48
Advocacy & Health Policy / Défense des intérêts et politiques en santé (continued from page 47)
doctor witnesses may have taken the “Hippocratic Oath”. I will describe how some key government players, and their supporters, appear instead to abide by a “Hypocritical Oath”.
patient-focused funding (instead of block funding), and a small component of non-government competition, as exists in every successful universal health system.
In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that Quebec citizens have the right to purchase private insurance, and stated that Canadians are suffering and dying on wait lists. I presume government lawyers will argue that patients outside of Quebec should be allowed to suffer and die on wait lists.
Patrick Monaghan, a former Dean of Law at Osgoode Hall, has written:
Our case differs from the Quebec case in two important areas. First, it is argued only under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and, as it rises through the hierarchy of courts, it will be precedent setting for all provinces. The Chaoulli ruling was under the Quebec charter. Secondly, we seek the legalization of “dual practice”, which will expand opportunities for many doctors, and their patients, constrained by limited access to hospitals. In orthopaedics, that will help solve the dilemma of the reported 178 young, highly qualified, surgeons who cannot get full time work. The court will ponder why Canada, in contrast to every other country on Earth (communist regimes of China, North Korea, Cuba, Laos, and Vietnam included), is alone in outlawing a citizen’s right to obtain private insurance for physician and hospital services. The court has heard arguments opposing governments’ tion that a monopoly serves consumers best. Our legal lenge is not about creating a free market in health We support a government-regulated internal market,
COA Bulletin ACO - Spring / Printemps 2017
posichalcare. with
“We conclude that where the publicly-funded system fails to deliver timely access, governments act unlawfully in prohibiting Canadians to use their own resources to access those services privately.” Our case is about forcing governments to obey the law. In upcoming editions of the COA Bulletin, Dr. Brian Day will be contributing trial updates from the Constitutional Challenge to B.C.’s ban on the purchase of private health insurance for medically necessary services that are already covered by the public system, led by the Cambie Surgery Centre. The outcome of this trial is important to orthopaedic surgeons across Canada as the decision in British Columbia will likely set a precedent for other provinces. Improving access will be beneficial to patients, to the economy of Canada, is compassionate, and will provide resources so that our orthopaedic graduates will have jobs in the future. Regardless of how you feel about the trial and its outcome, the debate on access and funding of care is critical to the future care of our patients – Ed.