Theoretical Medicine and Bioethics

, Volume 38, Issue 2, pp 145–162 | Cite as

Chronicles of communication and power: informed consent to sterilisation in the Namibian Supreme Court’s LM judgment of 2015

  • Nyasha Chingore-Munazvo
  • Katherine Furman
  • Annabel RawEmail author
  • Mariette Slabbert


The 2015 judgment of the Namibia Supreme Court in Government of the Republic of Namibia v LM and Others set an important precedent on informed consent in a case involving the coercive sterilisation of HIV-positive women. This article analyses the reasoning and factual narratives of the judgment by applying Neil Manson and Onora O’Neill’s approach to informed consent as a communicative process. This is done in an effort to understand the practical import of the judgment in the particular context of resource constrained public healthcare facilities through which many women in southern Africa access reproductive healthcare. While the judgment affirms certain established tenets in informed consent to surgical procedures, aspects of the reasoning in context demand more particularised applications of what it means for a patient to have capacity and to be informed, and to appropriately accommodate the disruptive role of power dynamics in the communicative process.


Informed consent Sterilisation HIV/AIDS Human rights Namibia Southern Africa 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

One of the authors of this study was involved in the litigation at the Namibian Supreme Court in support of the three respondents.


  1. 1.
    Government of the Republic of Namibia v LM and Others [2014] NASC 19. Accessed 1 March 2017.
  2. 2.
    International Community of Women Living with HIV. 2015. Forced and coerced sterilization of women living with HIV. Issue Paper 3. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
  3. 3.
    Lombard, Anna-Marie. 2010. South-Africa: HIV-positive women sterilised against their will. City Press, June 7. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
  4. 4.
    Zaynab, Essack, and Ann Strode. 2012. ‘I feel like half a woman all the time’: The impacts of coerced and forced sterilisations on HIV-positive women in South Africa. Agenda: Empowering Women for Gender Equity 26 (2): 24–34.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Strode, Anne, Sethembiso Mthembu, and Zaynab Essack. 2012. ‘She made up a choice for me’: 22 HIV-positive women’s experiences of involuntary sterilization in two South African provinces. Reproductive Health Matters 20 (39): 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Washington, Laura, and Vicci Tallis. 2012. Sexual and reproductive health and rights: A useful discourse for feminist analysis and activism? BUWA: Sex and Health 2 (1): 6–10.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Global Commission on HIV and the Law. 2012. HIV and the law: Risks, rights & health. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
  8. 8.
    African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights. 2013. Resolution on involuntary sterilisation and the protection of human rights in access to HIV services. Resolution taken at the 54th Ordinary Session, November 5. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
  9. 9.
    Manson, Neil C., and Onora O’Neill. 2007. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    LM and Others v Government of the Republic of Namibia (I 1603/2008, I 3518/2008, I 3007/2008) [2012] NAHC 211. Accessed 1 March 2017.
  11. 11.
    Van der Walt, J.C., and J.R. Midgley. 2005. Principles of delict. 3rd ed. LexisNexis: Cape Town.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Castell v De Greef 1994 (4) SA 408.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Stoffberg v Elliot 1923 CPD 148.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Esterhuizen v Administrator, Transvaal 1957 (3) SA 710 (T).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Pandie v Isaacs [2013] ZAWCHC 123.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Republic of South Africa. Sterilisation Act 44 of 1998.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lillicrap, Wassenaar and Partners v Pilkington Brother (SA) (Pty) Ltd. 1985 (1) SA 475 (A).Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Van Wyk v Lewis 1924 AD 438.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Administrator, Natal v Edouard [1990] ZASCA 60; 1990 (3) SA 581 (A).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Stadsraad van Pretoria v Pretoria Pools 1990 (1) SA 1005 (T).Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Lindegger, G., and L. Richter. 2000. HIV vaccine trials: Critical issues in informed consent. South African Journal of Science 96: 313–317.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Austin, John L. 1975. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Waring and Gillow Ltd v Sherborne 1904 TS 340.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kendall, Tamil, and Claire Albert. 2015. Experiences of coercion to sterilise and forced sterilisation among women living the HIV in Latin America. Journal of the International AIDS Society 18 (1): 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Southern Africa Litigation Centre. 2015. Submission to the Human Rights Committee regarding the forced and coerced sterilisation of women living with HIV/AIDS in Namibia. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
  26. 26.
    Dyer, R.A. 2007. Informed consent for epidural analgesia in labour. Southern Africa Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia 13 (1): 27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Pace, Eric. 1997. P.G. Gebhard, 69, developer of the term ‘informed consent’. New York Times, August 26. Accessed 21 Sept 2015.
  28. 28.
    Salgo v Leland Stanfor d etc. Bd. Trustees, 154 Cal.App.2d 560 [Civ. No. 17045. First Dist., Div. One. Oct. 22, 1957].Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Leclerq, Wouter K.G., Bram J. Keulers, Marc R.M. Scheltinga, Paul H.M. Spauwen, and Gert-Jan van der Wilt. 2010. A review of surgical informed consent: Past, present and future. A quest to help patients make better decisions. World Journal of Surgery 34: 1406–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Veriava, F. 2004. Ought the notion of ‘informed consent’ to be cast in stone? VRM v the Health Professions Council of South Africa. South African Journal on Human Rights 20 (2): 309–320.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Health Professions Councils of Namibia. 2010. Ethical guidelines for health professionals. Accessed 21 Oct 2010.
  32. 32.
    Bolam v Friern Hospital Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Sidaway v Governors of the Bethlehem Royal Hospital [1985] 1 All ER 643 (HL).Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rodgers v Whitaker (1993) 67 ALJR 47.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Reibl v Hughes (1980) 114 DLR (3d) 1.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Cooper, Diane, Jane Harries, Landon Myer, Orner Phyllis, and Hillary Bracken. 2007. ‘Life is still going on’: Reproductive intentions among HIV-positive women and men in South Africa. Social Science and Medicine 65 (2): 274–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dyer, S.J., N. Abrahams, M. Hoffman, and Z.M. van der Spuy. 2002. ‘Men leave me as I cannot have children’: Women’s experiences with involuntary childlessness. Human Reproduction 17 (6): 1663–1668.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Karim, Quarraisha A., Salim S.A. Karim, Hoosen M. Coovadia, and Mervyn Susser. 1998. Informed consent for HIV testing in a South African hospital: Is it truly informed and truly voluntary? American Journal of Public Health 88 (4): 637–640.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Patel, Priti. 2008. How did we get here and where to now? The coerced sterilisation of HIV-positive women in Namibia. Agenda Empowering Women for Gender Equity 75: 38–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nyasha Chingore-Munazvo
    • 1
  • Katherine Furman
    • 2
  • Annabel Raw
    • 3
    Email author
  • Mariette Slabbert
    • 4
  1. 1.Centre for Reproductive RightsNairobiKenya
  2. 2.Durham UniversityDurhamUK
  3. 3.Southern Africa Litigation CentreJohannesburgSouth Africa
  4. 4.SANAC SecretariatPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations