Consent for a medical procedure is often treated as a formality. A signature on admission. A ticked box before theatre. A quick explanation while a patient is anxious, medicated, or overwhelmed. In 2026, that approach is not defensible — legally or ethically.
South African law is clear: patients must be given information they can understand, including the range of diagnostic and treatment options, the benefits, risks, costs, and consequences attached to each option. That is not an optional courtesy. It is a statutory duty.
The Health Professions Council of South Africa (HPCSA) goes further and stresses that informed consent is an ongoing process, shaped by the complexity of treatment, the level of risk, and what the patient wants to know — not what a clinician assumes is enough.
What Valid Consent Actually Requires
In practice, valid consent has several components that must all be present:
Capacity: The patient must be capable of understanding and deciding. Capacity is decision-specific and can fluctuate — in the setting of pain, fear, delirium, sedation, or acute illness. Where a patient cannot consent, the National Health Act regulates when someone else may consent on their behalf, while still requiring that the patient be informed as far as possible.
Voluntariness: Consent must be free from coercion. Pressure can be subtle — rushed conversations, dismissing questions, or implying there is no real choice. If a patient feels trapped, you do not have a defensible consent process, even if you have a signed form.
Disclosure: Patients must be told what is proposed, why it is proposed, the material risks, and the reasonable alternatives (including no treatment). The National Health Act explicitly includes “benefits, risks, costs and consequences” in what must be communicated.
Understanding: Giving information is not the same as ensuring understanding. HPCSA guidance emphasises tailoring information to the patient’s level of literacy and making sure the consent process is meaningful.
Specificity and currency: Consent is not a blanket permission slip for anything that follows. If the plan changes materially, the risk profile changes, or additional procedures are contemplated, consent must be revisited.
The Disclosure Standard
South African case law has long recognised a duty to disclose material risks so that consent is “unimpeachable”. Castell v De Greef remains a commonly cited authority for the principle that a patient must have knowledge and awareness of the nature and extent of the risk for consent to serve as a defence.
The practical takeaway: if a risk would matter to a reasonable patient in that position, it should be discussed. If the patient asks about it, it must be discussed. If the risk is low probability but high impact — paralysis, loss of fertility, stroke, death — it should be discussed. Documentation should reflect that it was.
Real-World Pitfalls That Still Cause Disputes
Over-reliance on standard forms. A signed form may prove that a form was signed. It does not prove that statutory and ethical duties were met. The National Health Act requires communication of options, risks, costs and consequences — not merely a signature.
Delegating to the wrong person. For complex interventions, the patient needs an explanation from someone who understands the procedure and can answer questions properly. Delegation can support the process but cannot replace professional accountability for meaningful disclosure.
Treating consent as once-off. HPCSA guidance is explicit that informed consent is an ongoing, iterative process. If a patient’s condition changes, the procedure changes, or new information emerges, the consent conversation must be updated and recorded.
Language and comprehension gaps. If a patient does not understand the language used or cannot process complex risk information in the moment, the consent process is fragile. The law expects communication “in a language which the user understands.”
What Actually Works: Practical, Defensible Consent
Treat consent as a conversation, not an event. Build it into consults, ward rounds, and pre-procedure reviews.
Use plain language. Replace jargon with simple explanations and check understanding.
Use “teach-back.” Ask the patient to explain in their own words what they understand the plan to be and what the key risks are.
Document the substance, not just the signature. Note the material risks discussed, alternatives explained, questions asked, and the patient’s expressed preferences.
Re-confirm when circumstances change. If the plan changes, consent must change with it.
🔒 CPD Assessment: This article is linked to a CPD-accredited assessment. Subscribe to the Clinician Edition to earn your CPD points.