A Modern Medical Hero!

   If you have followed my blog even occasionally, you will be aware of my admiration for Dr. Brian Day, an Orthopedic Surgeon from Manchester, England, who spent most of his professional life enriching Canadian Medicine.  Dr. Day, practicing in Vancouver, British Columbia, established a clinic, the Cambie Clinic, that made available to Canadians, procedures that they would have had to wait years for, sometimes dying in the interim, or go to the United states or elsewhere to have that procedure carried out in a timely manner.   Despite delivering care to thousands of Canadians, who would have waited years to receive treatment or never have received treatment at all (we all die sometime!) the BC Government (perhaps embarrassed by their own inability to do the job), decided to put into force new financial  penalties, that would have put the Clinic out of business.  Dr. Day, after years of  costly litigation, so costly that most would  have been beaten into submission, finally won a significant victory.   The BC Supreme Court, sided with doctors, patients and private clinics that make available to patients treatment, at their own expense, that the government can't or won't provide in a timely fashion.  For now, the clinics will stay open and will continue to provide services to patients who otherwise would have to leave Canada to get treatment.  Unfortunately, the victory is temporary for the moment, but I do hope it indicates some perception of what is necessary to  prevent Canada from becoming a third class health care system.

  The Court's decision speaks for itself:
"In summary, for the purposes of the Injunction Application, I have determined the following:

a) Taking into account the circumstances of this constitutional litigation and a preliminary assessment of the evidence, the Plaintiffs have established that injunctive relief is appropriate in this case. I make that determination based on a preliminary assessment of the evidence and finding that the Plaintiffs have established that there is a serious question to be tried in that:

i. Some patients will suffer serious physical and/or psychological harm while waiting for health services;

ii. Some physicians will not provide private-pay medically necessary health services after the MPA Amendments take effect;

iii. Some patients would have accessed private-pay medically necessary health services but for the MPA Amendments;

iv. Some patients will have to wait longer for those medically necessary health services that could have been available but for the MPA Amendments and impugned provisions;

v. A sufficient causal connection between increased waiting times for private-pay medically necessary health services and physical and/or psychological harm caused to some patients.

b) The Plaintiffs have established irreparable harm in the context of a constitutional case that has proceeded in a manner that is consistent with public interest litigation in that some patients, but for the prohibitions, could have obtained private-pay medically necessary health services much sooner at a private clinic (such as Cambie) and the subsequent delay in receiving treatment causes some patients to endure serious physical and psychological suffering. The nature of this constitutional case complicates the assessment of damages at the interlocutory stage.

c) The Plaintiffs have established that the balance of convenience tips in their favour. This is so despite the Court’s conclusion that the MPA Amendments are directed to the public good and serve a valid public purpose. The Plaintiffs have tilted the balance by establishing that restraint of the enforcement provisions will also serve the public interest in that private-pay medically necessary health services will be accessible [throughout the course of the case]."
 

The decision can be downloaded and viewed here.