MADALA J resources “to achieve the progressive realisation of each of these rights.” 4 In its language, the Constitution accepts that it cannot solve all of our society’s woes overnight, but must go on trying to resolve these problems. One of the limiting factors to the attainment of the Constitution’s guarantees is that of limited or scarce resources. In the present case the limited haemodialysis facilities, inclusive of haemodialysis machines, beds and trained staff constitute the limited or scarce facilities. [44] The applicant, aware of his rights under the Constitution, sought to claim in the court a quo, his right to emergency medical treatment under section 27(3). He averred that with haemodialysis he could live for a long time, without it his life would be brief. The application was turned down by Combrink J. It is that refusal to grant an order directing the respondent to cause the rendering of on-going dialysis which has precipitated this appeal. The appellant contended that the refusal by the renal unit to give him the dialysis treatment he requires in order to keep alive was unreasonable, unjust and not equitable in a just and open democratic society and was a flagrant violation of his rights. He also averred in his papers that by refusing him this treatment, the respondent was discriminating against him. This latter averment was not followed up in argument at the hearing, and I accordingly take it no further. Suffice to observe that in the light of this Court’s approach to equality, the appellant’s argument in that 4 Section 27(2). See also sections 25, 26, 29 and 32. 24