Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Years
2019 2020 2021
Previous Archive
27 November 2021

The Council of the University of the Free State (UFS) carefully considered and approved a vaccination policy for the institution during its meeting on 26 November 2021. 

The aim of the COVID-19 Regulations and Required Vaccination Policy is to regulate access of staff, ad hoc contract workers, and students to all the university’s premises. The policy will be implemented as from 14 February 2022.

“The policy implies that the university does not force anyone to be vaccinated, but the institution has the right to require vaccination if you want to access the institution’s premises in order to protect our staff and students,” said Prof Francis Petersen, UFS Rector and Vice-Chancellor.    

Fiduciary duty to ensure safe and caring environment

“The UFS is a residential university that requires face-to-face engagement by both staff and students, and operational requirements entail that our staff, ad hoc contract workers, and students are regularly exposed to large groups on the three campuses. We have a fiduciary duty to ensure a safe and caring environment and to meet the health and safety obligations on the campuses,” said Prof Petersen. 

Since March 2020 and within the national lockdown levels, the institution has followed a predominantly online emergency-remote learning-and-teaching programme with a minimalistic approach to the return of staff and students to campus. Where possible and within the national lockdown levels, staff members have been working from home, except essential service employees and academic staff that were required to support students studying on campus in carefully managed face-to-face classes/interactions.  

“The viability of consistent remote working and study conditions is not in line with the culture and strategy of the UFS. Although a blended learning approach is supported, sole online learning will be detrimental to the quality of our graduates and the experience that the institution should offer to its students as a residential university,” said Prof Petersen.

Encouraging university community to vaccinate

The institution is greatly concerned about the number of staff, students, and ad hoc contract workers who have tested positive for COVID-19 since the commencement of the national lockdown. The pandemic has resulted in numerous individuals being placed in quarantine, testing positive or being incapacitated due to COVID-19 complications and deaths. “We believe that the policy will be a contributing factor in encouraging the entire university community to make the responsible decision to vaccinate,” said Prof Petersen.

Although the policy does not force anyone to vaccinate, it is aimed at restricting campus access to vaccinated persons, while at the same time considering applications for exemption based on medical and religious grounds, natural immunity objections, other legally acceptable exemptions, or those participating in clinical trials approved by the South African Health Products Regulatory Authority (SAHPRA). Employee and Student Vaccination Exemption Committees will evaluate applications for exemption. These committees will operate independently, and will include medical, religious, legal and psychology experts.

Vaccinated persons will be required to upload their vaccination certificates on an electronic platform to obtain access to campus. Staff, ad hoc contract workers, and students who are not vaccinated, who do not have an approved exemption or deferral, and who do not have a SARS COVID-19 PCR negative result that is not older than a week, will not be allowed access to the campuses or facilities. Only vaccinated students will be allowed to access on-campus accommodation. 

Students who are not vaccinated by 14 February 2022, will not be prevented from registering for the academic year, but can only access the campus if vaccinated or granted an exemption. 

Consultation process and thorough risk assessment

“The development of the policy was consulted widely with relevant internal stakeholders, among others, the university’s Senate, supporting it with an overwhelming 84%. The university also followed due process by referring the proposed policy to all its governance structures for consultation – including obtaining opinions from reputable legal firms in the country,” said Prof Petersen. 

According to Prof Petersen, the UFS has conducted a thorough risk assessment of the implementation of the policy, and a contingency plan is in place that will be implemented in the absence of full implementation of the policy. “We will consider following a flexible approach if we initially find that the rate of vaccinations is low. We will work tirelessly with government to accelerate the rate of vaccinations with the ultimate goal to obtain a high enough level of vaccinations to limit the transmission of the COVID-19 virus and create a safe work and study environment for our staff and students,” he said. 

VIEW the Roads to Return to Campus 2022 Infographic here



Released by:
Lacea Loader (Director: Communication and Marketing)
Telephone: +27 51 401 2584 | +27 83 645 2454
Email: news@ufs.ac.za | loaderl@ufs.ac.za

News Archive

Stem cell research and human cloning: legal and ethical focal points
2004-07-29

   

(Summary of the inaugural lecture of Prof Hennie Oosthuizen, from the Department of Criminal and Medical Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of the Free State.)

 

In the light of stem cell research, research on embryo’s and human cloning it will be fatal for legal advisors and researchers in South Africa to ignore the benefits that new bio-medical development, through research, contain for this country.

Legal advisors across the world have various views on stem cell research and human cloning. In the USA there is no legislation that regulates stem cell research but a number of States adopted legislation that approves stem cell research. The British Parlement gave permission for research on embryonic stem cells, but determined that it must be monitored closely and the European Union is of the opinion that it will open a door for race purification and commercial exploitation of human beings.

In South Africa the Bill on National Health makes provision for therapeutical and non therapeutical research. It also makes provision for therapeutical embryonical stem cell research on fetuses, which is not older than 14 days, as well as for therapeutical cloning under certain circumstances subject to the approval of the Minister. The Bill prohibits reproductive cloning.

Research on human embrio’s is a very controversial issue, here and in the rest of the world.

Researchers believe that the use of stem cell therapy could help to side-step the rejection of newly transplanted organs and tissue and if a bank for stem cell could be built, the shortage of organs for transplants would become something of the past. Stem cells could also be used for healing of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and spinal injuries.

Sources from which stem cells are obtained could also lead to further ethical issues. Stem cells are harvested from mature human cells and embryonic stem cells. Another source to be utilised is to take egg cells from the ovaries of aborted fetuses. This will be morally unacceptable for those against abortions. Linking a financial incentive to that could become more of a controversial issue because the woman’s decision to abort could be influenced. The ideal would be to rather use human fetus tissue from spontaneous abortions or extra-uterine pregnancies than induced abortions.

The potential to obtain stem cells from the blood of the umbilical cord, bone-marrow and fetus tissue and for these cells to arrange themselves is known for quite some time. Blood from the umbilical cord contains many stem cells, which is the origin of the body’s immune and blood system. It is beneficial to bank the blood of a newborn baby’s umbilical cord. Through stem cell transplants the baby or another family member’s life could be saved from future illnesses such as anemia, leukemia and metabolic storing disabilities as well as certain generic immuno disabilities.

The possibility to withdraw stem cells from human embrio’s and to grow them is more useable because it has more treatment possibilities.

With the birth of Dolly the sheep, communities strongly expressed their concern about the possibility that a new cloning technique such as the replacement of the core of a cell will be used in human reproduction. Embryonic splitting and core replacement are two well known techniques that are associated with the cloning process.

I differentiate between reproductive cloning – to create a cloned human embryo with the aim to bring about a pregnancy of a child that is identical to another individual – and therapeutically cloning – to create a cloned human embryo for research purposes and for healing human illnesses.

Worldwide people are debating whether to proceed with therapeutical cloning. There are people for and against it. The biggest ethical objection against therapeutical cloning is the termination of the development of a potential human being.

Children born from cloning will differ from each other. Factors such as the uterus environment and the environment in which the child is growing up will play a role. Cloning create unique children that will grow up to be unique individuals, just like me and you that will develop into a person, just like you and me. If we understand this scientific fact, most arguments against human cloning will disappear.

Infertility can be treated through in vitro conception. This process does not work for everyone. For some cloning is a revolutionary treatment method because it is the only method that does not require patients to produce sperm and egg cells. The same arguments that were used against in vitro conception in the past are now being used against cloning. It is years later and in vitro cloning is generally applied and accepted by society. I am of the opinion that the same will happen with regard to human cloning.

There is an argument that cloning must be prohibited because it is unsafe. Distorted ideas in this regard were proven wrong. Are these distorted ideas justified to question the safety of cloning and the cloning process you may ask. The answer, according to me, is a definite no. Human cloning does have many advantages. That includes assistance with infertility, prevention of Down Syndrome and recovery from leukemia.

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept