SA’s constitutional democracy rests on a clear and admirable foundation: the protection of human rights and individual freedoms. Among these are the freedom of religion and the freedom of association, both of which allow citizens to live according to their beliefs without interference from the state.
These freedoms are central to a pluralistic society, where people of different cultures, faiths and convictions coexist peacefully. Yet the constitution also anticipates moments when rights may collide, requiring careful adjudication to ensure justice and the protection of the most vulnerable.
Such a dilemma has emerged in the case of a seriously ill 15-year-old boy from Mpumalanga whose family objects, on religious grounds, to a medical procedure that could save his life. The family, devout followers of Jehovah’s Witnesses, opposes the use of a blood transfusion as part of a multiple organ transplant procedure.
Their faith-based objection is not without constitutional grounding. Our constitution firmly protects religious belief and practice. However, constitutional rights do not exist in isolation. They must be balanced against other rights, including the right to life and access to health care.
The teenager is reportedly suffering from severe liver and kidney disease. His condition is so serious that he must travel roughly 130km several times a week to receive dialysis treatment at Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital. The grueling routine highlights the severity of his illness and the limited quality of life he currently endures.
The procedure he needs is a widely accepted treatment and available in SA. The boy, as a state patient, qualifies for it. In such circumstances, denying access to potentially life-saving treatment raises difficult ethical and legal questions.
At the heart of the matter is the principle that the best interests of the child must come first. In SA, this is recognised through the Child Protection Act, among other legislation designed to protect minors from harm, including situations where parental decisions may endanger a child’s well-being.
The state, therefore, has both a moral and legal responsibility to intervene when a child’s life is at risk.
Health minister Aaron Motsoaledi has suggested that the matter be taken to the courts to seek activation of the provisions of the Child Protection Act.
Court intervention should always be a last resort. Ideally, a compassionate and pragmatic resolution can be reached between the family and the authorities. The family’s faith is not on trial, nor should it be undermined. But when a child’s life hangs in the balance, the right to life must ultimately prevail.
