Assault in medical law: revisiting the boundaries of informed consent to medical treatment in South Africa.

: This article focuses on assault as a cause of action in medical law, with particular emphasis on the requirements for informed consent, both under common law and under the National Health Act 2003 (Sth Africa). In particular, the test for consent, adopted in Castell v De Greef 1994 (4) SA 408 (C), is analysed in detail. It is noted that the wording of this test for informed consent mirrors the wording of the test for negligence laid down in the Australian case of Rogers v Whitaker (1992) 175 CLR 479. Further, the relationship between the delictual elements of wrongfulness and fault in assault is discussed. It is argued that in South African law a valid consent to medical treatment requires knowledge not only of the general nature of medical treatment but also of the consequences of the treatment and, in determining which consequences should be disclosed to a patient, the constitutional rights to equality and self-determination support the application of a subjective patient-centred test for informed consent. However, it is also proposed that the broad right of a patient to information is reined in at the fault element of assault, so that a limited requirement of consciousness of wrongfulness on the part of the defendant negates liability for delictual assault.