$ USD
  • R ZAR
  • $ USD
Gauteng Health Department appeals court ruling on cancer treatment backlog - AJTechnicalDr.com

Gauteng Health Department appeals court ruling on cancer treatment backlog

Posted by:

|

On:

|

Gauteng Health Department appeals court ruling on cancer treatment backlog! The Gauteng Department of Health is seeking to overturn a ruling by the Johannesburg High Court that compels it to provide radiation oncology treatment to nearly 3,000 cancer patients awaiting care at Charlotte Maxeke Johannesburg Academic Hospital and Steve Biko Academic Hospital.

The department filed for leave to appeal the decision, which found its failure to address the backlog unconstitutional and unlawful. The ruling follows years of advocacy from civil society organisations and patients, many of whom have been waiting for treatment for more than three years.

Court Battle Sparked by Delays and Inaction

The legal action was initiated by the Cancer Alliance, represented by SECTION27, following repeated but unsuccessful attempts to engage with the department. They were supported by activists from the Treatment Action Campaign (TAC) and other concerned citizens who had marched in April 2023, demanding the release of funds allocated for cancer care.

Gauteng Health Department

In his judgment, Acting Judge Stephen van Nieuwenhuizen found that cancer patients had suffered “irreparable harm” due to the lack of timely treatment. The court noted that some patients had died while waiting for radiation therapy.

The backlog is attributed to a shortage of radiation equipment and critical staffing issues, particularly at Charlotte Maxeke. Although R784 million had been allocated over a three-year period for oncology services—including funds earmarked to reduce the backlog—Judge van Nieuwenhuizen said the department had made “no meaningful effort” to deliver services.

Mismanagement and Constitutional Violations

The judge criticised the department’s management of the situation, stating that it had “not maintained a high standard of professional ethics” and failed to ensure equitable, fair, and impartial service delivery. He highlighted that R250 million from the oncology budget had been returned to National Treasury due to delays in finalising the tender process.

He concluded that the provincial health department had violated the rights of cancer patients by failing to act, despite having access to both resources and mandates. According to the ruling, health officials acted as “a law unto themselves” and needed to be held accountable.

Court Orders Accountability Measures

As part of his ruling, Judge van Nieuwenhuizen ordered several corrective measures:

  • The department must update the list of patients awaiting radiation treatment within 45 days.

  • A progress report and a long-term plan to address the backlog must be submitted to the court within three months.

  • Specific measures must be implemented to ensure accountability and transparency in healthcare delivery.

These steps aim to improve oversight and ensure that the backlog is reduced in a timely and equitable manner.

Civil Society Reacts to the Ruling

Salomé Meyer, director of the Cancer Alliance, welcomed the judgment, stating that it was a victory for civil society and public accountability.

“The ruling confirms that civil society has a role to play to hold the government responsible for what it is supposed to do,” Meyer said.

She added that the court’s oversight would help ensure accurate reporting and urgency in addressing the needs of each cancer patient still waiting for care.

Department Pushes Back

In a statement issued on 2 April, the Gauteng Department of Health confirmed it had filed an application for leave to appeal the ruling. The department argued that there were “several substantive grounds of appeal” and warned that allowing the ruling to stand could “greatly prejudice patients” and set an undesirable legal precedent.

As the legal battle continues, the focus remains on the thousands of patients whose lives depend on timely, effective cancer treatment—and on whether the department will finally act on its constitutional obligations.

Leave a Reply