SACHS J SACHS J: [50] I am in full agreement with the eloquent, forceful and well-focused judgment of Chaskalson P and wish merely to add certain considerations which I regard as relevant. [51] The special attention given by section 27(3) to non-refusal of emergency medical treatment relates to the particular sense of shock to our notions of human solidarity occasioned by the turning away from hospital of people battered and bleeding or of those who fall victim to sudden and unexpected collapse. It provides reassurance to all members of society that accident and emergency departments will be available to deal with the unforeseeable catastrophes which could befall any person, anywhere and at any time.1 The values protected by section 27(3) would, accordingly, be undermined rather than reinforced by any unwarranted conflation of emergency and non-emergency treatment such as that argued for by the appellant. [52] In a case such as the present which engages our compassion to the full, I feel it necessary to underline the fact that Chaskalson P’s judgment, as I understand it, does not 1 See B New The Rationing Agenda in the NHS (King’s Fund Policy Institute, London 1996) at 9. 28