SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

vol.38 issue1CBR students' understanding of the oppression of people with disabilities"We are also travellers": An action story about disabled women mobilising for an accessible public transport system in Khayelitsha and Nyanga, Cape Metropole, South Africa author indexsubject indexarticles search
Home Pagealphabetic serial listing  

Services on Demand



Related links

  • On index processCited by Google
  • On index processSimilars in Google


South African Journal of Occupational Therapy

On-line version ISSN 2310-3833
Print version ISSN 0038-2337

S. Afr. j. occup. ther. vol.38 n.1 Pretoria  2008




The right to respect for autonomy: Part 1 - What is autonomy all about?



Dain van der Reyden

Nat Dip OT (PTA), DipEd Voc Ther (PTA), BA (UNISA),LLM (Med.Law)(UKZN)





This paper seeks to clarify the nature, extent and significance of a patient's right to respect for autonomy from the practitioner. It is one of two articles and attempts to contextualise patient autonomy within a legal, bioethical and professional perspective. The Bill of Rights contained in the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa (108 of 1996), the Mental Health Care Act (17 of 2002), the National Health Act (61 of 2003) the Promotion of Access to Information Act (2 of 2000) as well as the rules of Professional Conduct as stipulated in the Health Professions Act (56 of 1974) are discussed as relevant to patient/client's right to respect for autonomy and inherent within that right, the right to informed consent, confidentiality, refusal of treatment, a second opinion, access to personal information and to be treated with respect and dignity. Common and case law are addressed briefly together with the bioethical principle of 'respect for autonomy.' Commentary is given on each of the Acts with a view to professional practice implications.

Key words: patient autonomy, ethics, legislation, occupational therapy, patient rights



“Full text available only in PDF format”




(1) Takala T. What's wrong with global bioethics? On the limitation of the four principles approach. Cambridge Quarterly of Health Care 2001; 10: 72-74        [ Links ]

(2) Jones DG. Contemporary Medical Scandal: A Challenge to Ethical Codes and Ethical Principles. Perspectives on Science and Christianity 1990; March: 7        [ Links ]

(3) United Nations, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, 1996-2000 Human Rights and disability. <> (18 November 2003)        [ Links ]

(4) Constitution of the Republic of South Africa Act 108 of 1996. Chapter 2. Butterworths Statutes of South Africa as at 12 Feb 2007        [ Links ]

(5) Mental Health Care Act 17 of 2002 .Butterworths Statutes of South Africa as at 12 Feb 2007        [ Links ]

(6) National Health Act 61 of 2003. Butterworths Statutes of South Africa as at 12 Feb 2007        [ Links ]

(7) Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. Four models of the physician-patient Relationship. In: Boetzres E, Waluchan WJ, editors. Readings in Health Care Ethics 2000: 39-40, 46.         [ Links ]

(8) Beauchamp TL, Childress JF. Principles of Biomedical Ethics. New York : Oxford Press, 1994        [ Links ]

(9) Mappes TA, DeGrazia D. Biomedical Ethics, 4th edition. New York: McGraw Hill, Inc, 1996        [ Links ]

(10) Tong R. What's Distinctive about Feminist Bioethics? In: Baylis F, Downie J, Freedman B, Hoffmaster B, Sherwin S, editors. Health Care Ethics in Canada. Harcourt Brace, 1995; 24-30        [ Links ]

(11) Dickens BM. Legal Approach to Health Care Ethics and the Four Principles. In: Raanan Gillon, editor. Principles of Health Care Ethics: John Wiley & Sons Ltd: 1994, 307-311        [ Links ]

(12) Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000. Butterworths Statutes of South Africa as at 12 Feb 2007        [ Links ]

(13) Ethical Rules of Conduct for Practitioners registered under the Health Professions Act 56 of 1974 as contained in regulation R7I7 Government Gazette, 4 August 2006        [ Links ]

(14) Medical and Dental Professions Board of the HPCSA (2000) General Ethical Guidelines for Doctors, Dentists and Medical Scientists. 2000 Pretoria HPCSA        [ Links ]

(15) Castell v de Greef. 1994 (4) SA 408 (C)        [ Links ]

(16) Van Oosten FFW. Notes: Castell v De Greef and the Doctrine of Informed Consent: Medical Paternalism ousted in favour of Patient Autonomy. De Jure 1995; 28(1)164: 171-175        [ Links ]






Paper prepared in partial fulfilment of requirements for the LLM(Med Law). Guidance from Prof J Singh acknowledged.

Creative Commons License All the contents of this journal, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License