CHASKALSON P onto dialysis permanently. A study undertaken at the hospital shows that over 60% of the patients treated at the hospital by CAPD have had to be placed on dialysis permanently. The cost of the treatment is high – the fluids used in the treatment call for an expenditure of approximately R4000 per month – and there is the additional cost of having to accommodate the patient at the hospital and treat him or her in the surgery. Because of the high cost of the treatment and the demands that it makes on hospital resources including dialysis facilities, the hospital has also set criteria for treating patients by CAPD. Only patients who are candidates for transplant are placed on CAPD and approximately 130 such patients are being treated in this way at the hospital. The appellant is not a candidate for a transplant and accordingly does not meet the criteria for CAPD treatment. [34] Counsel for the appellant, correctly in my view, appreciated that there was no material difference between the appellant’s claim to be placed on dialysis (which is his preferred option) and the alternative of being treated by CAPD. Neither form of treatment is “emergency treatment”, neither is accessible to all patients suffering from chronic renal failure and because of the limited resources both are subject to criteria which the appellant does not meet. [35] I should add that I do not consider it appropriate to comment on the attitude of the 19