2023 (CTLA). The CTLA basically legalises the
administering of euthanasia in hospitals. According to the CTLA, a qualified physician must
administer euthanasia to a patient who voluntarily requests that her or his life be terminated.
There are however conditions set out by the CTLA that first have to be met before euthanasia
may be administered namely: (1) the medical practitioner must be satisfied that the patient
is in a medically futile position, wracked by mental and/or physical suffering and that there
is nothing that could be done to treat and consequently, end the patient’s pain and suffering;
(2) the patient must have been informed about his or her current condition; (3) the patient
as well as the physician should have consulted with at least one other physician who has thus
far been an independent party; (4) the physician has to ensure that the patient attained the
age of majority; and (5) the physician must also ensure that the patient has made the request
after properly considering the matter, and not making the decision based on coercion.
According to section 18(3) of the CTLA, it is an offence for a physician to refuse to participate
in any manner regarding the administering of euthanasia and upon conviction, the CTLA
gives the Court the authority to sentence the offender to a maximum of three years
imprisonment for refusing to participate in the administering of euthanasia. Dr. Mathebula
strongly believes that to participate in any manner whatsoever in the administering of
euthanasia substantively violates the sanctity of innocent human life and that such a violation
constitutes murder. Dr. Mathebula is considering approaching the Court for a declaration
that section 18(3) of the CTLA is unconstitutional due to the fact that it substantively violates
her right to human dignity as well as right to belief and conscience. Dr. Mathebula
approaches you for advice and more specifically, you need to advise on whether:
(1) Dr. Mabula has standing in the said matter? Explain. [6]
(2) Dr. Mabula may approach the Constitutional Court directly in the said matter?
Explain. [6]
(3) It is in the interests of justice if the said matter is brought before the Court? Explain.
[6]
(4) The Constitutional Court may have jurisdiction if a lower Court is firstly
approached? Explain. [6]
(5) An amicus curiae may be involved in the matter? Exlain. [6]
Take note of the following:
(1) Your advice to Dr. Mathebula on all of the above questions must be clear, informative,
grammatically correct and to the point;
(2) Use font size 12 with single spacing between the lines and no footnotes are required;
(3) No group assignments (meaning assignments done by two or more) are allowed;
(1) Yes, Dr. Mathebula has standing in the said matter. As a physician who strongly objects to the administering of euthanasia, she will be directly affected by section 18(3) of the CTLA, which essentially compels her to participate in an act that she believes violates the sanctity of innocent human life. Her right to freedom of conscience and belief, as well as to human dignity, are central to this matter and she has a direct and substantial interest in challenging the constitutionality of section 18(3).
(2) Yes, Dr. Mathebula may approach the Constitutional Court directly in the said matter. This is because the matter involves the interpretation and application of the Constitution, specifically the right to freedom of conscience and belief and the right to human dignity. These are fundamental rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution and it is therefore appropriate for the Constitutional Court to hear the matter directly.
(3) Yes, it is in the interests of justice if the said matter is brought before the Court. The matter raises important constitutional issues relating to the rights to human dignity and freedom of conscience and belief. It also has significant implications for the medical profession and for patients who may seek euthanasia in the future. It is therefore important that the matter be fully and properly ventilated before the court, so that the court can provide clarity on these issues.
(4) Yes, the Constitutional Court may have jurisdiction if a lower court is firstly approached. This is because the matter involves the interpretation and application of the Constitution, and therefore falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court. If Dr. Mathebula were to approach a lower court, that court would be obliged to refer the matter to the Constitutional Court for determination.
(5) Yes, an amicus curiae may be involved in the matter. An amicus curiae is a "friend of the court" who is not a party to the litigation, but who provides the court with information or argument that may be helpful in the case. In a matter of such public importance, it is likely that the Constitutional Court would welcome input from interested parties who may have relevant expertise or insights to share. However, the decision to involve an amicus curiae ultimately rests with the court.
(1) Dr. Mathebula has standing in the said matter because she has a direct and substantial interest in the subject matter of the case. As a physician who strongly believes that participating in euthanasia violates the sanctity of innocent human life, she would be directly affected by section 18(3) of the CTLA, which requires her to participate in administering euthanasia. Her right to human dignity and her right to belief and conscience are also being violated, giving her a personal and subjective interest in the case.
(2) Yes, Dr. Mathebula may approach the Constitutional Court directly in the said matter. The Constitutional Court has the jurisdiction to hear matters relating to the violation of constitutional rights. Since Dr. Mathebula's claim revolves around the alleged violation of her constitutional rights, she can approach the Constitutional Court directly to seek a declaration that section 18(3) of the CTLA is unconstitutional.
(3) It is in the interests of justice if the said matter is brought before the Court. This is because the case involves important constitutional rights, namely the right to human dignity and the right to belief and conscience. The outcome of the case would have a significant impact not only on Dr. Mathebula but also on other healthcare professionals who hold similar beliefs. Therefore, it is essential to seek a judicial determination on the constitutionality of section 18(3) to ensure the protection of constitutional rights and the proper functioning of the legal system.
(4) The Constitutional Court may have jurisdiction if a lower Court is firstly approached. The Constitutional Court is the highest court in South Africa regarding constitutional matters and has the final authority on the interpretation of the constitution. However, in certain cases, it may be necessary for a lower court to first consider the matter before it is escalated to the Constitutional Court. This is to ensure that all relevant facts and legal arguments are properly examined and that all other avenues have been exhausted before reaching the Constitutional Court.
(5) An amicus curiae may be involved in the matter. An amicus curiae, also known as a "friend of the court," is a person or organization who is not a party to the case but provides expert opinion or information to assist the court in reaching a decision. In complex or significant cases, the Constitutional Court often welcomes amicus curiae submissions to ensure a broad range of perspectives and expertise. Given the importance and constitutional implications of the case, it would be appropriate for the court to consider amicus curiae submissions to enhance the fairness and comprehensiveness of the proceedings.
(1) Dr. Mathebula has standing in the matter because she has a direct personal and professional interest in the issue at hand. As a physician working in a state subsidised hospital, she would be directly affected by the Choice on Termination of Life Act 25 of 2023 (CTLA), which mandates the administering of euthanasia in hospitals. Therefore, she has sufficient legal standing to challenge the constitutionality of section 18(3) of the CTLA, which compels physicians to participate in euthanasia.
To support her standing, Dr. Mathebula should be prepared to demonstrate that her individual rights, particularly her right to belief and conscience, are being infringed upon by the CTLA. She would need to show that this violation affects her personal and professional duties as a physician, as well as her fundamental rights to human dignity.
(2) Dr. Mathebula may approach the Constitutional Court directly in the matter. The Constitutional Court is the highest court in South Africa with the authority to declare legislative provisions and actions unconstitutional. According to the law, an individual may bypass lower courts if they believe a constitutional matter is involved.
In this case, Dr. Mathebula can argue that section 18(3) of the CTLA infringes upon her constitutional rights to human dignity and belief and conscience. By directly approaching the Constitutional Court, she can seek an authoritative constitutional ruling without going through lower courts first.
(3) It would be in the interests of justice to bring the matter before the Court, considering the potential constitutional violations and the important public policy implications involved. The issue of euthanasia and its legality under the CTLA raises significant moral, ethical, and legal questions that require careful and thorough examination.
The Constitutional Court has the jurisdiction and the duty to protect and uphold the fundamental rights enshrined in the South African Constitution. By considering Dr. Mathebula's case, the Court can address the constitutionality of section 18(3) of the CTLA and provide clarity on the underlying principles and values related to individual rights, medical ethics, and the sanctity of innocent human life.
Furthermore, the Court's ruling on this matter would have far-reaching implications for healthcare practitioners, patients, and the broader society, making it crucial for the interests of justice to be served by resolving the constitutional issues involved.
(4) The Constitutional Court may have jurisdiction to hear the case even if a lower court is not firstly approached. In constitutional matters, the South African Constitution provides for direct access to the Constitutional Court in certain circumstances.
One of the requirements for direct access to the Constitutional Court is if a matter concerns the interpretation, protection, or enforcement of the Constitution. In this case, Dr. Mathebula's challenge to the constitutionality of section 18(3) of the CTLA directly relates to the protection and enforcement of her constitutional rights to human dignity and belief and conscience.
Therefore, even without approaching a lower court first, Dr. Mathebula can apply for direct access and argue that the matter falls within the jurisdiction of the Constitutional Court due to its constitutional implications. The Court will then assess whether it is appropriate to grant direct access based on the merits of the case.
(5) An amicus curiae, or a friend of the court, may be involved in the matter. An amicus curiae is a person or organization that is not a party to the case but offers expertise or a different perspective to help the court reach a well-informed decision.
Considering the significant legal, ethical, and constitutional implications of the case, the Constitutional Court may find it beneficial to hear from amici curiae. These individuals or organizations can provide expert opinions on medical ethics, legal principles, and constitutional rights, which can assist the Court in understanding the complex issues at hand.
Dr. Mathebula may consider seeking support from relevant professional medical associations, academic experts, or advocacy groups with an interest in the subject matter. By involving an amicus curiae, the Court can benefit from a wide range of perspectives to make a well-rounded and informed decision.