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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.
Buy single article
Instant access to the full article PDF.
Price includes VAT for USA
Subscribe to journal
Immediate online access to all issues from 2019. Subscription will auto renew annually.
This is the net price. Taxes to be calculated in checkout.
We refer here to constraints in physical, financial, and human resources as elaborated in the judgment’s narratives to follow.
It is noted that her uterus was not removed, which the nurse had said was required, as the first respondent testified.
Neither the High Court nor the Court of Appeal explicitly commented on the validity of the informed consent processes for the caesarean sections as their validity was not before the courts. The courts did however hold all three cases to have involved emergency caesarean sections.
See the case of Pandie v Isaacs .
Pandie v Isaacs [15, para. 34].
See sections 2(2) read with sections 1 and 4.
Studies in Latin America have indicated that in many cases of women living with HIV who are coercively sterilised, healthcare workers deliberately misinformed patients in order to coerce their agreement to the procedure (see ).
The extent of the undue focus on the ‘consent’ stage of the informed consent process is seen in the response of certain public hospitals in Namibia to the Supreme Court judgment. Following the judgment, a number of women have reported being denied voluntary sterilisation procedures and being told that they need to obtain police affidavits indicating their consent to the procedure before it is performed .
The doctor testifying in relation to the sterilisation of the third respondent stated that sterilisation is normally performed 48 h or 6 weeks after the patient gives birth [1, para. 83].
See [26, p. 27] for a discussion on varying effects of pain during labour on a patient’s capacity to be informed for consent to epidural analgesia.
See the discussion of the 1972 case of Canterbury v Spence in .
See Castell v De Greef [12, para. 425].
See the discussion in [30, p. 313].
Supreme Court judgment here cites the Health Professions Councils of Namibia’s Ethical Guidelines for Health Professionals .
Supreme Court judgment [1, para. 107]: ‘I am not persuaded that the appellant has discharged its onus of demonstrating on the balance of probabilities that informed consent was given’.
Government of the Republic of Namibia v LM and Others  NASC 19. http://www.saflii.org/na/cases/NASC/2014/19.html. Accessed 1 March 2017.
International Community of Women Living with HIV. 2015. Forced and coerced sterilization of women living with HIV. Issue Paper 3. http://www.iamicw.org/resources/document-library/forced-and-coerced-sterilization-of-women-living-with-hiv. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
Lombard, Anna-Marie. 2010. South-Africa: HIV-positive women sterilised against their will. City Press, June 7. http://www.southernafricalitigationcentre.org/2010/06/07/south-africa-hiv-positive-women-sterilised-against-their-will/. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
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.
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.
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.
Global Commission on HIV and the Law. 2012. HIV and the law: Risks, rights & health. http://www.hivlawcommission.org/index.php/report. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
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. http://www.achpr.org/sessions/54th/resolutions/260/. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
Manson, Neil C., and Onora O’Neill. 2007. Rethinking informed consent in bioethics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
LM and Others v Government of the Republic of Namibia (I 1603/2008, I 3518/2008, I 3007/2008)  NAHC 211. http://www.saflii.org/na/cases/NAHC/2012/211.html. Accessed 1 March 2017.
Van der Walt, J.C., and J.R. Midgley. 2005. Principles of delict. 3rd ed. LexisNexis: Cape Town.
Castell v De Greef 1994 (4) SA 408.
Stoffberg v Elliot 1923 CPD 148.
Esterhuizen v Administrator, Transvaal 1957 (3) SA 710 (T).
Pandie v Isaacs  ZAWCHC 123.
Republic of South Africa. Sterilisation Act 44 of 1998.
Lillicrap, Wassenaar and Partners v Pilkington Brother (SA) (Pty) Ltd. 1985 (1) SA 475 (A).
Van Wyk v Lewis 1924 AD 438.
Administrator, Natal v Edouard  ZASCA 60; 1990 (3) SA 581 (A).
Stadsraad van Pretoria v Pretoria Pools 1990 (1) SA 1005 (T).
Lindegger, G., and L. Richter. 2000. HIV vaccine trials: Critical issues in informed consent. South African Journal of Science 96: 313–317.
Austin, John L. 1975. How to do things with words. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Waring and Gillow Ltd v Sherborne 1904 TS 340.
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.
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. http://www.southernafricalitigationcentre.org/1/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/Submission-to-the-Human-Rights-Committee-on-NAMIBIA.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb 2016.
Dyer, R.A. 2007. Informed consent for epidural analgesia in labour. Southern Africa Journal of Anaesthesia and Analgesia 13 (1): 27–34.
Pace, Eric. 1997. P.G. Gebhard, 69, developer of the term ‘informed consent’. New York Times, August 26. http://www.nytimes.com/1997/08/26/us/p-g-gebhard-69-developer-of-the-term-informed-consent.html. Accessed 21 Sept 2015.
Salgo v Leland Stanfor d etc. Bd. Trustees, 154 Cal.App.2d 560 [Civ. No. 17045. First Dist., Div. One. Oct. 22, 1957].
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.
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.
Health Professions Councils of Namibia. 2010. Ethical guidelines for health professionals. http://www.hpcna.com/images/councils-images/Ethical%20Document%20-%20Final%20Draft%201.pdf. Accessed 21 Oct 2010.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Committee  1 WLR 583.
Sidaway v Governors of the Bethlehem Royal Hospital  1 All ER 643 (HL).
Rodgers v Whitaker (1993) 67 ALJR 47.
Reibl v Hughes (1980) 114 DLR (3d) 1.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
About this article
Cite this article
Chingore-Munazvo, N., Furman, K., Raw, A. et al. Chronicles of communication and power: informed consent to sterilisation in the Namibian Supreme Court’s LM judgment of 2015. Theor Med Bioeth 38, 145–162 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11017-017-9405-0
- Informed consent
- Human rights
- Southern Africa