Results

5 records – page 1 of 1.

Carter: CMA submission regarding euthanasia and assisted death

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13935

Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2014-08-27
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Population health/ health equity/ public health
  1 document  
Policy Type
Court submission
Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2014-08-27
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Population health/ health equity/ public health
Text
S.C.C. No. 35591 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR BRITISH COLUMBIA) BETWEEN: LEE CARTER, HOLLIS JOHNSON, DR. WILLIAM SHOICHET, THE BRITISH COLUMBIA CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION and GLORIA TAYLOR Appellants - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA and ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA Respondents -and- ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUEBEC, ALLIANCE OF PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES WHO ARE SUPPORTIVE OF LEGAL ASSISTED DYING SOCIETY, ASSOCIATION FOR REFORMED POLITICAL ACTION CANADA, THE CANADIAN CIVIL LIBERTIES ASSOCIATION, THE CANADIAN HIV/AIDS LEGAL NETWORK AND THE HIV & AIDS LEGAL CLINIC ONTARIO, THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, THE CANADIAN UNITARIAN COUNCIL, THE CATHOLIC CIVIL RIGHTS LEAGUE, THE FAITH AND FREEDOM ALLIANCE AND THE PROTECTION OF CONSCIENCE PROJECT, THE CATHOLIC HEALTH ALLIANCE OF CANADA, THE CHRISTIAN LEGAL FELLOWSHIP, THE CHRISTIAN MEDICAL AND DENTAL SOCIETY OF CANADA, THE CANADIAN FEDERATION OF CATHOLIC PHYSICIANS' SOCIETIES, THE COLLECTIF DES MEDECINS CONTRE L'EUTHANASIE, THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS WITH DISABILITIES AND THE CANADIAN SOCIETY FOR COMMUNITY LIVING, THE CRIMINAL LA WYERS' ASSOCIATION (ONTARIO), DYING WITH DIGNITY, THE EV ANGELICAL FELLOWSHIP OF CANADA, THE FAREWELL FOUNDATION FOR THE RIGHT TO DIE and THE ASSOCIATION QUEBECOISE POUR LE DROIT DE MOURIR DANS LA DIGNITE, and THE EUTHANASIA PREVENTION COALITION AND THE EUTHANASIA PREVENTION COALITION - BRITISH COLUMBIA FACTUM OF THE INTERVENER THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION Rules 37 and 42 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada Interveners POLLEY FAITH LLP The Victory Building 80 Richmond Street West Suite 1300 Toronto, Ontario M5H 2A4 Harry Underwood and Jessica Prince Tel: ( 416) 365-1600 Fax: (416) 365-1601 hunderwood@polleyfaith.com jprince@polleyfaith.com Jean Nelson Tel: (613) 731-8610 Fax: (613) 526-7571 j ean.nelson@cma.ca Counsel for the Intervener, the Canadian Medical Association GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 1 C3 D. Lynne Watt Tel: (613) 786-8695 Fax: (613) 788-3509 email lynne. watt@gowlings.com Ottawa Agent for the Intervener, the Canadian Medical Association ORIGINAL TO: The Registrar Supreme Court of Canada 301 Wellington Street Ottawa, Ontario KIA OJI COPIES TO: Counsel for the Appellants, Lee Carter, Hollis Johnson, Dr. William Shoichet, The British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and Gloria Taylor Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. and Alison M. Latimer Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP 25 th Floor, 700 West Georgia Street Vancouver, BC V7Y 1B3 Tel: (604) 684-9151 Fax: (604) 661-9349 Email: jarvay@farris.com -and- Sheila M. Tucker Davis LLP 2800- 666 Burrard Street Vancouver, BC V6C 2Z7 Tel: (604) 643-2980 Fax: (604) 605-3781 Email: stucker@davis.ca Agent for the Appellants Jeffrey W. Beedell Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 1C3 Tel: (613) 233-1781 Fax: (613) 788-3587 Email: jeff. beedell@gowlings.com Counsel for the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada Donnaree Nygard and Robert Frater Department of Justice Canada 900 - 840 Howe Street Vancouver, BC V6Z 2S9 Tel: (604) 666-3049 Fax: (604) 775-5942 Email: donnaree.nygard@justice.gc.ca Counsel for the Respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia Jean M. Walters Ministry of Justice Legal Services Branch 6th Floor - 1001 Douglas Street PO Box 9230 Stn Prov Govt Victoria, BC V8W 9J7 Tel: (250) 356-8894 Fax: (250) 356-9154 Email: jean.walters@gov.bc.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario Zachary Green Attorney General of Ontario 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor Toronto, ON MSG 2Kl Tel: ( 416) 326-4460 Fax: (416) 326-4015 Email: zachary.green@ontario.ca Agent for the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada Robert Frater Department of Justice Canada Civil Litigation Section 50 O'Connor Street, Suite 50 Ottawa, Ontario KIA 0H8 Tel: (613) 670-6289 Fax: (613) 954-1920 Email: ro bert. frater@ j ustice. gc.ca Agent for the Respondent, Attorney General of British Columbia Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Burke-Robertson 441 MacLaren Street, Suite 200 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2H3 Tel: (613) 236-9665 Fax: (613) 235-4430 Email: rhouston@burkerobertson.com Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Burke-Robertson 441 MacLaren Street, Suite 200 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 2H3 Tel: (613) 236-9665 Fax: (613) 235-4430 Email: rhouston@burkerobertson.com Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Quebec Sylvain Leboef and Syltiane Goulet Procureur general du Quebec 1200, Route de L'Eglise, 2eme etage Quebec, QC GlV 4Ml Tel: (418) 643-1477 Fax: ( 418) 644-7030 Email: sylvain.leboeuf@justice.gouv.gc.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Association for Community Living David Baker Sarah Mohamed Bakerlaw 4 711 Yonge Street, Suite 509 Toronto, Ontario M2N 6K8 Tel: (416) 533-0040 Fax: ( 416) 533-0050 Email: dbaker@bakerlaw.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Christian Legal Fellowship Gerald D. Chipeur, Q.C. Miller Thomirson LLP 3000, 700-9t A venue SW Calgary, Alberta T2P 3V4 Tel: (403) 298-2425 Fax: (403) 262-0007 Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Quebec Pierre Landry Noel & Associes 111 Champlain Street Gatineau, QC J8X 3Rl Tel: (819)771-7393 Fax: (819) 771-5397 Email: p.landry@noelassocies.com Agent for the Intervener, Council of Canadians with Disabilities and the Canadian Association for Community Living Marie-France Major Supreme Advocacy LLP 397 Gladstone A venue, Suite 100 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0Y9 Tel: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca Agent for the Intervener, Christian Legal Fellowship Eugene Meehan, Q.C. Supreme Advocacy LLP 397 Gladstone A venue, Suite 100 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0Y9 Tel: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 101 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: emeehan@supremeadvocacy.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Agent for the Intervener, Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the Canadian HIV/AIDS Legal Network and the HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario HIV & AIDS Legal Clinic Ontario Gordon Capern Michael Fenrick Paliare, Roland, Rosenberg, Rothstein, LLP 155 Wellington Street West, 35 th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5V 3Hl Tel: ( 416) 646-4311 Fax: (416) 646-4301 Email: gordon.capem@paliareroland.com Counsel for the Intervener, Reformed Political Action Canada Andre Schutten ARPA Canada I Rideau Street, Suite 700 Ottawa, Ontario KIN 8S7 Tel: (613) 297-5172 Fax: (613) 670-5701 Email: andre@ARP A Canada.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Collectif des medecins contre l'euthanasie Pierre Bienvenu Andres C. Garin Vincent Rochette Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP 1, Place Ville Marie, Bureau 2500 Montreal, Quebec H3B IRI Tel: (514) 847-4452 Fax: (514) 286-5474 Email: pierre. bienvenue@nortonrose.com Marie-France Major Supreme Advocacy LLP 397 Gladstone Avenue, Suite 100 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0Y9 Tel: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca Agent for the Intervener, Collectif des medecins contre l'euthanasie Sally Gomery Norton Rose Fulbright Canada LLP 1500-45 O'Connor Street Ottawa, Ontario KIP 1A4 Tel: (613) 780-8604 Fax: (613) 230-5459 Email: sally. gomery@nortonrose.com Counsel for the Intervener, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Geoffrey Trotter Geoffrey Trotter Law Corporation 1185 West Georgia Street, suite 1700 Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 4E6 Tel: (604) 678-9190 Fax: (604) 259-2459 Email: gt @ gtlawcorp .com Counsel for the Intervener, Christian Medical and Dental Society of Canada Albertos Polizogopoulos Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP 260 Dalhousie Street, Suite 400 Ottawa, Ontario KlN 7E4 Tel: (613) 241-2701 Fax: (613) 241-2599 Email: albertos @ vdg.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians' Societies Geoffrey Trotter Geoffrey Trotter Law Corporation 1185 West Georgia Street, suite 1700 Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 4E6 Tel: (604) 678-9190 Fax: (604) 259-2459 Email: gt@gtlawcorp.com Agent for the Intervener, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada Albertos Polizogopoulos Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP 260 Dalhousie Street, Suite 400 Ottawa, Ontario K 1 N 7E4 Tel : (613) 241-2701 Fax: (613) 241-2599 Rmail: albertos@vdg.ca Agent for the Intervener, Canadian Federation of Catholic Physicians' Societies Marie-France Major Supreme Advocacy LLP 397 Gladstone Avenue, Suite 100 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0Y9 Tel: (613) 695-8855 Ext : 102 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: mfmajor@.supremeadvocacy.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Dying with Dignity Cynthia Petersen Kelly Doctor Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP 1100-20 Dundas Street West, Box 180 Toronto, Ontario MSG 2G8 Tel: (416) 977-6070 Fax: (416) 591-7333 Email: cpetersen@sgmlaw.com Counsel for the Intervener, Catholic Health Alliance of Canada Russell G. Gibson Albertos Polizogopoulos Vincent Dagenais Gibson LLP 260 Dalhousie Street, Suite 400 Ottawa, Ontario K 1 N 7E4 Tel: (613) 241-2701 Ext. 229 Fax: (613) 241-2599 Email: russell.gibson@vdg.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) Marlys A. Edwarth Daniel Sheppard Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP 1100-20 Dundas Street West Toronto, Ontario MSG 2G8 Tel: (416) 979-4380 Fax: (416) 979-4430 Email: medwarth@ sgmlaw.com Agent for the Intervener, Dying with Dignity Raija Pulkkinen Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP 500-30 Metcalfe Street Ottawa, Ontario KIP 5L4 Tel: (613) 235-5327 Fax: (613) 235-3041 Email: rpulkkinen@sgmlaw.com Agent for the Intervener, Criminal Lawyers' Association (Ontario) D. Lynne Watt Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Ottawa, Ontario K 1 P 1 C3 Tel: (613) 786-8695 Fax: (613) 788-3509 Email: lynne. watt@gowlings.com Counsel for the Intervener, Farewell Foundation For The Right To Die Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. Alison Latimer Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP 700 West Georgia Street, 25th Floor Vancouver, British Columbia V7Y 1B3 Tel: (604) 684-9151 Fax: (604) 661-9349 Email: jarvay@farris.com Counsel for the Intervener, Association Quebecoise pour le droit de mourir dans la dignite Joseph J. Arvay, Q.C. Alison Latimer Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP 700 West Georgia Street, 25th Floor Vancouver, British Columbia V7Y 1B3 Tel: (604) 684-9151 Fax: (604) 661-9349 Email: jarvay@farris.com Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association Christopher D. Bredt Ewa Krajewska Margot Finley Borden Ladner Gervais LLP Scotia Plaza, 40 King Street West Toronto, Ontario M5H 3Y4 Tel: (416) 367-6165 Fax: (416) 361-7063 Email: cbredt@blg.com Agent for the Intervener, Farewell Foundation For The Right To Die Jeffrey W. Beedell Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 1C3 Tel: (613) 786-0171 Fax: (613) 788-3587 Email: jeff.beedell@gowlings.com Agent for the Intervener, Association Quebecoise pour le droit de mourir dans la dignite Jeffrey W. Beedell Gowling Lafleur Henderson LLP 160 Elgin Street, Suite 2600 Ottawa, Ontario K 1 P 1 C3 Tel: (613) 786-0171 Fax: (613) 788-3587 Email: jeff.beedell@gowling .com Agent for the Intervener, Canadian Civil Liberties Association Nadia Effendi Borden Ladner Gervais LLP World Exchange Plaza 100 Queen Street, Suite 100 Ottawa, Ontario KlP 119 Tel: (613) 237-5160 Fax: (613) 230-8842 Counsel for the Intervener, Catholic Civil Rights League Ranjan K. Agarwal Jack R. Maslen Bennett Jones LLP 3400 One First Canadian Place P.O. Box 130, Station 1st Canadian Place Toronto, Ontario M5X 1A4 Tel: (416) 863-1200 Fax: (416) 863-1716 Email: agarwalr@bennettjones.com Counsel for the Intervener, Faith and Freedom Alliance and Protection of Conscience Project Geoffrey Trotter Ranjan K. Agarwal Jack R. Maslen Geoffrey Trotter Law Corporation 1185 West Georgia Street, suite 1700 Vancouver, British Columbia V6E 4E6 Tel: (604) 678-9190 Fax: (604) 259-2459 Email: gt@gtlawcorp.com Agent for the Intervener, Catholic Civil Rights League Sheridan Scott Bennett Jones LLP 1900-45 O'Connor Street World Exchange Plaza Ottawa, Ontario KlP 1A4 Tel: (613) 683-2302 Fax: (613) 683-2323 Email: scotts@bennettjones.com Agent for the Intervener, Faith and Freedom Alliance and Protection of Conscience Project Marie-France Major Supreme Advocacy LLP 397 Gladstone Avenue, Suite 100 Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0Y9 Tel: (613) 695-8855 Ext: 102 Fax: (613) 695-8580 Email: mfmajor@supremeadvocacy.ca Counsel for the Intervener, Alliance of People with Disabilities who are Supportive of Legal Assisted Dying Society Angus M. Gunn, Q.C. Borden Ladner Gervais LLP 1200-200 Burrard Street Vancouver, British Columbia V7X 1 T2 Tel: (604) 687-5744 Fax: (604) 687-1415 Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Unitarian Council Tim A. Dickson R.J.M. Androsoff Farris, Vaughan, Wills & Murphy LLP 700 West Georgia Street, 25 th Floor Vancouver, British Columbia V7Y 1 B3 Tel: (604) 661-9341 Fax: (604) 661-9349 Email: tdickson@farris.com Counsel for the Intervener, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Euthanasia Prevention Coalition -British Columbia Hugh R. Scher Scher Law Professional Corporation 69· Bloor Street East, Suite 210 Toronto, Ontario M4W 1A9 Tel: (416) 515-9686 Fax: ( 416) 969-1815 Email: hugh@sdlaw.ca Agent for the Intervener, Alliance of People with Disabilities who are Supportive of Legal Assisted Dying Society Nadia Effendi Borden Ladner Gervais LLP World Exchange Plaza 100 Queen Street, Suite 100 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 1J9 Tel: (613) 237-5160 Fax: (613) 230-8842 Agent for the Intervener, Canadian Unitarian Council Nadia Effendi Borden Ladner Gervais LLP World Exchange Plaza 100 Queen Street, Suite 100 Ottawa, Ontario KIP 1J9 Tel: (613) 237-5160 Fax: (613) 230-8842 Agent for the Intervener, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Euthanasia Prevention Coalition -British Columbia Yael Wexler Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP 55 Metcalfe Street, Suite 1300 Ottawa, Ontario MlP 6L5 Tel: (613) 236-3882 Fax: (613) 230-6423 Email: ywexler@fasken.com Index Part I: Overview of Argument .... ... .. . ... . ... . ...... . ............. ... ... ... ......... .. .. .. . .. ... ... ... .. ... .. ..... .... .. ... ..... 1 Part II: Statement of Argument. ... ... .. ...... ... .. ........ ... ... ..... .... ... .. ..... ... ... ... .. .. ... .... ... ......... ...... ... ..... 2 A. The CMA's policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide .. ....... ......... .... .. ..... ...... ..... ... ... .. 2 B. The implications of a change in the law ...................... .... ... ................. ..... ... ...... .. ... ...... 5 1. Palliative care .............................................................. ...... ... .. ... ... ....... ... ............ . 5 2. Concerns over safeguards .................................. ..... . ........ . .......... .. ......... ........... .. 7 3. Protections for physicians ...... ..... .. .... ......... ... .... ... .. ... .. .. ... ... . .......... . .. ... ... .. ... .. .. ... 8 Part III: Submissions regarding remedy ............. ... ...... ... ... ... .... ... ... ... ........ ............................. ... . 9 Part IV: Submissions regarding costs ..... . ...... ........ ..... .. ........ . ... .. .. ....... ....... ... .... .. ..... ..... .. ... . ..... .. 9 Part V: Request for oral argument.. .... ... .. .. .......... .. .. ... .. ..... .. ..... .. ... . ........ ... .. .... .......... ....... ...... .. 10 -1- Part I: Overview of Argument 1. The policy of the Canadian Medical Association ( the "CMA") on euthanasia and assisted suicide1 forms part of the trial record.2 The policy was debated at successive annual meetings of the CMA's members in 2013 and 2014, resulting in its amendment. In 2013, new definitions were added to clarify key terminology used. In August 2014, a motion was passed by delegates to CMA's General Council, and affirmed by the CMA Board of Directors, supporting the right of all physicians, within the bounds of existing legislation, to follow their conscience when deciding whether or not to provide medical aid in dying. 3 The policy will be amended as a consequence. 2. It is anticipated that the policy, once amended, will continue to reflect the ethical principles for physicians to consider in choosing whether or not to participate in medical aid in dying. 3. The statement of support for matters of conscience now exists alongside the statement in the CMA policy that "Canadian physicians should not participate in euthanasia or assisted suicide." As long as such practices remain illegal, the CMA believes that physicians should not participate in medical aid in dying. If the law were to change, the CMA would support its members who elect to follow their conscience. 4. A portion of the CMA's membership believes that patients should be free to choose medical aid in dying as a matter of autonomy. Other voices highlight that participation would undermine long-established ethical principles applicable to the practice of medicine. Amidst this 1 CMA Policy: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (Update 2014), https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assetslibrary/ document/en/about-us/PD14-06.pdf#search=assisted%20death. 2 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General}, 2012 BCSC 886, paragraphs 6 and 274. 3 Resolutions adopted at the 14ih Annual Meeting of the Canadian Medical Association, Aug. 18-20, 2014: ~www.cma.ca/Assets/assets-lib rary/document/en/advocacy/ Flnal -Resolutions-GC-2014-end-of-lifecare. pdf. -2- diversity of views, however, there is a unifying theme: one of respect for the alternative perspective. This element was highlighted in the policy motion coming out of the CMA's August 2014 General Council meeting. 5. The CMA accepts that the decision of whether or not medical aid in dying should be allowed as a matter of law is for lawmakers, not medical doctors, to determine. The policy itself acknowledges, uniquely among CMA policies in this respect, that "[i]t is the prerogative of society to decide whether the laws dealing with euthanasia and assisted suicide should be changed." 6. As the national voice of physicians across the country, the CMA intervenes in this appeal desiring to assist the Court by providing its perspective on the rationale for the diverse views expressed by its membership, and to highlight practical considerations that must be assessed if the law were to change. Part II: Statement of Argument A. The CMA's policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide 7. The CMA's policy on euthanasia and assisted suicide4 was adopted in 2007, replacing and consolidating two previous CMA policies5 , and has been amended twice since then as noted above. 8. In an effort to promote broad public and member discussion, in the first half of 2014 the CMA hosted a series of town hall meetings across Canada on end of life care issues. Members of the public and the profession were able to attend the town halls in person, or post comments 4 CMA Policy: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (Update 2014): https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assetslibrary/ document/en/about-us/PD14-06.pdf#search=assisted%20death. 5 Physician Assisted Death 1995 and Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (1998). -3 - online, to provide their perspectives and opm1ons on, inter alia, euthanasia and physicianassisted suicide. 6 9. The CMA adopts policies in order to inform the organization's advocacy efforts, and to provide physician members with an understanding of the views and opinions of their national representative organization and to reflect the views of its membership. The CMA' s policies are not meant to mandate a standard of care for members or to override an individual physician's conscience. 10. The CMA recognizes that many of its policies are referenced by other health care groups and the courts, as well as the provincial and territorial medical regulatory authorities. 11. In general, those CMA members who oppose medical aid in dying do so because of the derogation from established medical ethical principles and clinical practices that would result. Those who support medical aid in dying do so because of the equally established principles of considering patient well-being and patient autonomy. The policy in its current form reflects these various considerations . 12. Physicians have a tremendous amount of compassion and concern for patients who are suffering near the end of their lives, and strive to improve their patients' quality of life for the remainder of their lives. Physicians are trained to be healers. For most Canadian physicians , the question is not a simple matter of balancing between patient autonomy and professional standards, but goes much deeper, to the very core of what it means to be a medical professional. 6 The CMA published two reports coming out of the end of life care town halls - a public report in June 2014 and a CMA members' report in July 2014 - both of which can be found on the CMA's website. -4- 13. One rationale for the position in opposition to physician participation is that euthanasia and assisted suicide would have, as the policy states, "unpredictable effects on the practice of medicine" as well as the physician-patient relationship. 7 14. At the same time, the policy recognizes the principle of patient autonomy, and the fact that it is a competing consideration. It cites several articles from the CMA Code of Ethics 8 that emphasize the importance of patient well-being and autonomy. 9 Physicians are advised to "consider first the well-being of your patient." 15. Opposition to paiiicipation is found in statements from the World Medical Association and various national medical associations akin to the CMA. 10 In jurisdictions where medical aid in dying has been legali zed , the practice is considered "ethically sound .. . and part of end of life care" by the national medical association in the Netherlands and the Belgian association has not published any policy . 11 7 CMA Policy: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide (Update 2014): https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assetslibrary/ document/en/about-us/PD14-06.pdf#search=assisted%20death. 8 For example, "Provide your patients with the information they need to make informed decisions about their medical care, and answer their questions to the best of your ability"; "Respect the right of a competent patient to accept or reject any medical care recommended"; and "Ascertain wherever possible and recognize your patient's wishes about the initiation, continuation or cessation of life-sustaining treatment." 9 The concept of patient autonomy is usually associated with allowing or at least enabling patients to make their own decisions about which health care treatments they will or will not receive, or incorporating their point of view into assessments of the appropriateness and effectiveness of treatment options. See: Entwistle, VA. , Carter, SM ., Cribb, A. & Mccaffery, K. (2010) . 'Supporting patient autonomy : The importance of clinician-patient relationships'. Journal of General Internal Medicine, vol 25, no. 7, pp. 741-745; and Sullivan MD. "The new subjective medicine: taking the patient's point of view on health care and health" . Soc Sci Med 56:1595 - 1604, 2003 . 10 World Medical Association Statement on Physician-Assisted Dying. Adopted by the 44th World Medical Assembly, Marbella, Spain, September 1992 and editorially revised by the 170th WMA Council Session, Divonne-les-Bains, France, May 2005: http ://www.wma.net/en/30publications/10policies/p13/. British Medical Association. What is the current BMA policy on assisted dying? http://bma.org.uk/practical-support-at-work/ethics/bma-policyassisted- dying. Australian Medical Association. Position Statement on the Role of the Medical Practitioner in End of Life Care 2007, section 10 : https://ama .com.au/position -statement/role-medical- pr actit ioner-end -life-ca re-2007 . American Medical Association' s Opinion 2. 211- Physician-Assisted Suicide: http://www .amaass n.org/ama/pub/p hys i cian-r esources/ medi ca1 -ethic s/ co de-med ica l-ethi cs/o pin ion2211 .page ?. 11 KNMG. Euthanasia in the Netherlands. Available at: http://knmg.artsennet.nl/Dossiers-9/Dossiersthematrefwoord / Levenseinde/ Eu t hanasia-in-the-Netherlands -1.htm. -5- 16. It is acknowledged that just moral and ethical arguments form the basis of arguments that both support and deny assisted death. The CMA accepts that, in the face of such diverse opinion, based on individuals' consciences, it would not be appropriate for it to seek to impose or advocate for a single standard for the medical profession. 1 7. In any event, the CMA accepts that the decision as to the lawfulness of the current prohibition on medical aid in dying is for patients and their elected representatives as lawmakers to determine, not physicians. B. The implications of a change in the law 18. The CMA and its members have practical and procedural concerns to bring to the Court for reflection with respect to the legalization of medical aid in dying and the implications for medical practice. Three such implications are addressed below. 1. Palliative care 19. One question and element highlighted in CMA policy formulation is the role of palliative care and whether adequate public access is a precondition to changing the law. The CMA acknowledges that the desire to access medical aid in dying is predicated, at least in part, on the inadequacy or inability of palliative care to address a patient's needs in particular circumstances. The policy currently recognizes that adequate palliative care is a prerequisite to the legalization of medical aid in dying. That is because patients should never have to choose death because of unbearable pain which can, in fact, be treated, but the treatment cannot, in reality, be accessed. 20. However, even if palliative care were readily available and effective, there would likely be some patients who would still opt for medical aid in dying over palliative care. Moreover, it -6- seems wrong to deny grievously ill patients the option of medical aid in dying simply because of systemic inadequacies in the delivery of palliative care. 21. The public and the medical profession lack current, specific and non-anecdotal information as to the availability of adequate palliative care across Canada. Notwithstanding this lack of rigorous data, concerns are often expressed. 12 As Justice Smith held at trial, "High quality palliative care is far from universally available in Canada."13 The policy itself provides that "[ e ]fforts to broaden the availability of palliative care in Canada should be intensified." 22. Canada has no national strategy to ensure the delivery of a uniformly high standard of palliative care across the country. Similarly, there are no national uniform standards which direct when and how palliative care is to be provided and by which physicians. At the CMA's annual meeting in August 2014, motions were passed as policy affirming that (i) all health care providers should have access to referral for palliative care services and expertise, (ii) a strategy should be developed for advance care planning, palliative and end of life care in all provinces and territories, and (iii) the CMA will engage in physician human resource planning to develop an appropriate strategy to ensure the delivery of quality palliative care throughout Canada. 14 23. Regardless of the outcome of this appeal, the Canadian public and the medical profession must unite in insisting upon the dedication of appropriate resources to overcome the deficiencies identified above. Palliative care will continue to be a focus of the CMA's future policy development. 12 The Senate of Canada: the Honourable Sharon Carstairs, Raising the Bar: A Roadmap for the Future of Palliative Care in Canada, June 2010, http://www.chpca.net/media/7859/Raising the Bar June 2010.pdf, pages 12 and 16. 13 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General). 2012 BCSC 886, paragraph 192. 14 Resolutions adopted at the 14ih Annual Meeting of the Canadian Medical Association, Aug. 18-20, 2014: https://www.cma.ca/Assets/assets~libra ry/document/en/advocacy/Final-Resolutions-GC-2014-end-of-!ife-care.pdf -7- 2. Concerns over safeguards 24. The trial judge placed great reliance on the ability of physicians to assess the competency of patients requesting medical aid in dying and the voluntariness of their wishes. 15 The CMA submits that the challenges physicians will face in making these assessments have been understated, especially in the end of life care context where the consequences of decisions are particularly grave and in a public medical system in which resource constraints are a pressing issue. 16 25. The CMA submits that these assessments will involve significant new responsibilities that warrant comprehensive study by and with physicians for the following reasons: 15 a) Patients must be afforded a full right of informed consent, but the ordinary context in which a physician obtains the patient's informed consent would not apply since the intervention would be initiated not by the physician's recommendation but by the patient's request and since the patient's decision may tum more than usually is the case upon considerations apart from the expected efficacy of the treatment. b) A patient may be subject to influences which the patient is motivated not to disclose to his or her physician and which may be very difficult to detect. c) Such important decisions are best made following careful discussions between physician and patient, well in advance, concerning the patient's end of life wishes generally. The CMA and its provincial and territorial medical association colleagues note that these types of discussions do not now routinely occur, and that when they do, patients' assessments of their goals can and do evolve over the course of their illness. 17 Carter v. Canada (Attorney General}, 2012 BCSC 886, paragraphs 883, 1240 and 1367. 16 Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General}, (2005] 1 SCR 791, paragraphs 173 and 221-222. 17 The Policy urges that "a Canadian study of medical decision making during dying" be undertaken. It explains that "relatively little" is known about "the frequency of various medical decisions made near the end of life, how these -8- d) It may be very difficult to assess competency and voluntariness in some patients (for example, the very old, the very ill and the depressed) and in some settings (for example, the emergency room and the intensive care unit) where there may not be an established physician-patient relationship. e) Institutional supports are lacking, including recognition in provincial fee schedules of the time that is required for meetings with patients and their families. 3. Protections for physicians 26. The CMA submits that, if the law were to change, any regime of medical aid in dying must legally protect those physicians who choose to participate from criminal, civil or disciplinary proceedings or sanctions. 27. In addition, if the law were to change, no physician should be compelled to participate in or provide medical aid in dying to a patient, either at all, because the physician conscientiously objects to medical aid in dying, or in individual cases, in which the physician makes a clinical assessment that the patient's decision is contrary to the patient's best interests. Notably, no jurisdiction that has legalized medical aid in dying compels physician participation. 18 If the decisions are made and the satisfaction of patients, families, physicians and other caregivers with the decisionmaking process and outcomes." See also the Ontario Medical Association, 'Ontario Doctors Launch End of Life Care Plan'. Available at: https:Uwww.oma.org/resources/documents/eolcstrategyframework.pdf. 18 Quebec: Bill 52, An Act respecting end-of-life care, 1st Sess, 41st Leg, Quebec, 2014 cl 50 (assented to 10 June 2014), SQ 2014, c2; Netherlands: Termination of Life on Request and Assisted Suicide (Review Procedures) Act (2002) .b.1ti;! ://www .eu th anasi ecom missie .n 1/1 mages/Wet%20toetsi ng%201evensbeei nd iging%20op%20verzoek%20en%20 hulp%20bij%20zelfdoding%20Engels tcm52-36287.pdf; Switzerland: Suiss Criminal Code, Book Two : Specific Provisions, Title One: Offences against Life and Limb, Article 115 (1942). http://www.admin.ch/ opc/ en/ classifiedcompilation/ 19370083/index.html; Belgium: Loi relative a l'euthanasie, Chapitre 6, article 14 (2002) http://www.ejustice.just.fgov.be/cgi lei/change lg.pl?language=fr&la=F&ta ble name=loi&cn=2002052837; Luxembourg: Loi du 16 mars 2009 sur l'euthanasie et /'assistance au suicide, Chapitre 7, article 15 (2009). http://www.legil ux. pu bl ic.Ju/1 eg/a/arch ives/2009/0046/a046. pdf#page= 7; Washington: The Washington Death with Dignity Act, RCW, 70 §70.245.190 (2009). http://apps.leg.wa.gov/RCW/default.aspx?cite=70.245.190; Oregon: The Oregon Death with Dignity Act, ORS, 127 §127.885 4.01 (1997). http ://public. hea Ith. oregon .gov /P roviderP a rtnerReso u rces/Eva I u ati on Res ea rch/Deathwith Dign i tyAct/Docu men ts/ statute.pdf; Vermont: An act relating to patient choice and control at the end of life, VSA, 113 § 5285 (a) {2013). -9- attending physician declines to participate, every jurisdiction that has legalized medical aid in dying has adopted a process for eligible patients to be transferred to a participating physician. 19 28. While the Court cannot and should not set out a comprehensive regime, the CMA submits that it can indicate that a practicable legislative regime for medical aid in dying must legally protect those physicians who choose to provide this new intervention to their patients, as well as those who do not. Part III: Submissions regarding remedy 29. If the law is changed, the CMA would ask this Court to adopt a remedy that would preserve the autonomy and constitutional rights of patients and their health care providers. To that end, the CMA asks the Court to adopt a remedy akin to what Justice Smith ordered at the trial level: suspending the effect of a declaration for one year from the date of any decision and instituting a process for individual exemptions such as that afforded to the late Ms. Taylor. Part IV: Submissions regarding costs 30. The CMA seeks no costs and asks that none be awarded against it. http://www.leg.state.vt.us/docs/2014/Acts/ACT039.pdf; New-Mexico: Morris v New-Mexico (2014); and Montana: Baxter v Montana, 482 LEXIS at 59 (2008). 19 Canadian Medical Association, Schedule A: Legal Status of Physician-Assisted Dying (PAD) in Jurisdictions with Legislation, https://www.cma.ca/ Assets/ assets-II bra ry/ document/ en/advocacy/ EO L/Leg a 1-status-p hysicia nassi sted-d eat h-j u risd i cti on slegislation. odf#search=schedule%20A%3A%201egal%20stacus%20of%20physician%2Dassisted%20death, page 3. -10- Part V: Request for oral argument 31. The CMA requests permission to make fifteen minutes of oral argument at the hearing of this appeal. ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, this 27th day of August, 2014. /_/ - Harry Underwood Jean Nels

Documents

Less detail

Chaoulli: CMA/COA submission regarding timeliness of access to health care

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy1956

Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2004-03-19
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Court submission
Last Reviewed
2011-03-05
Date
2004-03-19
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
S.C.C. File No.: 29272 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF CANADA (ON APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF APPEAL OF QUEBEC) B E T W E E N: JACQUES CHAOULLI AND GEORGE ZELIOTIS Appellants (Appellants) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF QUÉBEC Respondent (Respondent) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA Respondent (Mis en cause) - and - ATTORNEY GENERAL OF BRITISH COLUMBIA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK, ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN, AUGUSTIN ROY, SENATOR MICHAEL KIRBY, SENATOR MARJORY LEBRETON, SENATOR CATHERINE CALLBECK, SENATOR JOAN COOK, SENATOR JANE CORDY, SENATOR JOYCE FAIRBAIRN, SENATOR WILBERT KEON, SENATOR LUCIE PÉPIN, SENATOR BRENDA ROBERTSON AND SENATOR DOUGLAS ROCHE, THE CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND THE CANADIAN ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION, CANADIAN LABOUR CONGRESS, CHARTER COMMITTEE ON POVERTY ISSUES AND THE CANADIAN HEALTH COALITION, CAMBIE SURGERIES CORPORATION, FALSE CREEK SURGICAL CENTRE INC., DELBROOK SURGICAL CENTRE INC., OKANAGAN PLASTIC SURGERY CENTRE INC., SPECIALTY MRI CLINICS INC., FRASER VALLEY MRI LTD., IMAGE ONE MRI CLINIC INC., MCCALLUM SURGICAL CENTRE LIMITED, 4111044 CANADA INC., SOUTH FRASER SURGICAL CENTRE INC., VICTORIA SURGERY LTD., KAMLOOPS SURGERY CENTRE LTD., VALLEY COSMETIC SURGERY ASSOCIATES INC., SURGICAL CENTRES INC., THE BRITISH COLUMBIA ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION AND THE BRITISH COLUMBIA ANESTHESIOLOGISTS SOCIETY Interveners FACTUM OF THE INTERVENERS CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION AND THE CANADIAN ORTHOPAEDIC ASSOCIATION BORDEN LADNER GERVAIS LLP World Exchange Plaza 1100 – 100 Queen St. Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J9 Guy Pratte/Freya Kristjanson Tel: (613) 237-5160/(416) 367-6388 Fax: (613) 230-8842/(416) 361-7053 Net: gpratte/fkristjanson@blgcanada.com Solicitors for the Interveners, The Canadian Medical Association and The Canadian Orthopaedic Association AND TO: JACQUES CHAOULLI 21, Jasper Avenue Ville Mont-Royal, Quebec H3P 1J8 Tel.: (514) 738-2377 Fax: (514) 738-4062 Appellant, self-represented AND TO: BERGERON, GAUDREAU, LAPORTE 167, rue Notre Dame de l’Île Gatineau, Quebec J8X 3T3 Richard Gaudreau Tel: (819) 770-7928 Fax: (819) 770-1424 Agent for the Appellant, Jacques Chaoulli AND TO: TRUDEL & JOHNSTON 85, de la Commune Est, 3e étage Montreal, Quebec H2Y 1J1 Philippe H. Trudel Bruce W. Johnston Tel.: (514) 871-8385 Fax: (514) 871-8800 Counsel for the Appellant, George Zéliotis AND TO: MCCARTHY TÉTRAULT LLP 1400 - 40 Elgin Street Ottawa, Ontario K1R 5K6 Colin S. Baxter Tel.: (613) 238-2000 Fax: (613) 238-9836 Agent for the Appellant, George Zéliotis AND TO: BERNARD, ROY ET ASSOCIÉS 8.01 - 1, rue Notre-Dame Est Montreal, Québec H2Y 1B6 Robert Monette Tel.: (514) 393-2336 Fax: (514) 873-7074 Counsel for the Respondent, Attorney General of Québec AND TO: NOËL & ASSOCIÉS 111, rue Champlain Hull, Quebec J8X 3R1 Sylvie Roussel Tel.: (819) 771-7393 Fax: (819) 771-5397 Agent for the Respondent, Attorney General of Quebec AND TO: CÔTE, MARCOUX & JOYAL Complexe Guy Favreau, Tour Est 200, boul. Rene-Levesque O. 5 etage Montréal, Québec H2Z 1X4 André L’Espérance Tel: (514) 283-3525 Fax: (514) 283-3856 Counsel for the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada AND TO: D’AURAY, AUBRY, LEBLANC & ASSOCIÉS 275, rue Sparks Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8 Jean-Marc Aubry, Q.C. Tel.: (613) 957-4663 Fax: (613) 952-6006 Agent for the Respondent, Attorney General of Canada AND TO: MINISTRY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL Legal Services Branch 6th Floor, Sussex Building P.O. Box 9280 Stn Prov Govt 1001 Douglas Street Victoria, B.C. V8W 9J7 George H. Copley, Q.C. Tel: (250) 356-8875 Fax: (250) 356-9154 Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia AND TO: BURKE-ROBERTSON Barristers and Solicitors 70 Gloucester Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0A2 Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Tel: (613) 236-9665 Fax: (613) 235-4430 Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of British Columbia AND TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF ONTARIO 720 Bay Street, 4th Floor Toronto, Ontario M5G 2K1 Janet E. Minor Shaun Nalatsuru Tel: (416) 326-4137 Fax: (416) 326-4015 Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario AND TO: BURKE-ROBERTSON Barristers and Solicitors 70 Gloucester Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0A2 Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Tel: (613) 236-9665 Fax: (613) 235-4430 Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Ontario AND TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MANITOBA Department of Justice 1205-405 Broadway Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 3L6 Tel: (204) 945-0679 Fax: (204) 945-0053 AND TO: GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP 2600-160 Elgin Street P.O. Box 466, Stn. “D” Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Henry S. Brown, Q.C. Tel: (613) 233-1781 Fax: (613) 563-9869 Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Manitoba AND TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEW BRUNSWICK P.O. Box 6000, Room 444 670 King St., Centennial Building Fredericton, N.B. E3B 5H1 Gabriel Bourgeois, Q.C. Tel: (506) 453-3606 Fax: (506) 453-3275 Counsel for the Intervener, Attorney General of New Brunswick AND TO: GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP 2600-160 Elgin Street P.O. Box 466, Stn. “D” Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Henry S. Brown, Q.C. Tel: (613) 233-1781 Fax: (613) 563-9869 Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of New Brunswick AND TO: ATTORNEY GENERAL OF SASKATCHEWAN Constitutional Law Branch 8th Floor – Scarth Street Regina, Saskatchewan S4P 3V7 Tel: (306) 787-8385 Fax: (306) 787-9111 AND TO: GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP 2600-160 Elgin Street P.O. Box 466, Stn. “D” Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Henry S. Brown, Q.C. Tel: (613) 233-1781 Fax: (613) 563-9869 Agent for the Intervener, Attorney General of Saskatchewan AND TO: AUGUSTIN ROY AND TO: BERGERON, GAUDREAU, LAPORTE 167, rue Notre Dame de l’Île Gatineau, Quebec J8X 3T3 Richard Gaudreau Tel: (819) 770-7928 Fax: (819) 770-1424 Agent for the Intervener, Augustin Roy AND TO: LERNERS LLP 2400 - 130 Adelaide Street West Toronto , Ontario M5H 3P5 Earl A. Cherniak, Q.C. Tel: (416) 867-3076 Fax: (416) 867-9192 Counsel for the Interveners, Senator Michael Kirby, Senator Marjory Lebreton, Senator Catherine Callbeck, Senator Joan Cook, Senator Jane Cordy, Senator Joyce Fairbairn, Senator Wilbert Keon, Senator Lucie Pépin, Senator Brenda Robertson and Senator Douglas Roche AND TO: GOWLING LAFLEUR HENDERSON LLP 2600-160 Elgin Street P.O. Box 466, Stn. “D” Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1C3 Brian A. Crane, Q.C. Tel: (613) 233-1781 Fax: (613) 563-9869 Agents for the Interveners, Senator Michael Kirby, Senator Marjory Lebreton, Senator Catherine Callbeck, Senator Joan Cook, Senator Jane Cordy, Senator Joyce Fairbairn, Senator Wilbert Keon, Senator Lucie Pépin, Senator Brenda Robertson and Senator Douglas Roche AND TO: SACK GOLDBLATT MITCHELL 20 Dundas Street West Suite 1130, P.O. Box 180 Toronto, Ontario M5G 2G8 Steven Shrybman Tel: (416) 977-6070 Fax: (416) 591-7333 Counsel for the Intervener, Canadian Labour Congress AND TO: BURKE-ROBERTSON Barristers and Solicitors 70 Gloucester Street Ottawa, Ontario K2P 0A2 Robert E. Houston, Q.C. Tel: (613) 236-9665 Fax: (613) 235-4430 Agent for the Intervener, Canadian Labour Congress AND TO: UNIVERSITY OF VICTORIA P.O. Box 2400, Station CSC Victoria , British Columbia V8W 3H7 Martha Jackman Tel: (250) 721-8181 Fax: (250) 721-8146 Counsel for the Interveners, Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and the Canadian Health Coalition AND TO: LANG MICHENER 300-50 O’Connor Street Ottawa , Ontario K1P 6L2 Marie-France Major Tel: (613) 232-7171 Fax: (613) 231-3196 Agent for the Interveners, Charter Committee on Poverty Issues and the Canadian Health Coalition AND TO: BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP Suite 2600, Three Bentall Centre 595 Burrard Street, P. O Box 49314 Vancouver, B. C. V7X 1L3 Marvin R.V. Storrow, Q.C. Tel: (604) 631-3300 Fax: (604) 631-3309 Counsel for the Interveners, Cambie Surgeries Corporation, False Creek Surgical Centre Inc., Delbrook Surgical Centre Inc., Okanagan Plastic Surgery Centre Inc., Specialty MRI Clinics Inc., Fraser Valley MRI Ltd., Image One MRI Clinic Inc., McCallum Surgical Centre Limited and 4111044 Canada Inc., South Fraser Surgical Centre Inc., Victoria Surgery Ltd., Kamloops Surgery Centre Ltd., Valley Cosmetic Surgery Associates Inc., Surgical Centres Inc., the British Columbia Orthopaedic Association and the British Columbia Anesthesiologists Society AND TO: BLAKE, CASSELS & GRAYDON LLP World Exchange Plaza 20th Floor, 45 O’Connor Ottawa, Ontario K1P1A4 Gordon K. Cameron Tel: (613) 788-2222 Fax: (613) 7882247 Agent for the Interveners, Cambie Surgeries Corporation, False Creek Surgical Centre Inc., Delbrook Surgical Centre Inc., Okanagan Plastic Surgery Centre Inc., Specialty MRI Clinics Inc., Fraser Valley MRI Ltd., Image One MRI Clinic Inc., McCallum Surgical Centre Limited and 4111044 Canada Inc., South Fraser Surgical Centre Inc., Victoria Surgery Ltd., Kamloops Surgery Centre Ltd., Valley Cosmetic Surgery Associates Inc., Surgical Centres Inc., the British Columbia Orthopaedic Association and the British Columbia Anesthesiologists Society TABLE OF CONTENTS PART I: FACTS 1 1. Overview 1 2. CMA/COA’s Interest in the Appeal 2 3. CMA/COA’s Position on the Facts 3 PART II: QUESTIONS IN ISSUE 8 PART III: ARGUMENT 8 1. Breach of Section 7 of the Charter 8 (a) Right to Life and Security of the Person 9 (i) Infringement of Life and Security of the Person 9 (ii) Real Apprehension of Charter Section 7 Violation 10 (b) Principles of Fundamental Justice 11 (c) Not an Economic Right 15 2. Not Saved Under Charter Section 1 17 PART IV: SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS 18 PART V: ORDER SOUGHT 19 PART VI: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 20 PART VII: STATUTES AND REGULATIONS 22 PART I: FACTS 1. Overview 1. The Canadian Medical Association (“CMA”) and the Canadian Orthopaedic Association (“COA”) support the existing single payer (publicly funded) model of health care delivery, but are concerned that delays in access to medically necessary health care may put the life and health of patients in Canada at risk. The CMA/COA submit that governments must address the issue of timeliness of access to health care if they wish to maintain the viability and constitutionality of the social contract that is Medicare. 2. The CMA/COA put forward a position that they believe best protects the public health care system, while at the same time recognizing that failures in that system which threaten the life, liberty and security of the person of patients in Canada may constitute a Charter section 7 breach. The CMA/COA submit that so long as access to medically necessary care is provided in a timely manner, there is no Charter section 7 breach. In the absence of a clear commitment to timely access and where as a matter of fact the public system fails to provide timely access to medically necessary health care, legislative prohibitions that impede access or the means for access to medical treatment necessary to the life, liberty and security of the person do breach Charter section 7. 3. The fundamental issue in this case is whether it is constitutionally justifiable for governments to legislatively preclude a patient from seeking access or the means for access to medical treatment necessary to the life, liberty and security of the person, when such treatment is not available in a timely manner in the public system by reason of significant waiting times, under-funding, inadequate human and physical resources, or other impediments. 4. The purpose and effect of the matrix of federal and provincial statutes applicable to Medicare is to establish the public health care system as the sole payer of medically necessary (“insured”) services. In Québec, for example, the government defines what constitute medically necessary services, pays for all insured service provided to residents of Québec, sets out the conditions under which the insured services may be funded outside the province, and otherwise forbids by law the provision of private insurance for such insured services. While the Québec government has legislated to provide medically necessary care, the legislation does not extend to the provision of timely access to medically necessary care. It is this disjunction which has caused the CMA/COA to intervene in this case. Governments are not held accountable for the failure to provide medically necessary services in a timely manner in the public system. 5. This is not a case of economic rights because in the context of health care any clinically excessive delay can have profound consequences on both the physical and psychological aspects of a person’s life and security of the person. The CMA/COA, as physicians, submit that it is the impact of the deterioration of the public health care system to the point that it cannot deliver timely access to Canadians that is the heart of the issue. In this context, “timely access” refers to the delivery of care within a medically appropriate timeframe. Medically necessary health care delayed is health care denied. 2. CMA/COA’s Interest in the Appeal 6. The CMA is the national voice of Canadian physicians, with over 57,000 members in each of the ten provinces and the three territories. Its mission is to serve and unite the physicians of Canada, and to be the national advocate, in partnership with the people of Canada, for the highest standards of health and health care. An affiliate of the CMA, the COA is a voluntary medical speciality society of physicians with specialized training and certification in orthopaedic surgery. The COA’s goals are to achieve excellence in orthopaedic care for Canadians, in part through ensuring that adequate and accessible health care resources are available for Canadians. 7. The CMA/COA are committed to the fundamental principles of the national system of Medicare – comprehensiveness, universality of coverage, portability of benefits, reasonable access and non-profit administration. Furthermore, the CMA Code of Ethics, article 31, states that physicians should “recognize the responsibility of physicians to promote fair access to health care resources”. However, excessive waiting times in the public system threaten the viability of Medicare unless and until governments clearly commit to and factually do provide timely access. The decision of this Court will have a profound and lasting effect on the Canadian health care system, of which physicians are an integral part. It will directly affect the conditions under which patients receive treatment from physicians and other providers. Canadian Medical Association, Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association, (Ottawa: The Association), October 1996, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 17 3. CMA/COA’s Position on the Facts 8. Madam Justice Piché found at trial that if access to the health system is not possible, it is illusory to think that rights to life and security are respected. She further found that the prohibition on the purchase of private insurance is an infringement of life and security of the person where there are excessive waiting times for essential medical services in the public system. The trial judge found that waiting lists are too long and that, even if the question is not always one of life or death, all individuals are entitled to receive the care they need in a clinically responsive manner. She held, however, that the infringement did not violate fundamental justice given the historical context and the social benefits to all of a publicly funded health care system. Judgment of Piché J., Joint Appellants’ Record, Vol. I, pp. 126-127, 129, 134-135, 143 9. More recently, the serious issue of waiting times for medically necessary health care has been considered by two major national studies – the Canadian Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada (the “Romanow Commission”) and the Report of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology (“the Senate Committee”). Each of these significant reports concluded that excessive waiting times exist across the country, that governments have available a number of tools to address such waiting times which are not being used to their fullest extent, and that delays in access to medically necessary services may cause the health of patients to deteriorate, as well as stress and anxiety. Canada, Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada – Final Report, (Ottawa, 2002) (Chair: Roy Romanow) at 137-150 [hereinafter Romanow, Building on Values], CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 15 Canada, The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, The Health of Canadians – The Federal Role: Final Report on the State of the Health Care System in Canada, Vol. 6 (Ottawa: 2002) (Chair: Michael Kirby) at 99-121 [hereinafter Kirby, The Health of Canadians, Vol. 6], CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 16 10. The CMA/COA recognize that wait times for diagnosis and treatment are intrinsic to a health care system. No country has sufficient resources at its disposal to build the excess capacity necessary to meet all health needs on an urgent basis. However, excessive wait times emerged as a major public policy issue starting in the mid- to late-1990s following several years of cuts in the financing of public health care. Moreover, public anxiety has been mounting over lengthening wait times for treatment. Public confidence in the system “being there” at the time and to the extent of need is gradually being lost. Kirby, The Health of Canadians, Vol. 6, supra at 109-111, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 16 11. The Senate Committee cited with approval a recent Statistics Canada study, entitled Access to Health Care Services in Canada, 2001, that provides an indication of the extent to which Canadians are subject to waiting times and the associated stress and anxiety: * Almost one in five Canadians who access health care for themselves or a family member in 2001 encountered some form of difficulty, ranging from problems getting an appointment to lengthy waiting times. * Of the estimated five million people who visited a specialist, roughly 18 %, or 900,000, reported that waiting for care affected their lives. The majority of these people (59 per cent) reported worry, anxiety or stress. About 37 % said they experienced pain. * Canadians reported that waiting for services was clearly a barrier to care. Long waits were clearly not acceptable to Canadians, particularly when they experienced adverse effects such as worry and anxiety or pain while waiting for care. Statistics Canada, Access to Health Care Services in Canada, 2001 by C. Sanmartin, C. Houle, J.-M. Berthelot and K. White, (Ottawa, Minister of Industry, 2002) [hereinafter Statistics Canada, Access to Health Care], cited in Kirby, The Health of Canadians, Vol. 6, supra at 109, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 21 12. The Statistics Canada report concluded that: Perhaps the most significant information regarding access to care was about waiting times. … Long waits were clearly not acceptable to Canadians, particularly when they experienced adverse affects such as worry and anxiety or pain while waiting for care. Statistics Canada, Access to Health Care, supra at 21, cited in Kirby, The Health of Canadians, Vol. 6, supra at 109, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 21 13. Furthermore, the Romanow Report acknowledged the problem that Canadian patients and their physicians are faced with: Waiting for health care is a serious concern for Canadians and it has become a preoccupation for health care professionals, managers, and governments. Studies and public opinion polls have consistently shown that one of the top concerns of rural and urban Canadians is health care access… Long waiting times are the main, and in many cases, the only reason some Canadians say they would be willing to pay for treatment outside of the public health care system… As individual provinces and territories have struggled to deal with waiting times and wait lists within their own systems, progress is being made in some areas but more effort needs to be put into generalizing those efforts across the country… Clearly, the progress is not fast enough for Canadians. More can and must be done across the country to give Canadians what they want and deserve - timely access to health care services they need. Romanow, Building on Values, supra at 138-139, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 15 14. Following its review of the Canadian health care system, the Senate Committee concluded on the issue of waiting time that: In Canada, patient prioritization is not standardized for any medical service (with the exception of [the Cardiac Care Network] in Ontario). This means that there is currently no provincially or nationally accepted method of measuring or defining waiting times for medical services, nor are there standards and criteria for “acceptable” waits for the vast majority of health services. It is impossible, therefore, to determine whether, from a clinical point of view, patients have waited a reasonable or unreasonable length of time to access care. The absence of standardized criteria and methods to prioritize patients waiting for care means that patients are placed and prioritized on waiting lists based on a range of clinical and non-clinical criteria that vary by individual referring physician across institutions, regional health authorities, and provinces. Kirby, The Health of Canadians, Vol. 6, supra at 112, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 16 15. The Romanow Commission concluded on the issue of current problems with wait lists: One of the most serious concerns is not only the length of time some people wait but the way in which wait lists are managed. In fact, to say wait lists are “managed” is almost a misnomer. There is no consistent way of dealing with wait lists in particular regions let alone on a provincial or national basis. This affects the health of people who wait and it seriously undermines Canadians’ confidence in their health care system. When individual Canadians are told that they are on a wait list for a particular service, they probably assume that there is a master list that is managed and co-ordinated based on the urgency of their need. In reality, that is not what happens. Romanow, Building on Values, supra at 141-143, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 15 16. Recent international surveys also indicate that the waiting times and access to care for patients who make heavy use of the health care system are markedly poorer in Canada than in four other Western countries. R.J. Blendon et al., “Common concerns Amid Diverse Systems: Health Care Experiences in Five Countries” (2003), 22 Health Affairs 106, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 14 17. On the international scene, since at least the early 1990’s, mechanisms to address excessive wait times including access standards and care guarantees have been the subject of study, debate and practice in several jurisdictions including the United Kingdom, Sweden and New Zealand. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) commissioned a comprehensive study of the international experience with access standards and care guarantees. OECD, Labour and Social Affairs Committee, Tackling Excessive Waiting Times for Elective Surgery: A Comparison of Policies in Twelve OECD Countries, Doc. No. DELSA/ELSA/WD/HEA(2003)6 (2003), CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 19 OECD, Labour and Social Affairs Committee, Explaining Waiting Times Variations for Elective Surgery Across OECD Countries, Working Paper No. 7, Doc. No. DELSA/ELSA/WD/HEA(2003)7 (2003), CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 18 18. While the federal government has never taken the position that timeliness is a component of accessibility, such a position is certainly open to it. The Canada Health Act has established five criteria pursuant to which the federal government will cost-share provincial Medicare programs: portability, comprehensiveness, universality, public administration, and accessibility. “Accessibility” has been interpreted to require that there be no financial barriers to accessing hospital and physician services. Canada Health Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-6, s. 7, 12 19. The CMA proposed to the Senate Committee that guidelines and standards around quality and waiting times be established for a clearly defined basket of core services, and argued that “if the publicly funded health care system fails to meet the specified agreed-upon standards for timely access to core services, then patients must have other options to allow them to obtain this required care through other means.” Kirby, The Health of Canadians, Vol. 6, supra at 119, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 16 20. There are concrete Canadian examples of how timely access may be measured and provided such as the Cardiac Care Network of Ontario, and the Western Canada Waiting List Project, both of which are reviewed in the Senate Committee Report. These projects have demonstrated that a substantial improvement in the waiting list problem is possible through adopting an approach based on the clinical needs of patients on waiting lists. The Senate Committee suggested: * A process to establish standard definitions for waiting times should be national in scope, and * Standard definitions should focus on four key waiting periods – waiting for primary care consultation; for initial specialist consultation; for diagnostic tests; and for surgery. Kirby, The Health of Canadians, Vol. 6, supra at 103-113, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 16 Romanow, Building on Values, supra at 143-144, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 15 PART II: QUESTIONS IN ISSUE 21. The CMA/COA take a position on the following constitutional questions as stated by this Court in its Order of August 15, 2003: (1) Does s. 11 of the Hospital Insurance Act, R.S.Q., c. A-28, infringe the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? (2) If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? (3) Does s. 15 of the Health Insurance Act, R.S.Q., c. A-29, infringe the rights guaranteed by s. 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? (4) If so, is the infringement a reasonable limit prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society under s. 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? 22. The CMA/COA submit that if there is a clear commitment from governments which provides timely access to medically necessary care, there is no constitutional breach. However, constitutional questions #1 and 3, should be answered affirmatively if a patient is denied timely access to health care in the public system with the result that the patient’s life is threatened or the quality of his/her life substantially compromised, and that patient is legislatively precluded from seeking access or the means for access to medically necessary treatment. In this event, the corresponding questions #2 and 4 should be answered negatively. PART III: ARGUMENT 1. Breach of Section 7 of the Charter 23. The analytical approach to be used under section 7 of the Charter has recently been described by this Honourable Court as a three-step process: 1) the identification of the individual interests said to be infringed and a determination of whether those interests fall within the meaning of the phrase “life, liberty and security of the person;” 2) the identification of the principles of fundamental justice engaged in the circumstances of the case; and, 3) whether the threshold infringement found in the first stage of the analysis is inconsistent with the pertinent principle of fundamental justice. R v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, 2003 SCC 74 at para. 83 [hereinafter Malmo-Levine], CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 10 (a) Right to Life and Security of the Person 24. The CMA/COA submit that when a patient is denied timely access to health care in the publicly funded system with the result that the patient’s life is threatened or the quality of her life substantially compromised, and that patient is legislatively precluded from seeking access or the means for access to medically necessary treatment, the infringement of the rights to life and/or security of the person is clear. However, where the health care service at issue is not essential to maintaining quality and quantity of life, and the delay in accessing that treatment is not clinically significant, then the values and principles reflected in Charter section 7 are not engaged. 25. “Timely access” to health care refers to the delivery of care within a medically appropriate time frame. As discussed in paragraph 20, there are existing Canadian and international initiatives to develop and refine medically appropriate time frames. (i) Infringement of Life and Security of the Person 26. In the context of health care, any clinically excessive delay can have profound consequences on both the physical and psychological aspects of a patient’s life and security of the person. OECD, Labour and Social Affairs Committee, Tackling Excessive Waiting Times for Elective Surgery: A Comparison of Policies in Twelve OECD Countries Annex 1, Doc. No. DELSA/ELSA/WD/HEA(2003)6/ANN1 (2003), CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 20 27. The CMA/COA submit that delay in the medical context, when caused by government laws and policies, may clearly threaten an individual’s life and security of the person. The significance of government-caused delay in the criminal context was recognized in R. v. Morgentaler. Chief Justice Dickson, as he then was, in R. v. Morgentaler found that the increased risk to a woman’s health resulting from the delay caused by the government procedures in obtaining an abortion deprived her of her security of the person. Justice Beetz recognized the additional danger to a woman’s health caused by the state’s intervention which prevented “access to effective and timely medical treatment.” R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30 at 59, 101 [hereinafter Morgentaler], CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 11 28. The infringement of a person’s security is not restricted to the physical aspect. State interference with bodily integrity and serious state-imposed psychological stress also constitute a breach of security of the person. There must be an objective assessment of state interference “on the psychological integrity of a person of reasonable sensibility.” It requires more than ordinary stress and anxiety, but does not need to escalate to the level of nervous shock or psychiatric illness. New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46 at para. 60 [hereinafter New Brunswick], CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 7 Morgentaler, supra at 60, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 11 29. The failure to obtain timely health care may have a serious and profound effect on an individual well beyond the normal stress and anxiety of life. Where there is an increased risk to both physical and mental health resulting from excessive delay in obtaining medically necessary health care, a deprivation of security of the person and significant diminution in the quality and quantity of life will ensue. (ii) Real Apprehension of Charter Section 7 Violation 30. The evidence before the trial judge supports a finding that there is a real apprehension of a violation of Charter section 7 rights. At trial, Piché J. heard evidence from more than fifteen witnesses, including both expert physicians and professors, as well as patients who have been intimately involved with the public health care system. A large quantity of evidence was presented on the delays in access to health care, and its consequences in such fields as orthopaedics, ophthalmology, oncology, cardiology and emergency care. She concluded: De ces témoignages, le Tribunal retient d’abord la sincérité et l’honnêteté des médecins qui ont témoigné, de leur désir de changer les choses, de leur impuissance malheureuse devant des listes d’attente trop longues. Le Tribunal retient que les listes d’attente sont trop longues, que même si ce n’est pas toujours une question de vie ou de mort, tous les citoyens ont droit à recevoir les soins dont ils ont besoin, et ce, dans les meilleurs délais. Judgment of Piché J., Joint Appellants’ Record, Vol. I, pp. 42, 43 31. The CMA/COA submit that deference must be paid to the findings of fact of the trial judge. In the alternative, the CMA/COA submit that this Court has before it all the necessary evidentiary support in order to make the determination on reasonable hypothetical circumstances. The protection under the Charter embodies a preventative aspect when a violation is apprehended, as observed by the trial judge. As Justice Forget at the Court of Appeal held: Obliger une personne à attendre d’être gravement malade (ou d’avoir subi un grave accident) avant d’entreprendre des procédures pour obtenir des soins adéquats de santé aurait pour effet, dans la majorité des cas, de rendre illusoire le recours, compte tenu de l’imprévisibilité de la maladie et de son évolution. Judgment of Court of Appeal, Forget J., Joint Appellants’ Record, Vol. I, p. 187 New Brunswick, supra at paras. 56-68 and 91, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 7 32. The CMA/COA submit that this Honourable Court should not be waiting for, in the words of the trial judge, “une question de vie ou de mort” before acting. Cases such as Stein v. Québec (Régie de l’Assurance-maladie) demonstrate that timely access to necessary medical care is a real concern. Failures of timely access pose a significant risk to s. 7 rights. Stein v. Québec (Régie de l’Assurance-maladie), [1999] Q.J. No. 2724 (S.C.), CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 13 (b) Principles of Fundamental Justice 33. The section 7 analysis then turns to the principles of fundamental justice which are found in “the basic tenets of our legal system.” The objective of the Health Insurance Act is to regulate the single payer (publicly funded) Medicare system in Québec. The CMA/COA are committed to a sustainable health care system which provides for timely and fair access to medically necessary care. All aspects of health care are intrinsically linked to time – prevention, diagnosis, treatment, and follow up – yet there is no commitment from governments to timeliness as a core aspect of the provision of health care. As a result, the CMA/COA submit the legislation violates principles of fundamental justice due to arbitrariness and irrationality. Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486 at 512, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 8 34. This Honourable Court has identified the three criteria that must be fulfilled in order to establish a principle of fundamental justice: First, it must be a legal principle. This serves two purposes. First, it "provides meaningful content for the s. 7 guarantee"; second, it avoids the "adjudication of policy matters": Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486, at p. 503. Second, there must be sufficient consensus that the alleged principle is "vital or fundamental to our societal notion of justice": Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519, at p. 590. The principles of fundamental justice are the shared assumptions upon which our system of justice is grounded. They find their meaning in the cases and traditions that have long detailed the basic norms for how the state deals with its citizens. Society views them as essential to the administration of justice. Third, the alleged principle must be capable of being identified with precision and applied to situations in a manner that yields predictable results. Examples of principles of fundamental justice that meet all three requirements include the need for a guilty mind and for reasonably clear laws. Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4 at para. 8, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 3 35. The CMA/COA respectfully submit that the trial judge erred in this case in balancing the harms to individuals with the greater good to society of Medicare, under the rubric of Charter section 7 rather than under Charter section 1. As this Court has recently held: The balancing of individual and societal interests within s. 7 is only relevant when elucidating a particular principle of fundamental justice… Once the principle of fundamental justice has been elucidated, however, it is not within the ambit of s. 7 to bring into account such “societal interests” as health care costs. Malmo-Levine, supra at para. 98, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 10 36. This Honourable Court recently reiterated that the state has an interest in avoiding harm to those subject to its laws which may justify parliamentary action: In other words, avoidance of harm is a “state interest” within the rule against arbitrary or irrational state conduct mentioned in Rodriguez, at p. 594, previously cited, that Where the deprivation of the right in question does little or nothing to enhance the state’s interest (whatever it may be), it seems to me that a breach of fundamental justice will be made out, as the individuals’ rights will have been deprived for no valid purpose. Malmo-Levine, supra at para. 131, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 10 37. The state has a particular interest in acting to protect vulnerable persons. All patients, including those waiting to receive medical care, are vulnerable to the exercise of state power which limits access to health care. The CMA/COA submit that in the context of the single payer (publicly funded) model of health care delivery where access to alternate means for such care is prohibited by the state, patients are a vulnerable group. It is an arbitrary and irrational use of state power for the Québec Legislature, in section 15 of the Health Insurance Act, to prohibit alternative meaning of access to health care services without assuming a concomitant state obligation to guarantee timely access to necessary medical care, where the failure to afford timely access may lessen the quality and quantity of life. Health Insurance Act, R.S.Q., c. A-29, s. 15 New Brunswick, supra at para. 70, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 7 B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315 at para. 88, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 1 Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519 at 595, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 12 38. The CMA/COA submit that it is open to this Court to read the concept of timeliness into the existing legislative provisions so as to render them constitutionally compliant. However, in the context of health care, a commitment to timeliness must be demonstrated in fact. The evidence before the trial judge and the findings of the Romanow Commission and the Senate Committee clearly indicate that access to medically necessary health care is not always provided in a timely manner. 39. In the absence of a commitment which provides timely access to publicly funded care, it is irrational for the state to prohibit access or the means of access to other forms of medically necessary care. The CMA/COA do not argue that governments must fund all medical services, but rather that having chosen to provide insured medical services under a single payer (publicly funded) model and prohibiting private insurance for these services, the government must provide the insured services in a timely manner. Failure to do so would be irrational, as it would constitute state action harming vulnerable persons. Hitzig v. Canada, [2003] O.J. No. 3873 (C.A.) at paras. 113-121, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 6 40. Timeliness as a concept integral to many aspects of fundamental justice has been recognized by the common law and equity, through such concepts as laches, or the timeliness of trial rights. In particular, timeliness in the provision of medically necessary health care is essential to preserving human dignity, security of the person and promotion of human health. Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307 at paras. 121-133, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 2 R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199 at 1219-1223, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 9 41. This is not just a failure of the Québec provincial legislature: it is an issue which involves the constitutional obligations of the federal government as well. As discussed above, one of the five criteria established by the federal government for cost-sharing of provincial Medicare is the principle of “accessibility”. The federal government, however, has not acknowledged timeliness as an aspect of accessibility. 42. Recognizing timeliness as intrinsic to accessibility and the requirements of fundamental justice is consistent with the constitutional commitments made by both the federal and provincial governments in section 36(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides: 36(1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to: (a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; …; and (c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. Constitution Act, 1982, s. 36(1), being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 [hereinafter Constitution Act, 1982] 43. Section 36(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 establishes a constitutional commitment to promoting opportunities for well-being, and providing essential public services of reasonable quality. However, where governments fail to provide access to necessary medical care in a timely fashion in the public system, it is irrational to use the legislative power of prohibition to forbid viable alternatives. This irrationality contravenes principles of fundamental justice. Where Medicare contains no method of measuring or achieving timely access, the promise that governments will provide medically necessary treatment becomes illusory. Constitution Act, 1982, s. 36(1), supra 44. In the alternative, if this Honourable Court were to conclude that the prohibition is in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice because it promotes legitimate social interests, the CMA would respectfully submit that this conclusion should not be a “frozen” one. Any decision should not enshrine the status quo of excessive wait times as a perpetually viable constitutional state of affairs. This Court could establish threshold criteria for the life and health of Canadian citizens, below which the larger public good cannot be used to justify violations of individual rights. Recent studies such as the Romanow Commission and the Senate Committee found that the waiting time issue is dynamic, evolving and not static. (c) Not an Economic Right 45. Some of the respondents and interveners argue that the issue is one of economic rights – the purchase of insurance – which is not protected by the Charter. The CMA/COA submit that in the realm of access to health care, insurance can be a tool to secure that which is Charter protected – timely access to medically necessary health care. The economic aspect is incidental to securing the right. 46. The CMA/COA take the position that any economic and contract aspects are merely incidental to the real issue of the s. 7 right to life, liberty and security of the person. The trial judge concluded that economic barriers in the impugned legislation are ancillary to the principle of access to health care: Le Tribunal estime que les barrières économiques établies par les articles 15 LAM et 11 LAH sont intimement liées à la possibilité d’accès à des soins de santé. Sans ces droits, compte tenu des coûts impliqués, l’accès aux soins privés est illusoire. Dans ce sens, ces dispositions sont une entrave à l’accès à des services de santé et sont donc susceptibles de porter atteinte à la vie, à la liberté et à la sécurité de la personne. Judgment of Piché J., Joint Appellants’ Record, Vol. I, pp. 126-127 47. The CMA/COA submit that the trial judge was correct in concluding that excessive delay in the provision of necessary medical care violates the right to life, liberty and security of the person. Any economic rights to contract are incidental. This case is about patients in Canada having the right to quality health care in a timely manner. Judgment of Piché J., Joint Appellants’ Record, Vol. I, pp. 125-127, 133-134 48. To deny Canadians the right to timely access to health care on such conjectural grounds as the secondary aspect of this case, which touches economic or contractual aspects, would denude section 7 of its promise to life, liberty and security of the person. A legislative prohibition on the purchase of insurance when timely access is not provided is not the denial of an economic right, but the denial of a fundamental right to life, liberty and security. Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624 at paras. 91-93 [hereinafter Eldridge], CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 4 2. Not Saved Under Charter Section 1 49. It is clear that once an infringement of section 7 is established, the onus moves to the Government to justify the infringement under s. 1 pursuant to the Oakes test. The framework under section 1 was first established in R v. Oakes : A limitation to a constitutional guarantee will be sustained once two conditions are met. First. the objective of the legislation must be pressing and substantial. Second, the means chosen to attain this legislative end must be reasonable and demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society. In order to satisfy the second requirement, three criteria must be satisfied: (1) the rights violation must be rationally connected to the aim of the legislation; (2) the impugned provision must minimally impair the Charter guarantee; and (3) there must be proportionality between the effect of the measure and its objective so that the attainment of the legislative goal is not outweighed by the abridgement of the right. New Brunswick, supra at para. 95 citing Egan v. Canada, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 513 at para. 182, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 7 50. It has long been established that the rights protected under section 7 are of significant importance and cannot ordinarily be overridden by competing social interests. In addition, “rarely will a violation of the principles of fundamental justice…be upheld as a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”. Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844 at para. 91, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 5 New Brunswick, supra at para. 99 citing Re B.C. Motor Vehicle, supra at 518, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 7 51. The values in issue here are similar to those considered by this Honourable Court in Eldridge, where La Forest J. for the Court held: Given the central place of good health in the quality of life of all persons in our society, the provisions of substandard medical services to the deaf necessarily diminishes the overall quality of their lives. The government has simply not demonstrated that this unpropitious state of affairs must be tolerated in order to achieve the objective of limiting health care expenditures. Stated differently, the government has not made a “reasonable accommodation” of the appellants’ disability. Eldridge, supra at para. 94, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 4 52. The Romanow Commission has advocated central management of waiting lists, with common indicators, benchmarks and public accounting. The Senate Committee has recommended care guarantees. These are strong indications that solutions exist in a public health care system that will extend a commitment to timely access to medically necessary health care. Kirby, The Health of Canadians, Vol. 6, supra at 103-113, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 16 Romanow, Building on Values, supra at 143-144, CMA/COA Authorities, Tab 15 53. The CMA/COA submit that if this Court holds that the legislation contravenes the Charter, governments have open to them a full range of options that could be implemented to address excessive waiting times for care. These include government commitments to assurances of timeliness as an essential element of the provision of medically necessary care where wait times are excessive, adopting timeliness as an element of “accessibility” under the Canada Health Act, and committing to clinically responsive access standards as envisioned by the Senate Committee. Other measures such as streamlining and improving the portability of out-of-province provisions in provincial Medicare statutes may also be considered by governments. In the absence of such assurances, however, a system which precludes alternative means to obtain medically necessary health care is unconstitutional where wait times are excessive. 54. Accordingly, it is submitted that a violation of Charter section 7 could be justified pursuant to section 1 if and only if the government were able to prove, on a balance of probabilities based on reliable and credible evidence rather than conjecture, that no alternative exists that could be implemented to ensure timeliness while at the same time maintaining the viability of the public single-payer. PART IV: SUBMISSIONS CONCERNING COSTS 55. The CMA/COA seeks no costs and asks that none be awarded against it. PART V: ORDER SOUGHT 56. The CMA/COA submit that when a person’s life is threatened or the quality of his or her life is substantially compromised and that person is prohibited from obtaining the medically necessary treatment through other means, even though the publicly funded system is unable to provide the necessary care, then constitutional questions # 1 and 3 should be answered affirmatively and the corresponding questions # 2 and 4 should be answered in the negative. Any declaration of unconstitutionality should, however, be delayed by three years, or such other period of time as this Court shall determine, so that the government may during this period institute the systemic commitment to timely access to medically necessary care and ensure simultaneously that individual patients receive care in as timely a manner as possible. 57. The CMA/COA seek leave of this Court, pursuant to rule 59(2), to present oral argument at the hearing of this appeal. Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002-156, as amended, Rule 59(2) ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED December 12, 2005 Guy Pratte Freya Kristjanson ::ODMA\PCDOCS\LG-OTT-2\350103\1 PART VI: TABLE OF AUTHORITIES Cases Paragraph Nos. B. (R.) v. Children’s Aid Society of Metropolitan Toronto, [1995] 1 S.C.R. 315………………..37 Blencoe v. British Columbia (Human Rights Commission), [2000] 2 S.C.R. 307……………….40 Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 SCC 4……………………………………………………………………………34 Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 624…………………….48, 51 Godbout v. Longueuil (City), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 844………………………………………………50 Hitzig v. Canada, [2003] O.J. No. 3873 (C.A.)………………………………………………….39 New Brunswick (Minister of Health and Community Services) v. G.(J.), [1999] 3 S.C.R. 46……………………………………………………………….28, 31, 37, 49, 50 Re B.C. Motor Vehicle Act, [1985] 2 S.C.R. 486………………………………………………...33 R. v. Askov, [1990] 2 S.C.R. 1199………………………………………………………………..40 R v. Malmo-Levine; R. v. Caine, 2003 SCC 74………………………………………….23, 35, 36 R. v. Morgentaler, [1988] 1 S.C.R. 30……………………………………………………….27, 28 Rodriguez v. British Columbia (Attorney General), [1993] 3 S.C.R. 519……………………….37 Stein v. Québec (Régie de l’Assurance-maladie), [1999] Q.J. No. 2724 (S.C.)…………………32 Secondary Sources Paragraph Nos. R.J. Blendon et al., “Common concerns Amid Diverse Systems: Health Care Experiences in Five Countries” (2003), 22 Health Affairs 106………………………………….16 Canada, Commission on the Future of Health Care in Canada, Building on Values: The Future of Health Care in Canada – Final Report, (Ottawa, 2002) (Chair: Roy Romanow)……………………………………………………9, 13, 15, 20, 52 Canada, The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, The Health of Canadians – The Federal Role: Final Report on the State of the Health Care System in Canada, Vol. 6 (Ottawa: 2002) (Chair: Michael Kirby)……………………………………………………….9, 10, 14, 19, 20, 52 Canadian Medical Association, Code of Ethics of the Canadian Medical Association, (Ottawa: The Association), October 1996…………………………………………..7 OECD, Labour and Social Affairs Committee, Explaining Waiting Times Variations for Elective Surgery Across OECD Countries, Working Paper No. 7, Doc. No. DELSA/ELSA/WD/HEA(2003)7 (2003)……………………………………………...17 OECD, Labour and Social Affairs Committee, Tackling Excessive Waiting Times for Elective Surgery: A Comparison of Policies in Twelve OECD Countries, Doc. No. DELSA/ELSA/WD/HEA(2003)6 (2003)………………………………….17 OECD, Labour and Social Affairs Committee, Tackling Excessive Waiting Times for Elective Surgery: A Comparison of Policies in Twelve OECD Countries Annex 1, Doc. No. DELSA/ELSA/WD/HEA(2003)6/ANN1 (2003)………………...26 Statistics Canada, Access to Health Care Services in Canada, 2001 by C. Sanmartin, C. Houle, J.-M. Berthelot and K. White, (Ottawa, Minister of Industry, 2002)……………………………………………………………………………….11, 12 PART VII: STATUTES AND REGULATIONS Loi canadienne sur la santé, L.R.C. 1985 c. C-6 Canada Health Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-6 7. Le versement à une province, pour un exercice, de la pleine contribution pécuniaire visée à l'article 5 est assujetti à l'obligation pour le régime d'assurance-santé de satisfaire, pendant tout cet exercice, aux conditions d'octroi énumérées aux articles 8 à 12 quant à : a) la gestion publique; b) l'intégralité; c) l'universalité; d) la transférabilité; e) l'accessibilité. 12. (1) La condition d'accessibilité suppose que le régime provincial d'assurance-santé : a) offre les services de santé assurés selon des modalités uniformes et ne fasse pas obstacle, directement ou indirectement, et notamment par facturation aux assurés, à un accès satisfaisant par eux à ces services; b) prévoie la prise en charge des services de santé assurés selon un tarif ou autre mode de paiement autorisé par la loi de la province; c) prévoie une rémunération raisonnable de tous les services de santé assurés fournis par les médecins ou les dentistes; d) prévoie le versement de montants aux hôpitaux, y compris les hôpitaux que possède ou gère le Canada, à l'égard du coût des services de santé assurés. (2) Pour toute province où la surfacturation n'est pas permise, il est réputé être satisfait à l'alinéa (1)c) si la province a choisi de conclure un accord et a effectivement conclu un accord avec ses médecins et dentistes prévoyant : a) la tenue de négociations sur la rémunération des services de santé assurés entre la province et les organisations provinciales représentant les médecins ou dentistes qui exercent dans la province; b) le règlement des différends concernant la rémunération par, au choix des organisations provinciales compétentes visées à l'alinéa a), soit la conciliation soit l'arbitrage obligatoire par un groupe représentant également les organisations provinciales et la province et ayant un président indépendant; c) l'impossibilité de modifier la décision du groupe visé à l'alinéa b), sauf par une loi de la province. 7. In order that a province may qualify for a full cash contribution referred to in section 5 for a fiscal year, the health care insurance plan of the province must, throughout the fiscal year, satisfy the criteria described in sections 8 to 12 respecting the following matters: (a) public administration; (b) comprehensiveness; (c) universality; (d) portability; and (e) accessibility. 12. (1) In order to satisfy the criterion respecting accessibility, the health care insurance plan of a province (a) must provide for insured health services on uniform terms and conditions and on a basis that does not impede or preclude, either directly or indirectly whether by charges made to insured persons or otherwise, reasonable access to those services by insured persons; (b) must provide for payment for insured health services in accordance with a tariff or system of payment authorized by the law of the province; (c) must provide for reasonable compensation for all insured health services rendered by medical practitioners or dentists; and (d) must provide for the payment of amounts to hospitals, including hospitals owned or operated by Canada, in respect of the cost of insured health services. (2) In respect of any province in which extra-billing is not permitted, paragraph (1)(c) shall be deemed to be complied with if the province has chosen to enter into, and has entered into, an agreement with the medical practitioners and dentists of the province that provides (a) for negotiations relating to compensation for insured health services between the province and provincial organizations that represent practising medical practitioners or dentists in the province; (b) for the settlement of disputes relating to compensation through, at the option of the appropriate provincial organizations referred to in paragraph (a), conciliation or binding arbitration by a panel that is equally representative of the provincial organizations and the province and that has an independent chairman; and (c) that a decision of a panel referred to in paragraph (b) may not be altered except by an Act of the legislature of the province. CONTRATS D'ASSURANCE ET SUBROGATION Contrats d'assurance prohibés. 15.  Nul ne doit faire ou renouveler un contrat d'assurance ou effectuer un paiement en vertu d'un contrat d'assurance par lequel un service assuré est fourni ou le coût d'un tel service est payé à une personne qui réside ou qui séjourne au Québec ou à une autre personne pour son compte, en totalité ou en partie. Contrats en vigueur pour d'autres services et biens. Si un tel contrat a aussi pour objet d'autres services et biens, il demeure en vigueur quant à ces autres services et biens et la considération prévue à l'égard de ce contrat doit être ajustée en conséquence, à moins que le bénéficiaire de ces services et de ces biens n'accepte de recevoir en échange des avantages équivalents. Délai de remboursement. Si la considération a été payée à l'avance, le montant du remboursement ou de l'ajustement, selon le cas, doit être remis dans les trois mois à moins que la personne assurée n'accepte au cours de cette période de recevoir des avantages équivalents. Montants inférieurs à 5 $. Si le montant total des remboursements ou des ajustements qui doivent être effectués à l'égard d'une même personne en vertu d'un contrat conclu pour au plus une année est inférieur à 5 $, le montant n'est pas exigible mais il doit être remis au ministre pour être versé au Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec visé dans l'article 96. Exception. Le premier alinéa ne s'applique pas à un contrat qui a pour objet l'excédent du coût des services assurés rendus hors du Québec ou l'excédent du coût des médicaments dont la Régie assume le paiement. Il ne s'applique pas non plus à un contrat qui a pour objet la contribution que doit payer une personne assurée en vertu de la Loi sur l'assurance médicaments ( chapitre A-29.01). CONTRACT OF INSURANCE AND SUBROGATION Coverage under contract of insurance prohibited. 15.  No person shall make or renew a contract of insurance or make a payment under a contract of insurance under which an insured service is furnished or under which all or part of the cost of such a service is paid to a resident or temporary resident of Québec or to another person on his behalf. Contract in force for other services and property. If such a contract also covers other services and property it shall remain in force as regards such other services and property and the consideration provided with respect to such contract must be adjusted accordingly, unless the beneficiary of such services and of such property agrees to receive equivalent benefits in exchange. Delay for reimbursement. If the consideration was paid in advance, the amount of the reimbursement or adjustment, as the case may be, must be remitted within three months unless the insured person agrees, during such period, to receive equivalent benefits. Amounts less than $5. If the total amount of the reimbursements or adjustments to be made as regards one person under a contract made for not more than one year is less than $5, the amount shall not be exigible but it shall be remitted to the Minister to be paid to the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Québec contemplated in section 96. Excess cost. The first paragraph does not apply to a contract covering the excess cost of insured services rendered outside Québec or the excess cost of any medication of which the Board assumes payment nor does it apply to a contract covering the contribution payable by an insured person under the Act respecting prescription drug insurance ( chapter A-29.01). Loi sur l’assurance-maladie, L.R.Q., c. A-29, article 15 Health Insurance Act, R.S.Q., c. A-29, section 15. Constitution Act, 1982, s. 36, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11 36. 1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to (a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; (b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and (c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. 36. 1) Sous réserve des compétences législatives du Parlement et des législatures et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement et les législatures, ainsi que les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux, s'engagent à a) promouvoir l'égalité des chances de tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de leur bien-être; b) favoriser le développement économique pour réduire l'inégalité des chances; c) fournir à tous les Canadiens, à un niveau de qualité acceptable, les services publics essentiels. 59 (2) Le juge peut à sa discrétion, une fois les mémoires de demande d'autorisation d'appel, d'appel ou de renvoi déposés et signifiés, autoriser l'intervenant à présenter une plaidoirie orale à l'audition de la demande d'autorisation d'appel, le cas échéant, de l'appel ou du renvoi, et déterminer le temps alloué pour la plaidoirie orale. 59 (2) After all of the memoranda of argument on an application for leave to appeal or the facta on an appeal or reference have been filed and served, a judge may, in his or her discretion, authorize an intervener to present oral argument at the hearing of the application for leave to appeal, if any, the appeal or the reference, and determine the time allotted for oral argument. 36. 1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to (a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; (b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and (c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. 36. 1) Sous réserve des compétences législatives du Parlement et des législatures et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement et les législatures, ainsi que les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux, s'engagent à a) promouvoir l'égalité des chances de tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de leur bien-être; b) favoriser le développement économique pour réduire l'inégalité des chances; c) fournir à tous les Canadiens, à un niveau de qualité acceptable, les services publics essentiels. Règles de la Cour suprême du Canada, DORS/2002-156, tel qu’amendées, Règle 59(2) Rules of the Supreme Court of Canada, SOR/2002-156, as amended, Rule 59(2) 36. 1) Without altering the legislative authority of Parliament or of the provincial legislatures, or the rights of any of them with respect to the exercise of their legislative authority, Parliament and the legislatures, together with the government of Canada and the provincial governments, are committed to (a) promoting equal opportunities for the well-being of Canadians; (b) furthering economic development to reduce disparity in opportunities; and (c) providing essential public services of reasonable quality to all Canadians. 36. 1) Sous réserve des compétences législatives du Parlement et des législatures et de leur droit de les exercer, le Parlement et les législatures, ainsi que les gouvernements fédéral et provinciaux, s'engagent à a) promouvoir l'égalité des chances de tous les Canadiens dans la recherche de leur bien-être; b) favoriser le développement économique pour réduire l'inégalité des chances; c) fournir à tous les Canadiens, à un niveau de qualité acceptable, les services publics essentiels.

Documents

Less detail

Federal Monitoring and Reporting Regime for MAID

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13853

Date
2017-05-15
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2017-05-15
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Text
Substantive recommendations 1. Protection and disclosure of the information This is a foundational component of any regulatory framework for both practitioners and patients/requestors. The CMA recommends placing greater emphasis on the protection of privacy by a. conducting a privacy impact assessment, with input from the Federal Privacy Commissioner (if that hasn't already been done). b. requiring, as part of the regulations, privacy/data sharing agreements in instances when o data is shared to meet the objectives outlined (p. 2); and o information collected under the framework will be made available to designated provincial and territorial government bodies for their use (p. 3). This is particularly important given that this involves the collection of identifiable (private) information about practitioners and patients/requestors. c. using aggregate data where applicable. d. providing greater detail on how the "Rigorous protection of all personal information (patient and practitioner) will be a paramount feature of the monitoring regime" - such detail is essential even in the preliminary stages of developing a monitoring and reporting system. 2. Further specification of what constitutes a request As is currently stated, what constitutes a request is not sufficiently defined, i.e., what constitutes a "written request"? Is any written request a request? What about for those who can't (or who can no longer) write? Further specifying what constitutes a request is especially important since the practitioner has to document the circumstances of the request in every instance, including where follow-up is required and a report has to be filed as part of a follow-up. 3. Timeframe A timeframe of 10 days to file a report is alarmingly short. It is commonly known that physicians already feel burdened by paperwork and it is highly likely that they would find it nearly impossible to meet this requirement. This could conceivably deter physicians from choosing to provide assistance in dying or participate in an assessment under threat of criminal sanction, potentially significantly impacting patient access. Procedural recommendations 4. Inegibility Information required for this category includes "results of the eligibility assessment". It should be required to explicitly include reasons why the patient/requestor was deemed ineligible. 5. MAiD self-administered a. The application of safeguards should be a specific category requiring reporting (and not simply used an example). b. To assess (in)consistency of emerging practices and the variability of provincial legislative or regulatory requirements, it would be worthwhile to require stating whether the practitioner was present during the self-administration. 6. Coroners and medical examiners When the monitoring regime (periodically) requests information from Chief Coroners or Medical Examiners: To assess (in)consistency of emerging practices and the variability of provincial legislative or regulatory requirements, it would be worthwhile to gather data on who completes the death certificate and the information included on the death certificate.

Documents

Less detail

Federal monitoring of medical assistance in dying regulations

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy13856

Date
2018-02-13
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Date
2018-02-13
Topics
Ethics and medical professionalism
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) is pleased to provide input on the proposed regulations of the federal monitoring of Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada. The CMA fully supports the proposed intent of the regulations, in particular, public accountability and transparency and safeguards for vulnerable patient populations. Tracking trends and carrying out research is very important to monitor the implementation and implications of medical assistance in dying. The CMA further supports the intent to provide electronic reporting and guidance documents, and to leverage any synergies between the federal and provincial/territorial governments, especially to prevent duplication and to promote consistency in reporting across the country. The CMA would like to raise the following critical areas for your consideration: 1. Definitions/parameters of terms There continues to be a need to more clearly define several terms to ensure consistency of reporting. For example: a. Who constitutes a “practitioner”? One can argue that there is a broad scope of who is “a medical practitioner or nurse practitioner”. Is it the practitioner who provides MAiD? Or he practitioner who first reads a patient’s request for MAiD? Or is the first practitioner? Or second practitioner who assesses the patient? b. What constitutes a therapeutic relationship (as one of the eight proposed items to be collected about the practitioner)? A therapeutic relationship is not required to access MAiD. This criterion should be removed and if not, given the differences in opinion in the health professions as to what constitutes a therapeutic relationship includes, it should be clearly defined. c. What constitutes a request, a written request, the receipt of a request? If reporting obligations are “triggered” by a patient’s “written request”, at what point is that request actually triggered? The very first practitioner who receives the patient’s written request? Or the practitioner who conducts the eligibility assessment upon receipt of the written request? Or the practitioner who provides the prescription or carries out the procedure? d. On a related point, without clear definitions, any future comparative analysis of research or trends will be difficult as there will be no common starting point. e. There continues to be confusion on how to count or when to start counting the required 10 clear days. There are many reasons why this requires more clarity. 2. Collection and protection of data We applaud Health Canada for further reducing and revising data requirements. We submit, however, that further reductions are required for several reasons, including adherence to privacy best practices that require the collection of the least amount of data necessary to achieve reasonable purposes. In particular: a. In view of the quantity and highly personal and sensitive data that will be collected about patients and practitioners, data sharing agreements should be required; for example, agreements between the federal government and provincial/territorial governments or between researchers and others requesting use of the data to facilitate the appropriate sharing of data. b. Collection of personal information should be limited to what is relevant to the purpose of monitoring medical assistance in dying. Personal information, such as the patient’s full postal code, marital status, or principal occupation is beyond the scope of the eligibility criteria outlined in the legislation and thus beyond the scope of the purpose of monitoring the impact of the legislation. c. Any “characteristics” of the patient should refer only to the eligibility criteria. If other data will be collected beyond that scope, the justification for doing so, and the characteristics themselves, should be clearly outlined. d. The scope of the information collected about the practitioner could be narrowed. As is, it is very broad – a list of eight items – while the Quebec regulations, as a comparator, have only three-four items that must be collected in relation to the physician who administers MAiD. 3. Additional requirements Schedule 4 [section 2(i)] of the proposed regulations requires that the practitioner opine as to whether the patient met, or did not meet, all of the eligibility criteria outlined in the legislation – with two significantly expanded requirements; the requirements that the practitioner: 1) provide an estimate as to the amount of time MAiD shortened the patient’s life; and 2) indicate the anticipated likely cause of natural death of the patient. These additional requirements are beyond the letter and spirit of the legislation and, in many ways, are in direct contradiction to the legislation. The Legislature was not unaware when it drafted the Act that it did not follow other jurisdictions’ criteria requiring either a terminal illness or a prognosis of time within which the practitioner believed the patient would die, e.g., “within the next 6 months”. It is specifically the lack of a timeframe that makes the legislation unique and provides flexibility for both patients and practitioners. By adding these two additional criteria for reporting, in effect, they become additional criteria for eligibility which is, as stated above, beyond the scope, and in contradiction to, the legislation. 4. Lack of clarity of reasons for ineligibility There is a potential for misunderstanding as to whether reasons are required when the patient does not meet the criteria under Schedule 4, section 2(a) – (h). The introduction to section 2 speaks to the practitioner giving an indication as to (a) whether the patient met or (b) did not meet the criteria. However, in the itemized criteria [2(a)-(h)] it only speaks to the practitioner having to provide reasons when the patient meets the criteria (and not when the patient has not met the criteria). It would be helpful to specify that reasons should be required when the patient does and does not meet the criteria. This is also crucial for the publication of the Minister of Health’s annual report requiring that the reasons, and which eligibility criteria were not met, be addressed. Conclusion The CMA recognizes the importance of regulations to capture the provision, collection, use, and disposal of information for the purpose of monitoring MAiD. The CMA cautions against introducing reporting requirements that are beyond the scope of the legislation. As noted in the legislation, practitioners who fail to provide information under the regulations may be found guilty under the Criminal Code and subject to possible imprisonment. It is thus imperative that the federal government drafts clear regulations that respect the legislation, privacy, research ethics, and a de minimus approach. .

Documents

Less detail

Letter - CMA Submission to the Minister of Health

https://policybase.cma.ca/en/permalink/policy9286

Last Reviewed
2009-02-21
Date
2000-09-06
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
  1 document  
Policy Type
Response to consultation
Last Reviewed
2009-02-21
Date
2000-09-06
Topics
Health systems, system funding and performance
Text
The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) values the open, constructive and ongoing dialogue that has developed over the past year with you and your ministry in seeking solutions to the critical issues and challenges that face Canada's health system. As an open society, it is essential to the future of the health care system that every effort is made to work together to find lasting solutions to what is a series of complex and interdependent social policy issues. With many policy challenges placed squarely on the table, it is timely that we move beyond issue identification and strive to develop a comprehensive plan for health care that incorporates a set of solutions that are strategic, targeted, long-term, and sustainable. Given the evolving nature of the health care system, the plan must also be flexible, adaptive and innovative. To assist you as you enter into extensive policy discussions with your provincial and territorial colleagues, CMA believes it is crucial that there is a clear sense of where the medical profession stands on a number of issues. The purpose of the letter is to outline an action plan to revitalize Canada's health care system. The plan is a series of constructive proposals in which the sum is greater than the individual components. The proposals are grouped under the categories of sustainable and accountable federal funding, national health system innovation and physician resource strategy. This information will likely form the basis of the CMA's presentation to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance later this Fall. By their very nature, the proposals are strategically targeted and align policy solutions to a number of key policy challenges that face the health care system today, tomorrow and into the future. The proposals are designed to complement one another. They should be considered as a series of investments that address a spectrum of policy issues in the health care system. Our proposals are designed in such a manner that they are sufficiently flexible in meeting provincial and territorial health care priorities, while ensuring that the federal government is fully recognized for its essential investment. Furthermore, to promote a higher degree of accountability, transparency and legitimacy, each proposal sets out its own rationale and includes, where possible, an order-of-magnitude cost estimate. In specific terms, the total cost of the recommendations that the CMA is putting forward is a minimum of $10.15 billion. Each investment is accounted for as follows: * Health-specific Federal Cash Restoration $3.81 billion * National Health Technology Fund $1.74 billion * National Health Connectivity Investment $4.10 billion * National Physician Resource Strategy $0.50 billion Total $10.15 billion The attached documents summarize our recommendations and provide detailed information each proposal. The CMA has offered a powerful and strategic combination of policy initiatives designed to revitalize Canada's health care system. The proposals are realistic, practical and serve to focus on making the health care system one that is innovative, responsive and accessible by all Canadians. Finally, it must also be made clear that no one group can address all of the policy issues and challenges facing the health care system. Thus, the CMA's commitment to working with the federal government and others to ensure that our health care system will be there for all Canadians in need is once again offered. The CMA looks forward to discussing with you how these specific proposals can be implemented. Sincerely yours, Original signed by Peter Barrett Peter Barrett, MD, FRCSC President enclosures c.c. Prime Minister and Provincial and Territorial Premiers Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Health Federal Minister of Finance CMA Board of Directors CMA Provincial and Territorial Divisions and Affiliated Societies SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS September 6, 2000 In seeking to place the health care system on the road to long-term sustainability, the CMA is committed to working in close partnership with the federal government and others identifying, developing and implementing policy initiatives that serve to strengthen Canadians' access to quality health care. In the spirit of placing Canada's health care system on the road to recovery, the CMA offers the following recommendations: 1. That the federal government fund Canada's publicly financed health care system on a long-term, sustainable basis to ensure quality health care for all Canadians. 2. That the federal government, in consultation with the provinces and territories, and stakeholders, introduce a health-specific cash transfer mechanism to promote greater public accountability, transparency and linkage of sources to their respective uses. 3. That the federal government, at a minimum, increase federal cash for health care by an additional $3.8 billion, effective immediately. 4. That beginning April 1, 2001, the federal government introduce an escalator mechanism that will grow the real value of health-specific cash over time. 5. That the federal government must allocate new monies, over and above the $3.8 billion increase to the health-specific cash floor to facilitate the development of a comprehensive and seamless system of care. 6. That the federal government commit a minimum of $1.74 billion over three years to A National Health Technology Fund, to increase country-wide access to needed health technologies. 7. That the federal government make a minimum investment of $4.1 billion in National Health Connectivity 8. That the federal government immediately establish a Physician Education and Training Fund in the amount of $500 million to fund: (1) increased enrolment in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education; and (2) the expanded infrastructure (both human and physical resources) of Canada's 16 medical schools needed to accommodate the increased enrolment. 9. That the federal government increase funding targeted to institutes of postsecondary education to alleviate some of the pressures driving tuition fee increases. 10. That the federal government enhance financial support systems for medical students, provided that they are: (a) non-coercive; (b) developed concomitantly or in advance of any tuition increase; (c) in direct proportion to any tuition fee increase; and (d) provided at levels that meet the needs of the students. ON THE ROAD TO RECOVERY... AN ACTION PLAN FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TO REVITALIZE CANADA'S HEALTH CARE SYSTEM September 2000 SUSTAINABLE AND ACCOUNTABLE FEDERAL FUNDING Since the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) on April 1, 1996, the CMA has taken the strong position that the federal government must restore the level of federal cash notionally allocated to health care that was in place in 1995. Since that time, the federal government has introduced a series of important first steps towards stabilizing Canada's health care system. Specifically, in 1999, the government announced a five-year fiscal framework that reinvested $11.5 billion, on a cumulative basis, in the health care system. In the budget papers, it was clear that this money was to be earmarked for the health care system only. In 2000, an additional one-time investment of $2.5 billion, unearmarked through the CHST over four years, was announced. While seen as a series of important first steps, the figures, however, must be placed in context. Specifically, it is important to note that the CHST monies that have been announced are a combination of increases to the CHST cash floor and "one-time" injections (i.e., "supplements"). Table 1 accounts for the increases via the CHST and its supplement. (NOTE Table content does not display correctly -- SEE PDF) TABLE 11 CANADA HEALTH AND SOCIAL TRANSFER BUDGET IMPACTS (1999 AND 2000) 1999/00 TO 2003/04 ($ BILLIONS) Year 1999/00 2000/01* 2001/02 2002/03 2003/04 5 Years Budget 2000 Increase CHST Supplement** -- 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5 Budget 1999 Increase CHST Supplement*** CHST Cash Floor 2.0 -- 1.0 1.0 0.5 2.0 -- 2.5 -- 2.5 3.5 8.0 Budget 1998 Cash 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 12.5 62.5 Total CHST Cash 14.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 15.5 76.5 CHST Tax Transfers 14.9 15.3 15.8 16.5 17.2 79.7 Total CHST 29.4 30.8 31.3 32.0 32.7 156.2 * All figures for 2000/01 onward, with the exception of CHST cash, are projections. ** The $2.5 billion cash supplement will be paid to a third party trust and accounted for in 1999/00 by the federal government. Payments will be made in a manner that treats all jurisdictions equitably, regardless of when they draw down funds over four years. *** The $3.5 billion cash supplement was paid into a third party trust and accounted for by the federal government in 1998/99. In the latter case, these "CHST supplements," totaling $3.5 billion over three years in 1999 and $2.5 billion over four years in 2000 are specifically designed not to be included as part of the CHST cash floor. Nor is it intended to grow over time through an escalator. In fact the supplement, which is framed as a multi-year investment is charged to the preceding year's budget. Thus, once allocated and spent, the money is gone. While the CHST supplements were important first steps, the CMA views them as "tentative half-measures" and by no means a substitute for fostering short-, medium- and/or long-term planning of the health care system. A long-term commitment by the federal government is required to increase its health-specific cash allocation. Recognizing the limitations of the CHST supplement, on an annual basis, this means that CHST cash for health care increased by $2.0 billion in 1999/00; it will remain at the same level for 2000/01 and then increase by $500 million (to $2.5 billion) in 2001/02, and remain at that level for the 2002/03 and 2003/04. In other words, only in 2002/03 will the CHST cash floor return to its 1995 nominal spending levels, 7 years after the fact, with no adjustment for the increasing health care needs of Canadians, inflation or economic growth. The budget announcements by the federal government in 1998/99 and 1999/00 are presented in Table 2. Please note that the amounts applied to the CHST cash floor and the cash supplements have been separated. TABLE 2 TOTAL CHST CASH, HEALTH-SPECIFIC CHST CASH, CHST SUPPLEMENT 1995/96 TO 2003/04 ($ BILLION) Year Total CHST Cash CHST Cash for Health Care* CHST Supplement Total CHST Cash for Health Care 1995/96 18.5 7.59 N/A 7.59 1996/97 14.7 6.03 N/A 6.03 1997/98 12.5 5.13 N/A 5.13 1998/99 12.5 5.13 N/A 5.13 1999/00 12.5 + 2.0 = 14.5 5.13 3.5 8.63 2000/01 13.5 + 2.0 = 15.5 6.13 2.5 8.63** 2001/02 14.5 + 1.0 = 15.5 7.13 N/A 7.13 2002/03 15.0.+ 0.5 = 15.5 7.63 N/A 7.63 2003/04 15.0 + 0.5 = 15.5 7.63 N/A 7.63 * It is assumed that in 1995/96 the notional allocation to health care is 41% of CHST. Prior to the introduction of the CHST, Established Programs Financing (EPF) and the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) were in place. In addition, federal cash that has been "earmarked" allocated for health care and added to the CHST base, as outlined in the past two federal budgets, are included ** Assumes that the $2.5 billion supplement was allocated to health care only. It is important to pay careful attention with regard to how the figures have been derived and on what basis. Close attention has been paid to the distinction between the increase to the CHST cash floor and the introduction of a "CHST supplement," which has been applied by the federal government over the last two years. In the latter case, the supplement has not been factored into the CHST cash floor analysis since it is a one time expenditure, charged to the previous fiscal year, that can never grow over time. Simply put, once allocated it is gone in perpetuity and does not have any further application in terms of facilitating future growth of the CHST cash floor. Based on Table 2, it is estimated that the CHST cash floor in support of health care currently stands at $6.13 billion in 2000/01. This is roughly $1.5 billion below the 1995/96 level without adjusting the cash floor in support of health care to reflect a number of factors including, a growing and aging population, the depreciation of the system's physical infrastructure, the cost of pharmaceuticals, or inflation, to name a few. At a minimum, the federal government must put back what it has taken out of the system. Specifically, the CMA believes that the federal government must re-establish the level of CHST cash allocated to health care at the 1995 level, adjusted to reflect the changing health care needs of Canadians in the coming year of 2001. The question then becomes on what basis can one arrive at a reasonable estimate? Based on a recent study prepared by the Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Health, the CMA believes that this is an important point of departure in considering orders of magnitude.2 Therefore, if one applies the growth factor that was recently calculated by the Provinces and Territories in its "cost driver" study (at 4.6% per annum), the health portion of CHST cash in 1995 at $7.59 billion is adjusted upwards to $9.94 billion in 2001 dollars (see Table 3). TABLE 3 ESTIMATED VALUE OF CHST HEALTH-SPECIFIC CASH FLOOR 1995/96 TO 2001/02 ($ BILLIONS) YEAR CURRENT CHST CASH FLOOR FOR HEALTH CARE ESCALATOR APPLIED TO BASE YEAR OF 1995/96 (% INCREASE) EXPECTED HEALTH-SPECIFIC CASH FLOOR 1995/96 7.59 4.6 1996/97 6.03 4.6 7.94 1997/98 5.13 4.6 8.30 1998/99 5.13 4.6 8.69 1999/00 5.13 4.6 9.09 2000/01 6.13 4.6 9.50 2001/02 7.13 4.6 9.94 Based on the recent combination of announcements by the federal government to increase the CHST cash floor and the supplements, it is estimated that the 2000/2001 health-specific cash floor stands at $6.13 billion. Therefore, to bring the health-specific cash that flows through the CHST in line with the changing health care needs of Canadians, it should, at a minimum, increase by $3.81 billion effective immediately. In reviewing the approach taken by the CMA, it is important to understand that the $3.81 billion figure is a health-specific cash calculation only. As the CHST is currently configured, it flows federal cash for health, post-secondary education and income support programs. Currently, the Provinces and Territories are adamant that the federal government return the CHST cash floor to its 1993-94 level of $18.7 billion by adding $4.2 billion immediately. However, the $4.2 billion that is being requested is in "1993/94 dollars"; it is not adjusted to account for the changing needs of Canadians between 1993/94 and 2000/2001 for health, post-secondary education or income support programs. While raising the health-specific cash floor will serve to stabilize the system, it is likely that there will be future debate about what is the appropriate share of federal cash. While there are those who factor in the value of the tax point transfer, it is only federal cash that can be used to sanction the provinces and territories that are in violation of the Canada Health Act.3 As the Minister of Health was recently quoted "For the Canadian government to continue to have the moral authority to influence reform, we have to be a more robust contributor."4 In this context, the adage "no cash, no clout applies" in its strictest sense. Therefore, while federal cash must be reinfused into the health care system, there must also be substantive policy discussion about what the federal government's contribution should be in the future, and through what mechanism. For example, should it be a fixed amount only; should it be tied to provincial/territorial public expenditures on health; and/or how should it grow over time? The Need for Financial Accountability In making a critical investment in the health care system, the CMA strongly supports the principle of financial accountability. This is consistent with the federal government's call for increased accountability in the health care system. After all, if the federal government is calling on provincial and territorial governments, and providers to be more accountable for what they do, then the federal government should be prepared to be measured by the very same principle when it comes to funding Canada's health care system. Therefore, every effort should be made to ensure that health-specific federal monies are visible and transparent. The CMA view is also consistent with the underpinnings of the recently negotiated Social Union Framework Agreement which calls for greater public accountability on all levels of government. These issues have been recently noted by the Auditor-General of Canada "Under the CHST, the federal government does not know its exact total contribution to provinces and territories for health care as distinct from social assistance and services and post-secondary education."5 The report goes on to recommend that the federal government explore options to improve information on its total contribution to health care, and work with the provinces and territories to develop requirements for information and reporting purposes with respect to CHST additional funds. The Canadian Institute for Health Information also observed that "following the introduction of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) in April 1996, total federal contributions to health care cannot be clearly defined."6 Furthermore a recent policy document released by Mr. Tom Kent, one of the policy architects of Medicare in the 1960s, refers to the CHST as "jelly...It can be varied as we choose, spent however each province chooses." 7 He also says "Ensure that the federal financial contribution to the medicare partnership is made continuingly clear. This transparency is required not only for the credit of the present government but, equally, to protect the provinces against any future federal government thinking that it could cut its funding with little political penalty...In short, the federal need for recognition of funding and the provincial need for security of funding are not in conflict."8 In many ways, the announcement of the $11.5 billion, cumulatively, in 1999 was a de facto recognition of the need for a health-specific allocation in support of health care. The recent calculations released by the Federal Department of Finance only serve to reinforce this point.9 At a time of increased societal awareness and demand for accountability, the CHST mechanism appears to be anachronistic by having one indivisible cash transfer that does not recognize explicitly the federal government's contribution to health in a post-Social Union Agreement world. Therefore, the CHST cash transfer mechanism should be restructured to ensure that there is a higher degree of transparency and explicit linkage between the sources of federal funding and their respective uses at the provincial and territorial level. This can be achieved such that the provinces and territories have the flexibility to allocate resources on the basis of agreed-upon priorities, while ensuring that the federal government is fully recognized for its investment. It would also underscore the relationship between financial "inputs" and health "outputs." A Mechanism to Grow the Real Value of Health-Specific Federal Cash Over Time In addition to increasing the federal cash floor in support of health care, there is also the need to ensure that the cash can grow over time to meet the future needs of Canadians. With this in mind, the CMA recommends the re-introduction of an escalator mechanism to grow the real value of health-specific federal cash. If left as is, federal cash will continue to erode over time with increasing demands from an ageing and growing population, epidemiological trends, new technologies, to name a few. In previous years, the CMA has proposed an escalator formula which recognizes that future health care costs are not always synchronized with economic growth. In fact, in times of economic hardship (e.g., unemployment, stress, and familial discord), a greater burden is placed on the health care system. The concept of an escalator is not new. In fact, at the time of Established Programs Financing, a three-year moving average of nominal Gross Domestic Product per capita was in place. This policy was regrettably tinkered with and then eliminated in the mid-1990s.10 Thus, the CMA believes that now is the time to reintroduce a policy measure that served federal-provincial/territorial fiscal relations well. Such a policy measure would be a clear signal to the provinces and territories that the federal government is prepared to be there over the long-term, and is prepared to move away from the annual finger-pointing that plagues federal/provincial/territorial collaboration when it comes to the future of the health care system. To illustrate the financial impact of an escalator, if the federal government's health-specific cash floor is $9.94 billion, assuming an escalator of 4.6% would yield an additional $457 million to the provinces and territories in year 1, and $547 million in year 5. This is not prohibitive when one considers the current revenues of the federal government, and its anticipated series of surpluses.11 It should also be noted that these recommendations are consistent with the direction set out by the National Liberal Caucus Task Force on Health Care Sustainability.12 Combined, the issues of the level of health-specific federal cash for health care and the need for an escalator mechanism speak not only to the fundamental principles of the necessity of stabilizing the health care system, but also in terms of the federal government taking the necessary concrete leadership steps to ensure that adequate and long-term funding is available to meet the health care needs of all Canadians. Their rationale is reasoned and strategic; they give the federal government full recognition for its investment and the provinces and territories flexibility in allocating monies to meet their respective priorities. It also serves to build on and strengthen the core foundation of Canada's health care system. If Canada's health care system is not only to survive, but thrive in the new millennium, we must give serious consideration to a range of possible solutions that place our system, and the federal role within that system, on a more secure and sustainable financial footing. The CMA therefore recommends: 1. That the federal government fund Canada's publicly financed health care system on a long-term, sustainable basis to ensure quality health care for all Canadians. 2. That the federal government, in consultation with the provinces and territories, and stakeholders, introduce a health-specific cash transfer mechanism to promote greater public accountability, transparency and linkage of sources to their respective uses. 3. That the federal government, at a minimum, increase federal cash for health care by an additional $3.8 billion, effective immediately. 4. That beginning April 1, 2001, the federal government introduce an escalator mechanism that will grow the real value of health-specific cash over time. Looking to the Future... While the federal government must make a series of investments to stabilize the health care system, it must also consider the broader spectrum of health care services needed to ensure that Canadians do not fall through the cracks. In the past, the CMA has proposed a Health System Renewal Fund. The purpose of the multi-year fund was to recognize the changing nature of our health care system and to facilitate the development of a more comprehensive and seamless system of care. The Fund proposed that as the system continues to evolve additional transitional funding is required to ensure that it remains accessible, and can do so with minimal interruption to Canadians. That being said, over the longer-term, the CMA recognizes that the federal government will have to move from transitional funding to investing significant new federal dollars that will not jeopardize access to quality acute care services. The CMA recommends: 5. That the federal government must allocate new monies, over and above the $3.8 billion increase to the health-specific cash floor to facilitate the development of a comprehensive and seamless system of care. HEALTH SYSTEM INNOVATION In reviewing the current state of Canada's health care system and the need to carefully consider its future, there are at least two fundamental issues that require our collective wisdom and action. First, there is the need for long-term sustainable funding. The second concerns the overall structure of the health care system, and the degree to which it must be revitalized. Often portrayed as a separate set of strategic policy issues, system funding and system structure are linked inextricably in a practical sense when it comes to ensuring timely access to quality health care. When it comes to structure, the CMA is of the view that renewal and innovation is essential if we, as a society, are to ensure that our health system remains sustainable and responsive over the short-, medium- and longer-term. While we must ensure that the health care system of tomorrow is structurally sound, it must also be sufficiently flexible, adaptive and focused on excellence. The CMA, therefore, proposes that the federal government invest in two areas that are strategically targeted, and serve to facilitate future innovation, adaptability and flexibility in the health care system. At the same time, they also give the provinces and territories full flexibility in determining their priorities within the mandate of the funds while giving the federal government full recognition for its investment. National Health Technology Fund As part of the CMA's submission to the 2000 House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance pre-budget consultations, it was recommended that the government establish a National Health Technology Fund. The purpose of the Fund is to address the significant concerns that have been raised about the lack of access to needed diagnostic and treatment technologies in Canada. Based on the most recent OECD information, Canada ranks poorly when it comes to the availability of technologies, ranking 12th (out of 15) for CT Scanners; 11th (out of 13) for MRIs; and 10th (out of 11) for Lithotripters. Canada ranks favorably only in the availability of radiation equipment 5th (out of 13) OECD countries. Given the very real concerns that have been raised with regard to waiting times across the country, Canadians deserve better when it comes to making available needed health technologies that can effectively diagnose and treat disease. Furthermore, it is clear that we must do more to facilitate the diffusion of new cost-effective health technologies that are properly evaluated and meet defined standards of quality. While physicians are trained to provide quality medical care to all Canadians, they must, at the same time, have "the tools" to do so. In the absence of ready access to current and emerging health technologies, Canadians face the prospect of continued and untreated progression of disease, increased anxiety over their health status, and possibly premature death, while the health care system and society bears the direct and indirect costs associated with delayed access. If Canada were to provide a level of access to these medical technologies that was comparable to other countries with similar standards of living, a minimum expenditure of $1.0 billion would be required for capital costs alone. Our proposal, however, recommends that targeted resources be provided to the provinces and territories to operate the equipment for a three-year period at an overall cost of $1.74 billion. This would give the provinces and territories the opportunity to factor in these additional resources into their respective health budgets. The CMA recommends: 6. That the federal government commit a minimum of $1.74 billion over three years to A National Health Technology Fund, to increase country-wide access to needed health technologies. For your information, a copy of the detailed proposal is enclosed. National Health Connectivity Investment In addition to a national health technologies fund there is a need for significant attention to be paid to ensure access to both hardware and software in order to develop a health information infrastructure that will create "connectivity" throughout the health care system. The health care system operates within an information intensive environment. However, to date, a substantial amount of the data being collected is gleaned as a derivative of administrative or billing/financial systems. Although this provides useful information for arriving at a "high level" view of the operation of the health care system, it is generally of limited value to health care providers at the interface with their patients. Much of the recent debate about the future of the health care system has focused on the need to improve its adaptability and overall integration. One critical ingredient in re-vitalizing the system has to with the necessary information technologies that physicians and other health care professionals must have at their disposal. Specifically, health care providers require access to a secure electronic health record (EHR) that provides details of all health services provided to the patient in front of them. An EHR that meets the clinical needs of health care providers when interacting with their patients will serve to benefit not only the health of Canadians, but the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system. Introduction of new technology, such as an EHR, should be viewed as a "social investment" in the acquisition of knowledge. This benefits patients through the potential reduction in mortality/morbidity rates due to misdiagnosis and improper treatment as well as the reduction in medication errors through access to online drug reference databases and by largely eliminating handwritten prescriptions. Health promotion and disease prevention is enhanced through improved monitoring and patient education as well as improved decision-making by providers and patients. These benefits represent only a sub-set of the potential benefits to Canadians. There are many benefits to providers in having access to an EHR, ranging from administrative cost savings to decreased loss of medical records and improved privacy from physical intrusion of a medical record. The healthcare system as a whole benefits from increased efficiencies and effectiveness. In the United States, the Veterans Health Services and Research Administration (VHSRA) in a controlled prospective study found that a computerized patient record to support providers in outpatient geriatric clinics resulted in cost reductions and improvements in the quality and outcomes of patient care. With baby boomers some 10 - 15 years from retirement, cost reductions and improvements in the quality and outcomes of patient care are not an insignificant benefit of an EHR.13 With this as an introduction, the CMA recommends to the federal government that a national investment in health connectivity be established with the objective of improving the health of Canadians as well as improving the efficiency and effectiveness of the health care system by funding an information technology infrastructure for the health care system. The CMA has determined that a preliminary estimate of the total initial cost of such an investment in knowledge acquisition is a point order-of-magnitude estimate of $4.1 billion. This represents a capital of cost $1.6 billion with a five year implementation and operating costs of $2.5 billion, plus or minus 20%. The yearly operating costs after 5 years are estimated to be $830 million. Of course, substantial additional work is required to arrive at more precise cost estimates as well as the potential savings of such an endeavour. Such an investment would provide Canadians with a bold vision of the future of health care and the federal government's role in moving the health care system into the future. The CMA proposal for an investment in National Health Connectivity dovetails with the recent views of the First Ministers at their most recent meeting. The CMA concurs with the views of First Ministers that the broadened application of information and communications technologies to the health care sector will improve the quality, timeliness and integration of health care services. The CMA, as the representative of Canadian physicians, can play a pivotal partnership role in achieving the buy-in and cooperation of physicians and other health care providers, through a multi-stakeholder process that would encompass the health care team. Our involvement would be a critical success factor in helping the federal government in making a connected health care system a realizable goal in the years to come. The CMA therefore recommends: 7. That the federal government make a minimum investment of $4.1 billion in National Health Connectivity. NATIONAL PHYSICIAN RESOURCE STRATEGY As the federal government is aware, Canada is experiencing a physician shortage that will be significantly exacerbated in the next decade. In November 1999, when the Canadian Medical Forum (CMF) and Society of Rural Physicians of Canada met with the federal and provincial governments, a detailed report on physician supply, containing five specific recommendations, was submitted. The CMA and the other CMF organizations are encouraged to see that many of the jurisdictions across Canada agreed with the need to increase enrolment in undergraduate medical education programs, although we are still far from the 2,000 by 2000 proposed by the CMF. These increases in undergraduate enrolment in medicine require funding not only for the positions themselves, but also for the necessary infrastructure (human and physical resources) to ensure high quality training. The concomitant increases in postgraduate positions that will be required three to four years after entry into medical school must also be resourced appropriately. It is important to note that these positions are independent of the extra positions recommended in the November 1999 CMF report that are needed to increase: (a) flexibility in the postgraduate training system; (b) the capacity to provide training to international medical graduates; and (c) opportunities for reentry for physicians who have been in practice.) The federal government needs to demonstrate its commitment to the principle of self-sufficiency in the production of physicians to meet the medical needs of the Canadian population. The CMA recommends: 8. That the federal government immediately establish a Physician Education and Training Fund in the amount of $500 million to fund: (1) increased enrolment in undergraduate and postgraduate medical education; and (2) the expanded infrastructure (both human and physical resources) of Canada's 16 medical schools needed to accommodate the increased enrolment. Escalation and Deregulation of Tuition Fees The CMA remains very concerned about high, and rapidly escalating, medical school tuition fee increases across Canada. The CMA is particularly concerned about their subsequent impact on the physician workforce and the Canadian health care system. In addition to the significant impact of high tuition fees on current and potential medical students, the CMA believes that high tuition fees will have a number of consequences, including: (1) creating barriers to application to medical school and threaten the socioeconomic diversity of future health care providers serving the public; and (2) exacerbating the physician 'brain drain' to the United States so that new physicians can pay down their large and growing debts more quickly. The CMA decries tuition deregulation in Canadian medical schools and recommends: 9. That the federal government increase funding targeted to institutes of postsecondary education to alleviate some of the pressures driving tuition fee increases. 10. That the federal government enhance financial support systems for medical students, provided that they are: (a) non-coercive; (b) developed concomitantly or in advance of any tuition increase; (c) in direct proportion to any tuition fee increase; and (d) provided at levels that meet the needs of the students. Proposals for a National Health Technology Fund Currently, there is a crisis in confidence among Canadians that access to quality health care services will be there when they need it. In addition, there is a crisis of morale among health care providers who are concerned that they are not able to provide the quality care their patients need. One of the areas that your government could show strong and effective leadership is in the development of a national health technologies infrastructure program. In its 2000 pre-budget submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance the CMA made the following recommendation: "That the federal government establish a National Health Technology Fund to increase country-wide access to needed health technologies". The purpose of this recommendation recognizes that there are country-wide concerns with the availability of current health technologies in Canada and the speed with which the distribution of new technologies is taking place. In both instances, they have a direct impact on the ability of Canadians to access, within a reasonable time, needed health technologies. As a consequence, Canadians are facing ever-growing waiting lists for access to needed health technology services (including magnetic resonance imagers; computed tomography scanners; lithotripters; radiation therapy, dialysis) which are essential in the early detection of cancers (e.g., breast, prostate, lung), tumours, circulatory complications (e.g., stroke; hardening of the arteries) and treatment of disease. At the same time, physicians are either delayed or denied the ability to use proven state-of-the-art health technologies to assist them as clinicians. In the absence of ready access to current and emerging health technologies, Canadians face the prospect of continued and untreated progression of disease, increased anxiety over their health status, and possibly premature death, while the health care system and society bears the direct and indirect costs associated with delayed access. In considering this issue, the consensus view is that there is a lack of sustainable financial (i.e., capital) resources to purchase needed health technologies. As well, there also appears to be a lack of ongoing financial resources to ensure that the technology can be operated and maintained (i.e., operational) allowing for access on an ongoing basis. Notwithstanding the supply of health technologies, questions have also been raised about the adequate supply of health care professionals that are needed to operate the technology, and associated physical infrastructure to facilitate reasonable access to care. Currently Provincial and Territorial governments, and other groups have called on the federal government to continue its reinvestment in the health care system via the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST). However, one drawback of the transfer mechanism is that it is "blind" with no linkage or accountability between federal cash and its intended uses. Recognizing that there is an urgent need for additional funds to be invested and allocated for needed health technologies, the question from a policy perspective is how to design an accountable, targeted and visible program that will invest federal cash into a specific area of the health care system without intruding in the jurisdictional responsibilities of the Provinces and Territories. One approach is for the federal government to announce the creation of a National Health Technology Fund (NHTF). It is proposed that the NHTF would have the following features: 1) The NHTF would be a time-limited program with the singular focus of assisting the Provinces and Territories in the funding and acquisition of needed health technologies. 2) The NHTF would require that all Provinces and Territories apply to the federal government program for funding for needed health technologies. By so doing, it would give the Provinces and Territories full flexibility in determining their technological priorities, how many and what mix of technologies should be allocated in their jurisdiction. 3) The NHTF would provide full financing (i.e., capital) for the purchase of the technology, and defined resources to defray the operational costs associated with the health technologies across the country. Available monies to the Provinces and Territories could be allocated on a per capita basis and/or cost-sharing basis. 4) Once the program has been sun-setted, the Provinces and Territories would be responsible for the ongoing (operational) funding and maintenance for the technologies. The CMA believes that the form of the fund must be closely aligned with its function and would, therefore, make the following specific recommendations: 1. The NHTF would explicitly link the source of federal funding with its intended use at the Provincial and Territorial level - establishing a new level of federal accountability in financing strategic components of the health care system. 2. The federal government's investment in health care would be visible, with full recognition for the investment. 3. The federal government's investment would directly contribute to the increasing patient access to health technologies and reducing waiting lists across the country. 4. The NHTF would be targeted funding in an area of need. As designed, the NHTF would not be seen as intruding on the Provincial and Territorial decision-making process. The NHTF would give the Provinces and Territories full flexibility to apply for federal funding, as well as determining the number and mix of health technologies. Notwithstanding the immediacy and importance of the federal government making this critical investment in the health care system, there are a series of benefits to the federal government, Canadians and institutions/providers. The following are some of the benefits the CMA would ask you to consider: The Federal Government 1. The federal government begins the process of re-establishing its leadership role when it comes to preserving and enhancing Canadians' access to needed health technologies, and assisting in the stabilization of the acute care system. 2. The Fund avoids transferring non-earmarked money (such as via the CHST) to the Provinces and Territories, and ensures that it will be invested in a specific area of priority. 3. The NHTF is a visible and accountable Fund for which the federal government can take full credit. The Public 1. Canadians will benefit directly in terms of having increased access to needed health technologies. 2. Canadians will be fully aware of the federal government's investment into the acute care system. 3. Canadians will benefit in terms of quicker diagnosis and treatment of disease. 4. The public's confidence in its publicly financed health care system will improve. Improved access will reduce the direct (e.g., time off from work) and indirect costs (i.e., caring for family members) of illness, and accelerate Canadians' return to functional status. Health Care Institutions and Providers 1. The additional funding will give institutions increased flexibility in purchasing needed health technologies. 2. It will give institutions the ability to provide more readily accessible health care to Canadians. 3. Providers will have state-of-the-art diagnostic and treatment tools to provide quality health care to all Canadians. The CMA has assessed the cost implications of this national initiative and this information is attached. In addition to a national health technologies fund there is a need for significant attention to be paid to ensure access to both hardware and software in order to develop a health information infrastructure that will create "connectivity" throughout the health care system. The objective would be to foster the integration of the components of the system across the continuum of care supported by evidence-based decision-making by both clinicians and managers. The CMA would like to work with you and your colleague, the Minister of Industry, to explore opportunities to work in partnership with the profession and Canada's high technology industrial sector to develop this health information infrastructure. It is our hope that your government will give serious consideration to our recommendation for a national health technologies fund. The CMA believes that such a fund is clearly warranted. Cost Estimates: In support of the Canadian Medical Association's proposal for a National Health Technology Fund, the following cost estimates, based on the best available data, for the acquisition of medical technology has been compiled. The most recent data available on medical technology comparisons between countries is from the OECD (1997). Equipment costs, in terms of acquisition, siting and operating costs where provided by CMA Affiliates as noted in the cost estimates. If Canada were to provide a level of access to these medical technologies that was comparable to other countries with similar standards of living a minimum expenditure of $1 billion would be required for capital costs alone. Our program, however, in keeping with the spirit of the Canada Health Act, recommends that resources be provided to the provinces/territories to operate the equipment for a three year period at an overall cost (capital and three years of operating costs) of $1.74 billion. This would give the provinces/territories the opportunity to factor in these additional operating costs into their respective health budgets over the three year period. It should be noted that the CMA's estimates do not address the aging state of Canada's existing medical technologies. Unfortunately, information is not available to provide an estimate of the costs of updating such equipment. Medical Technology Acquisition Cost Estimates: Purpose: To estimate the costs of funding a National Health Technology Program. Data Sources: * OECD Health Data 99 - Number of units of technology equipment per million population for countries reporting data for 1997 (most recent year). * Costing information courtesy of: 1) Canadian Association of Radiologists; 2) Winnipeg Health Region Authority; and 3) Canadian Urology Association Data: * Capital cost includes, equipment acquisition cost and siting cost (building space, mechanical, technical, electrical, etc.). * Operating cost includes, yearly service contract and estimate for technical support staff. It does not include expenditures on medical services. Methodology: 1) Medical technologies included: - Computed Tomography scanners (CT scanners) - Magnetic Resonance Imaging units (MRI) - Radiation therapy equipment (linear accelerators, cobalt-60 units, caesium-137 telepathy units, low to orthovoltage x-ray units, high dose rate brachytherapy units, low dose rate brachytherapy units, conventional brachytherapy) - Lithotripters (extracorporeal shock wave lithotriptors) - Positron Emission Tomography (PET) 2) Technologies are expressed in units per million population and are compared only with countries included in the OECD database for 1997 that had a purchasing power parity PPP $ GDP per capita greater than $20,000. Canada's PPP GDP per capita in 1997 was $23,745 while the average for the comparator countries was $23,749. A GDP criteria for comparator inclusion was used to compare Canada with countries that have similar standards of living and potentially similar demands for access to their health care system and to medical technology. 3) The comparator countries are mainly from Europe which have a very high population density. The number of units per million population don't take into account the geographic diversity of Canada. 4) PET data were provided by the Canadian Association of Radiologists (CAR) who stated there were 200 PETs in the world in 1998. Europe and the USA each had a 40% share with Canada having a 3% share used mostly for research. CAR estimates that accounting for population size; and growth; and that PETs in Canada are mostly used for research, an additional 10 units are required. 5) The equipment highlighted are more readily identifiable given their high acquisition costs but other medical technologies in Canadian hospitals need replacement or upgrading as well. For example, gamma cameras are generally 10 to 15 years old and need to be replaced with gated imaging cameras at a cost of $650,000 each. Colour doppler ultrasound machines are also required at $200,000 each. As well brachytherapy equipment, which is used for cancer treatment, is becoming increasingly obsolete and has a replacement cost of $750,000 per unit. 6) An 85% factor has been used to estimate requirements for other medical technologies. That is, CAR estimates that radiological high technology medical equipment represents 85% of the overall cost of radiological medical technology. Therefore overall capital costs (equipment and siting) have been grossed up by a factor of (1/.85) or 17.65% to allow for the purchase of other medical technology equipment that cannot be accounted for with the information available. 7) Equipment acquisition cost estimates (excluding siting costs) are based on average estimated costs. Depending upon the sophistication of the equipment the ranges are: CT scanners: $0.50m - $1.50m Linear accelerators: MRIs: $1.25m - $2.50m Low energy: $1.50m Lithotripters: $1.25m - $1.50m High energy $1.80m 8) Operating costs have been calculated over a three-year period so that all provinces/territories would be able to make use of the program which is in keeping with the spirit if not the terms of the Canada Health Act. It would also give them the opportunity to factor these additional operating costs into their respective health budgets after the 3 years. Caveats: The cost estimates reflect the additional cost of bringing Canada up to a standard of access to medical technology of developed countries with similar $ PPP GDP per capita. The cost estimates do not take into account any replacement of existing medical technology equipment that may be required. The acquisition cost of medical technology equipment is only one factor. Associated with such equipment are the costs of a physical site, yearly service contracts and the yearly operating cost of materials and personnel. Findings The estimated overall capital cost is $1 billion. The overall cost of the program, which includes resources to operate the equipment for a three year period, is $1.74 billion. 1 Source: Backgrounder on Federal Support for Health in Canada. March 29, 2000. Department of Finance. 2 Understanding Canada's Health Care Costs - Interim Report. Provincial and Territorial Ministers of Health, June 2000. 3 One must keep in mind that once the tax point transfer occurred, they are part of the provinces own-source revenue structure. The tax points cannot be repatriated to the federal government. Furthermore, with the creation of the CHST cash floor, the relationship between the level of federal cash and tax points has been formally severed. 4 Iglehart J. Restoring the Status of An Icon: A Talk With Canada's Minister of Health. Health Affairs, Volume 19, Number 3, page 133. 5 Report of the Auditor-General of Canada. Chapter 29 Federal Support of Health Care Delivery, November, 1999. 6 Canadian Institute for Health Information. Health Care in Canada - A First Annual Report. 2000. 7 Kent T. What Should Be Done About Medicare. Caledon Institute of Social Policy, August 1, 2000. pp 3-4 8 Ibid, page 2. 9 Backgrounder on Federal Support for Health in Canada. Department of Finance, March 29, 2000. 10 Thomson A. Diminishing Expectations - Implications of the CHST. May, 1996. 11Beauchesne. Federal Surplus Soars. Ottawa Citizen, August 18, 2000. Through the first three months of the current fiscal year, the surplus stands at $8.2 billion - 42% higher than last year at the same time. Extrapolated over the full year, the surplus would be $32.8 billion. . McCarthy S. Ottawa May Have $74 Billion to Allocate. Globe and Mail, August 29, 2000. The article reports that the Ottawa should have a $44 billion surplus over the next five years even after allowing spending to rise by more than $3 billion a year to cover population growth and inflation and setting aside $3 billion annually for debt reduction. 12 Investing in New Approaches to Health Care. National Liberal Caucus Task Force on Health Care Sustainability. June 14, 2000. pp 3. 13Dammond KW, Prather RJ, Date VV, King CA. Computers in Biology and Medicine, Vol. 20, No. 4, pages 267-279, 1990, "A Provider-Interactive Medical Record Can Favorably Influence Costs and Quality of Medical Care."

Documents

Less detail