South African medical journal = Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir geneeskunde
-
To the Editor: The article by Bhorat et al. [1] in the SAMJ, entitled 'Cerebral palsy and criteria implicating intrapartum hypoxia in neonatal encephalopathy - an obstetric perspective for the South African setting', starts off by raising concerns about 'steep rises in insurance premiums, placing service delivery under serious threat'. It does not acknowledge any service delivery issues that already exist in the public sector obstetric services in South Africa (SA). ⋯ That a large number of the children with cerebral palsy (CP) were delivered in the public sector service was not noted by Bhorat et al.,[1] nor was the fact that the overwhelming majority of court cases are against the state (not against individual doctors) in provinces and hospitals with significant medical staffing and resource issues. For example, the liabilities for Eastern Cape Province in the 2019/20 period were ZAR36 751 207 v. only ZAR33 155 in Western Cape Province for the same period.[2].
-
Cases of baby swapping in South Africa (SA) are very rare. In 1996 the first of these cases, Clinton-Parker v Administrator, Transvaal; Dawkins v Administrator, Transvaal, appeared before our courts. The parties in that instance decided to keep the babies who had been erroneously given to them, but the plaintiffs were awarded compensation for the emotional shock and injury they endured as the result of the defendant's negligence. ⋯ A number of questions are pertinent here, and will guide the discussion in this article. Is it as simple as both of the 'psychological' parents returning the babies to their natural parents? Do the parents have a claim against the hospital staff? Unfortunately there is not a wealth of legal precedent to assist the SA courts in this regard. The article explores the jurisprudence that speaks to baby swapping, in an attempt to provide clarity and assistance in resolving these difficult cases.