A new attack on public healthcare was launched yesterday in the Supreme Court of BC.
But the Canadian Independent Medical Clinics Association calls it “Saving Medicare.”
According to a news release on the CIMCA website:
The Canadian Independent Medical Clinics Association (CIMCA) along with a group of independent BC medical clinics, today launched a lawsuit in the Supreme Court of B.C. to have legal restrictions on access to independent clinics struck down because they deprive patients of rights guaranteed by section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“The Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Chaoulli case was clear - access delayed is access denied. Patients are suffering and dying as a result of waiting for care in B.C.,” said Dr. Brian Day, Medical Director of the Cambie Surgery Centre, one of the independent clinics launching the suit. CIMCA is going to court to ensure that B.C. laws are modified to conform to the laws of Canada, as set forth by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The CIMCA challenge argues that sections of B.C.’s Medicare Protection Act effectively force patients to remain on unacceptably long wait lists, no matter what the degree of pain, suffering or disability they are experiencing.
CIMCA’s own website seems to have been in a coma before this latest news release. The site’s previous releases include none in 2008, one in 2007, and five in 2006.
Stories in the Globe and Mail and the Vancouver Sun are covering the lawsuit and responses to it.
The Cambie Surgery Centre, a “proud member of CIMCA,” isn’t up to speed on the case it’s now involved in. Its news section hasn’t seen an update since August 2004. But the head of the Centre, Dr. Brian Day, is well known to Tyee readers.
As for the text on its home page, The Hook would like to refer the Centre to a good punctuation expert at the Editors’ Association of Canada.
Crawford Kilian is a contributing editor of The Tyee, and a proud member of the English Inquisition, which no one expects.
6
Login or register to post comments
driftwolf
3 years ago
forgot something
They forgot something. They meant to say "B.C.’s Medicare Protection Act effectively force patients to remain on unacceptably long wait lists, no matter what the degree of pain, suffering or disability they are experiencing, or how rich and therefore much more important than everyone else they are."
driftwolf
3 years ago
all for it
Actually, I'm all for it. So long as the doctors, nurses and all staff refund the various Canadian governments for the ENTIRE cost of their heavily government subsidized training, and that the people involved in these "clinics for the wealthy" be forever denied all access to ANY publicly funded facility for diagnosis or treatment, and that the patients be forced to pay the FULL costs of all medications or treatments.
After all, if they want to jump to the head of the line, they shouldn't be bumping people out of the lines that are already there. Let them create their OWN lineups, with ALL the necessary equipment.
Otherwise, if they want to leech from the publicly funded system, they should be forced to deal with the rules governing that system.
Curt
3 years ago
against it
I am against this privatization of our health care.
The governments that are in place seem to cater to private companies. Abbott should have acted a long time ago instead of sitting on his arse like he always does and hopes the problem will go away. Well it hasn't and it won't.
If the people who decide to use this system have any problems with any of the procedures they've paid for, they cannot now be seen by the public system and must return to their clinic for any other follow ups, drugs they may need, or procedures that have gone wrong. Their choice. They must also sign documents saying they will not return to the public system. You're either in the public system or you're not.
P.M. Jaworski
3 years ago
Not an attack on public health care
Just to be clear: No one is attacking public health care. The attack is on the current prohibition on private care. The attack is on *exclusively government-run* health care.
There's a world of difference there. Sort of like this: We have a government-run (public) education system, but parents can choose to send children to a private school. We don't call it an "attack on public education" every time a private school opens up shop, and we shouldn't call this effort an "attack on public health care" either.
G West
3 years ago
P M Jaworski - NOT AT ALL
I'll say this about that. Public health care is attack from Dr Day and his buddies, make no mistake about it.
I'm also against any public funding of private schools - which doesn't mean I want to shut them down - I simply don't want any public dollars going to support them - the fact they do get public funds amounts to an attack on public education.
Putting any public funds into private health care will turn the public health system into an approximation of the mess that public education is today.
I assume you're not aware of the changes in capital funding for public schools in BC since 2001?
Frank
3 years ago
Doctor math
"Just to be clear: No one is attacking public health care."
Just to be clear, that's the only thing you ARE doing.
You want a separate private system that can sponge off the public system while also catering to the better off. Best of both worlds.
And when the public system loses publicly-trained doctors and nurses to the private system who will replace them?
Since doctors tend to be so bad at math that they claim a private system will actually free up spaces in the public system I will lay out an example.
Let's say there are 1000 patients and 100 doctors. Then 25 doctors set up their own private system to cater to the 50 most wealthy patients. Only a fool would think that the public system would now be better off without those 50 patients because the fact is the overall doctor to patient ratio has worsened.
As for your kids' private schools, people do complain when they receive public funding.