South Africa: Buying The Eye Of The Beholder: The Case For Selling Organs*

Last Updated: 26 January 2012
Article by Neil Kirby

Justification for the sale and purchase of human organs may be found in human rights law, which could endow individuals with the power to grow and sell their organs.

Medical technology has advanced to the point where one is able to grow one's own organs outside of one's body and thus accrue an interesting commodity - in so far as one is able to sell those organs to a third party who may indeed need the odd kidney, liver, spleen or eye.

The question that then arises is why should one not be able to sell such organs where there is supply and demand in terms of an ordinary commercial transaction?

Ultimate control

The approach to answering these questions is one that emanates from an area of the law that is not without controversy.

Euthanasia represents an interesting set of circumstances to the law in relation to the decision-making ability of an individual about his or her life and ultimately his or her body.

In Clarke v Hurst NO and Others, the High Court in Durban deliberated on whether a decision by a curator personae to authorise passive euthanasia would attract to him or her a charge of murder or culpable homicide.

The court was therefore faced with a decision concerning the legal liability for terminating a patient's life.

This decision turned principally on the directions issued by the patient during his lifetime to not to have his life prolonged artificially should the worst happen to him.

The court referred to a decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey in the matter of Karen Quinlan1 in which the Court addressed, "the question of possible criminal liability flowing from the determination of the life of a patient in a persistent vegetative state. In that case the father applied to be appointed as guardian to his daughter who was in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of being restored to a cognitive life. He also applied to be given the power, as guardian to the patient, to authorise the discontinuance of all extraordinary procedures for sustaining the patient's vital processes."

The Supreme Court of New Jersey decided that there would be no criminal liability visited upon the guardian of the patient on the basis of the right to privacy:

"These conclusions rest upon definitional and constitutional bases. The termination of treatment pursuant to the right of privacy is, within the limitations of this case ipso facto lawful. Thus, a death resulting from such an act would not come within the scope of the homicide statutes proscribing only the unlawful killing of another. There is a real and, in this case, determinative distinction between the unlawful taking of the life of another and the ending of artificial life-support systems as a matter of self-determination".2

The court also indicated that the decision-making process concerning the termination of a patient's life, in circumstances where the patient finds him / herself in a persistent vegetative state, is grounded exclusively within the realm of constitutional rights. The reasoning of the court was that, under these circumstances, the decision is protected from criminal prosecution.3

The Durban High Court in the Clarke decision did not ultimately endorse the decision of the Supreme Court of New Jersey. The Durban High Court instead favoured an approach based on the premise that, "[t]he issues in the present application can only be approached after a thorough evaluation of the patient's physical and neurological deficits and the extent of the biological and intellectual life which still remains to him".4

The South African courts therefore chose to turn away from the effects of constitutional decision-making and relied on the particular aspects of the patient's life and decision-making.

Ironically such an approach ultimately places the emphasis on self-determination – an attribute that is found and endorsed expressly within the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 (the Constitution) – in section 10 in respect of dignity,5 in section 11 concerning the right to life6 and in section 12 in the right to freedom and security of the person.7

The court in the Clarke judgment analysed the patient's interests, rights and expressions of belief concerning his life should he become incapacitated and unable to make decisions for himself when contrasted with the quality of the patient's life in a vegetative state.

Therefore, the Court in the Clarke decision endeavoured to place itself in the mind, as it were, of the patient, i.e. that patient's view of self-determination determines what is best for the patient in the circumstances in which the patient found himself. The court came to the conclusion, based both on an examination of expert evidence presented at the hearing and the self determination test determined specifically by it for the patient, that:

" The maintenance of life in the form of certain biological functions such as the heartbeat, respiration, digestion and blood circulation but unaccompanied by any cortical and cerebral functioning of the brain, cannot be equated with living in the human or animal context".8

The court in the Clarke decision does, with the greatest of respect, lose its way in relation to the application of the self-determination test to which it refers earlier in its judgment. The court proceeds to place a greater degree of emphasis on the matter of causation looking carefully at whether or not the activities of a person turning off life sustaining machinery amounts to the direct cause of the death of the person relying on the existence of the working of such machinery.

The court ultimately concludes that it would not be wrongful for the machinery sustaining the patient to be turned off in so far as the removal of the life sustaining machinery would not be the direct cause of the patient's death.9

The Clarke judgment presents an interesting decision-making matrix within which decisions concerning a person's body, not just the termination of life, may be made. The Clarke judgment certainly breathes life into the notion of self-determination, which is echoed in the Bill of Rights in the Constitution.

Accordingly, there appears to be fertile ground upon which South Africans may be entitled to make decisions concerning the course of action to be followed by them in relation to the use of their bodies for circumstances other than sustaining life.

This argument is certainly controversial and would be based primarily on the extrapolation of the rights found in section 12(2)(b) of the right to freedom and security of the person in the Constitution.

The right to self-determination in relation to control over one's body

An analysis of the rights to bodily integrity, life and security of the person would be required to understand the scope and ambit of this right in South African law.

Based on the interests that are at stake in relation to a person's ability to make decisions concerning his or her own body, it would appear that South African law does recognise these decisions in the context of euthanasia at common law, and the termination of pregnancy in terms of statute.10

However, both of these areas have been controversially developed over decades of jurisprudence. Consequently, the translation of the right and its development in a constitutional dispensation must be nurtured within the framework of the Bill of Rights and subject to the limitations applicable to rights set out in the Bill of Rights.

The right to make decisions about one's body, in the context of the debate about abortion was forged into statutes controlling the decision-making process that a person must follow in order to terminate a pregnancy.11

Therefore, it may very well be that the argument concerning the sale of organs in South African law may turn on the ability of South African constitutional jurisprudence to knit together successfully the rights to bodily integrity and the right to life and possibly property.12

Euthanasia, as a concept in law, is already dealt with within the context of the constitutional rights to life and dignity.13 However, the concept of the right to life has traditionally been treated as a decision concerning the right to live and the right to choose to die, and not what one is able to do with one's body in the context of selling one's organs.14

The issue of the sale of human organs is one that traditionally offends against the sensibilities of society. There is a great deal of resistance to the commodification of the human body and much concern about the consequences of such a commodification – evident in the degree to which the illicit sale of human organs now takes place globally.

Accordingly, the movement of organs in South African society, which is no different to other common law jurisdictions, occurs on the basis of donations which are strictly controlled by statutory laws. The statutes dealing with organ donations in South African law are the Human Tissue Act No. 65 of 1983 and the National Health Act No. 61 of 2003.

Recently, draft regulations have been proposed by the South African Department of Health concerning the general control of human bodies, tissue, blood, blood products and gametes.15 The regulations that are proposed to deal with issues concerning the donation of human tissue, blood, blood products and gametes are also available in draft for public comment16 but the applicable law remains the Human Tissue Act.

Under South African law in the form of the National Health Act, it is proposed that donations of organs by living persons may occur only in prescribed circumstances where the person is older than eighteen years and only for particular purposes identified in the National Health Act.

Section 60 of this act, deals expressly with payments in connection with the importation, acquisition and supply of tissue, blood, blood products or gametes. The fundamental principle in section 60 is that payment may be made for tissue, blood, blood products or gametes but only by persons identified in section 60.17

However, section 60(1)(b) does contemplate a person, other than an authorised institution, in so far as the seller is a person who falls within the provisions of section 55(a) and sells the tissue concerned to another person.

Thus this section does allow a living person to remove tissue, blood, blood products or gametes and provide the removed tissue to a living person for the purposes contemplated in section 56(1). The transaction must be based on "a written consent of the person from whom the tissue, blood, blood products or gametes are removed" which is consistent with the prescribed manner for providing such consent.

Unfortunately, the prescribed manner for the consent has not, as yet, found its way into South African law. Uncertainty therefore exists as to whether or not the expressed provisions of or language used in section 55(a) read together with the language used in sections 56(1) and 63 of the National Health Act would permit circumstances - although limited - in which a tissue, which would include an organ, may be sold rather than donated by one living person to another - bearing in mind that the donation of human tissue is dealt with expressly and distinctly in section 62 of the National Health Act.

What remains evident from the provisions of both the Human Tissue Act and the National Health Act is the existence of a market in which the sale of organs is already permitted.

Constitutional basis for the organ marketplace

The issue is not so much the use of organs, blood products and gametes bearing in mind that as a society we are now comfortable with the donation of spermicide or ovum, artificial fertilisation and similar techniques pertaining to the creation of human life.

The point is that as a society we would need to become comfortable with the ability to sell organs that people either have available within them or that they choose to grow as a result of advances in medical technology.

The question is whether or not, as a result of the election that one makes to a grow an organ outside of one's body based on material taken from one's body, one may then exercise over that external organ, the rights of a property owner and sell that organ to a person who is prepared to pay for it?

The issue of property rights over one's tissue or organs, for that matter, remains controversial in law:

" Matters are further complicated by the opaqueness of the law as to the actual status of body parts in property terms. Thus, while there is evidence in the case law that would suggest that regenerative body material such as hair, blood and urine can be the subject of property, the United Kingdom courts and legislature have been, on the whole, reluctant to address this issue directly. The Human Organ Transplants Act 1989 says nothing about property and organs as such and merely criminalises those who would attempt to trade in the material. Similarly, in controlling the use and storage of gametes, the Human Fertilisation and Embriology Act 1990 remise on the express written wishes of the donor of gametes that falls far short of acknowledging a property right in any sample. That should be compared with the Court of Appeal of California's decision in Hecht v Kane, in which the Court held that a deceased man who had previously deposited sperm for the use of his partner had an interest 'in the nature of the ownership' of the samples so as to render them 'property' within the meaning of the Probate Code and, accordingly, disposable property on his death. This decision should be contrasted with the French case of Parpalaix v CECOS, in which the Court ordered the return of frozen sperm to the wife of the depositor on the basis of an agreement which had been made between him and the sperm bank. It refused, however, to go as far as to recognise any property interest in the sperm."18

The answer to the creation of a marketplace for the sale of organs may turn on establishing certain precepts that are (1) loaned from existing socio-legal structures and (2) the acceptance of novel socio-legal concepts introduced by constitutional jurisprudence:

  • an acceptable precedent of a well-functioning and established marketplace, which is presented by the existing, albeit controlled, organ sales market for authorised institutions in the medical research sector – presented by current legislation, such as the Human Tissues Act, and proposed legislation, in the form of the National Health Act;
  • a constitutional right to self-determination based on existing endowed rights to life, dignity and property that incorporates acceptance of control over bodily organs vesting in the individual;
  • a competent and trusted system controlling the sale so as to reduce prejudice to the seller and to protect the purchaser, the controls for which would be dictated by medical competence, a trusted clinical environment and established contractual terms including informed consent;
  • measures to enforce matters of non-compliance with statutory or other principles attendant upon the conclusion of an organ sale agreement; and
  • a proper understanding, through a thorough exposition of the advantages (and disadvantages) presented by the availability of organs to a particular society based on need and the reduction of prejudice currently visited on those in need of organs and those selling organs but who are not able to access such treatments or information, respectively, due to waiting lists and other barriers to access.19

In so far as the transaction is legitimate and one is able to grow one's organ in circumstances that are secure, legal and clinical and the transaction is regulated properly and within the confines of statutory law, and there is thus no prejudice visited upon any party as a result of the sale, then the organ sale marketplace is arguably acceptable:

" It should be stressed that the line of argument developed makes no reference whatsoever to libertarian principles about individual rights and unfettered markets, and comes nowhere near implying that commercial pressures should be allowed to take their course. Its starting point is only a modest presumption in favour of letting competent adults decide what risks to take for themselves, strengthened, in the case of kidney selling, by the intrinsic desirability of saving life and mitigating poverty. For anyone who wants to reject these starting points, the rest of the argument will be irrelevant, but these are principles that most people, including most opponents of payment in these cases, would usually accept".20

The calamitous consequences for victims of illicit trading in human organs may very well be quashed as a result of the deregulation or proper regulation of the sale of human organs. This position has as its corollary that proper regulation of the sale of human organs may be appropriate when there is a demand for human organs.

The sale of human organs may be endorsed in very much the same way as the law is already controlling the donation of human organs21 as well as the proposed control in South Africa of:

  • the use of stem cells,
  • the transfusion of blood, blood products,22
  • the regulation of tissue banks,23
  • the importation and exportation of cultured cells, stem cells, embryos, zygotes and gametes,24
  • the regulation of stem cell institutions and organisations25

and regulations generally relating to the use of human biological material26 including in-vitro fertilisation, the manipulation of human DNA, and the artificial fertilisation of persons.27

Implied in these proposed regulations is the law's respect for the ability of a person to make decisions about the destination of certain of his or her own biological material. In addition, the proposed regulations impliedly adhere to and respect the precepts contained in the Bill of Rights: the principle of self-determination is relied upon squarely to justify steps by the legislature to allow for the enactment of such proposed regulations.


The South African Bill of Rights arguably allows one to exercise a greater degree of control over one's body than under the common law.

This allows for an application of constitutional law that upholds one's decision-making over the destiny of the products of one's body in relation to the growth of organs derived from material generated by one's own body and willingly and voluntarily provided to a third party for that very purpose subject to an agreed price.


* This is an extract of a paper presented at the International Bar Association Annual Conference which was held from 31 October to 4 November 2011 in Dubai

1 70 NJ 10; 335 A 2d 647 (NJ 1976)

2 See the Clarke decision at 639

3 See the Clarke decision in the quotation on page 639

4 See the Clarke decision on page 640

5 "Everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected and protected."

6 "Everyone has the right to life."

7 "Everyone has the right to freedom and security of the person..."

8 See the Clarke judgment at page 658

9 See pages 659 to 660 of the Clarke judgment

10 The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act No. 92 of 1996

11 The Choice on Termination of Pregnancy Act No. 92 of 1996

12 See J A Bovenberg Property Rights in Blood, Genes and Data: Naturally Yours? (2006) at pages 196 to 202

13 S v Nkwanyana 2003 (1) SA 303 (W), S v Hartmann [1975] 3 All SA 87 (C), R v Adam [1955] 2 All SA 6 (T)

14 See Cheadle et al, quoted above, at pages 6-17 to 6-20

15 As GNR268, published in Government Gazette 34159 on 1 April 2011

16 Ibid

17 Tissue is defined in section 1 of the National Health Act as: "human tissue, and includes flesh, bone, a gland, an organ, skin, bone marrow or body fluid, but excludes blood or gamete".

17 See J K Mason, R A McCall Smith and J T Laurie Law and Medical Ethics 5th ed (1999) at pages 486 to 487

19 Jackson, quoted above, at page 728

20 J R Richards "Selling organs, gametes, and surrogacy services" in R Rhodes, L P Francis and A Silvers (eds) The Blackwell Guide to Medical Ethics 1st ed (2007) at pages 254 to 267

21 GNR 268 published in Government Gazette 34159 dated 1 April 2011

22 GNR 269 published in Government Gazette 34159 dated 1 April 2011

23 GNR 267 published in Government Gazette 34159 dated 1 April 2011

24 GNR 266 published in Government Gazette 34159 dated 1 April 2011

25 GNR 265 published in Government Gazette 34159 dated 1 April 2011

26 GNR 263 published in Government Gazette 34159 dated 1 April 2011

27 GNR 262 published in Government Gazette 34159 dated 1 April 2011

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Related Topics
Related Articles
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions