Related Experiment Video
Updated: Aug 26, 2025

Author Spotlight: Integrating 2D-HPLC-MS and Molecular Networking in Natural Medicine Analysis
Published on: December 8, 2023
Medicine and the Law
1Attorney of the High Court of South Africa; Lecturer, Steve Biko Centre for Bioethics, School of Clinical Medicine, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, South Africa. siraaj.khan@wits.ac.za.
Cases of baby swapping in South Africa (SA) are very rare. In 1996 the first of these cases, Clinton-Parker v Administrator, Transvaal; Dawkins v Administrator, Transvaal, appeared before our courts. The parties in that instance decided to keep the babies who had been erroneously given to them, but the plaintiffs were awarded compensation for the emotional shock and injury they endured as the result of the defendant's negligence. In recent times we had the case of Child Law v NN and NS (GP), where the parties also decided to keep the children who had been erroneously given to them by the hospital staff. These scenarios, while difficult, have had amicable conclusions, with the parents electing not to pursue custody of their natural children. The situation would be more complex if either of the parties were to decide that they want their natural child back. A number of questions are pertinent here, and will guide the discussion in this article. Is it as simple as both of the 'psychological' parents returning the babies to their natural parents? Do the parents have a claim against the hospital staff? Unfortunately there is not a wealth of legal precedent to assist the SA courts in this regard. The article explores the jurisprudence that speaks to baby swapping, in an attempt to provide clarity and assistance in resolving these difficult cases.
Cases of baby swapping in South Africa (SA) are very rare. In 1996 the first of these cases, Clinton-Parker v Administrator, Transvaal; Dawkins v Administrator, Transvaal, appeared before our courts. The parties in that instance decided to keep the babies who had been erroneously given to them, but the plaintiffs were awarded compensation for the emotional shock and injury they endured as the result of the defendant's negligence. In recent times we had the case of Child Law v NN and NS (GP), where the parties also decided to keep the children who had been erroneously given to them by the hospital staff. These scenarios, while difficult, have had amicable conclusions, with the parents electing not to pursue custody of their natural children. The situation would be more complex if either of the parties were to decide that they want their natural child back. A number of questions are pertinent here, and will guide the discussion in this article. Is it as simple as both of the 'psychological' parents returning the babies to their natural parents? Do the parents have a claim against the hospital staff? Unfortunately there is not a wealth of legal precedent to assist the SA courts in this regard. The article explores the jurisprudence that speaks to baby swapping, in an attempt to provide clarity and assistance in resolving these difficult cases.
More Related Videos
06:59A Novel Approach for the Administration of Medications and Fluids in Emergency Scenarios and Settings
Published on: November 9, 2016
06:31Precision Implementation of Minimal Erythema Dose MED Testing to Assess Individual Variation in Human Inflammatory Response
Published on: October 3, 2019
Related Concept Videos
Drug Control Governance: Regulatory Bodies and Their Impact
Drug Regulation
Drug Classes and Categories
Sources of Law
Constitutional law is foundational, deriving from federal and state constitutions, and...
Nurses' Legal Responsibilities II
Communication between nurses and...
Drug Therapy
Antianxiety Medications