Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
CMAJ
  • CMAJ JOURNALS
    • CMAJ Open
    • CJS
    • JAMC
    • JPN
CMAJ

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • COVID-19
    • Articles & podcasts
    • Blog posts
    • Collection
    • News
  • Content
    • Current issue
    • Past issues
    • Early releases
    • Collections
    • Sections
    • Blog
    • Infographics & illustrations
    • Podcasts
    • Classified ads
  • Authors
    • Overview for authors
    • Submission guidelines
    • Submit a manuscript
    • Forms
    • Editorial process
    • Editorial policies
    • Peer review process
    • Publication fees
    • Reprint requests
  • CMA Members
    • Overview for members
    • Earn CPD Credits
    • Print copies of CMAJ
    • Career Ad Discount
  • Subscribers
    • General information
    • View prices
  • Alerts
    • Email alerts
    • RSS
  • JAMC
    • À propos
    • Numéro en cours
    • Archives
    • Sections
    • Abonnement
    • Alertes
  • Visit CMAJ on Facebook
  • Follow CMAJ on Twitter
  • Follow CMAJ on Pinterest
  • Follow CMAJ on Youtube
  • Follow CMAJ on Instagram
Commentary

Supreme Court slaps for-sale sign on medicare

Lawrie McFarlane
CMAJ August 02, 2005 173 (3) 269-270; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1503/cmaj.050728
Lawrie McFarlane
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF
Loading

In 1857 the US Supreme Court issued its now-infamous Dred Scott judgment, decreeing that the constitutional guarantee of equal treatment under the law did not apply to slaves. The decision by Canada's Supreme Court on June 9, 2005, to permit private health insurance in Quebec1 — and by implication, in the rest of the country — is a moment of comparable judicial folly, for it effectively sets aside a statutory protection of no less significance.

In Canada, every citizen is assured reasonable and equal access to publicly funded health services without regard to class or income. The Canada Health Act permits only one test: medical necessity. The Supreme Court's decision implicitly adds a second, and many fear pre-emptive, test: financial status. As counsel for one of the appellants in the original trial made clear, “I am arguing for the right of more affluent people to have access to parallel health services.” 2

For defenders of universal health care, the court's reasoning is stultifying. The case before the justices amounted to this: a Quebec resident needed orthopedic surgery and was required, because of backlogs in treatment, to wait longer than appropriate. On that basis, he argued he should have access to a separate, private system.

There is no dispute that lengthy wait times cause pain and diminished quality of life. Everyone agrees that delays are unacceptably long in parts of the country. Yet before the court imposed its radical solution, it might have taken more care in its consideration of the nature of the problem.

There are a variety of reasons for lengthening wait lists. Some certainly relate to funding shortfalls or poor management practices. But an equal part of the trend can be linked to excessive compensation demands by various health professions, and to the failure of some medical specialists to practise within appropriate clinical guidelines. Introducing private medicine will not address these problems, and may in fact exacerbate them.

More importantly, the wait-list problem is confined mainly to a narrow, albeit essential, area of medical practice. With a few region-specific exceptions, such as radiation therapy in Quebec, most of the concern focuses on elective surgery, and more narrowly still, on orthopedic surgery.

Consider the following growth rates for surgical procedures in British Columbia between 1995 and 2000:

  • gynecologic procedures: 4%

  • urological surgery: 7.7%

  • neurosurgery: 8%

  • hip replacement: 42%

  • cataract surgery: 66%

  • knee replacement: 92%

These figures (and similar rates of increase apply in most of the country) illustrate a critical aspect of the dilemma. Wait times have increased because of an unprecedented surge in procedure volumes. Because this increase exceeds population growth or demographic change by several orders of magnitude, it seems that other causes must be involved. The advent of less invasive surgical procedures, enabling patients to be discharged from hospital more quickly, is likely a critical factor.

Given a chance, our health care system will adapt to this changing demand, as it has adapted in the past to other challenges. Six months ago the federal and provincial governments signed a joint Health Accord to attack surgical delay and other related difficulties. One might have hoped the court would allow that initiative time to work before throwing judicial restraint to the wind. At a minimum, whatever remedy was adopted to correct such a narrowly located problem should have been proportionately narrow in its application. Instead, Madame Justice Marie Deschamps, writing for the majority, imposed a sweeping remedy that has the potential to reorder not only orthopedic care but the entire health care spectrum, from family medicine to surgery to acute hospital care.

Critics might wonder why the court doesn't swallow a dose of its own medicine. The problem of trial delay in the judicial field dwarfs whatever difficulties confront our health service. Nation wide, well over half of all criminal cases exceed the guideline, set down by the Supreme Court, of 8 months from arraignment to the start of trial. Many cases take 2 or even 3 times that long. Would the court accept the argument that a parallel judicial system should be created for the well-heeled, to save them the evils of trial delay? Of course not, but it bears thinking why. We have only one court system for the same reason we have only one health care system: the principle of equal treatment demands it. A dual court system would be unthinkable in the same way that two-tier medicine should be unthinkable. (Interestingly, when the issue of trial delay arises, judges apply exactly the same types of remedy as the Supreme Court has now denied the health care system: they ask government for more resources, set guidelines for appropriate wait times and plead for patience when they come up short.)

Madame Justice Ginette Piché of the Quebec Superior Court, whose judgment the Supreme Court overturned, made the link between health care and other basic rights explicit in her decision: “The Court ... considers that if access to the health system is not possible, it is illusory to think that rights to life and security are respected.” 3

In other words, health care is not some commodity to be bartered on the open market. Rather, it is a precondition of the basic rights guaranteed by the Charter. That being so, it should enjoy the same protection, meaning that it must be provided on an equal and indivisible basis.

Had the justices accepted this reasoning, other remedies were at hand. It lay within the court's power to order an improvement in surgical wait lists within the public system, up to some required standard. Perhaps with the imminent threat of a two-tier system to clarify their thinking, the provinces would have made the necessary reforms.

Instead, as the implications sink in, health ministries across the country are aghast. No one has a clue where we go from here. Forty years of labour have been cast aside in a spasm of judicial intemperance, and a radical, if not catastrophic, remedy has been imposed to solve a narrow and probably transitory problem.

The drafters of the Dred Scott judgment thought they had ensured the perpetuation of an underclass in American society, but in fact the opposite came to pass. People were scandalized when they saw such unworthy sentiments dignified in legal reasoning, and in less than a decade, slavery was abolished.

Defenders of medicare can only hope the same thing happens here, and that as people realize the Supreme Court has disfigured a national symbol, they will sweep away two-tier medicine once and for all.

𝛃 See related articles pages 271, 273, 275 and 277

Footnotes

  • Published at www.cmaj.ca on June 20, 2005.

    Competing interests: None declared.

References

  1. 1.↵
    Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General). 2005 SCC 35.
  2. 2.↵
    Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) [2000] JQ no 479 at 7.
  3. 3.↵
    Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) [2000] JQ no 479 at 138.
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Canadian Medical Association Journal: 173 (3)
CMAJ
Vol. 173, Issue 3
2 Aug 2005
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author

Article tools

Respond to this article
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
To sign up for email alerts or to access your current email alerts, enter your email address below:
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on CMAJ.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Supreme Court slaps for-sale sign on medicare
(Your Name) has sent you a message from CMAJ
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the CMAJ web site.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Supreme Court slaps for-sale sign on medicare
Lawrie McFarlane
CMAJ Aug 2005, 173 (3) 269-270; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050728

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
‍ Request Permissions
Share
Supreme Court slaps for-sale sign on medicare
Lawrie McFarlane
CMAJ Aug 2005, 173 (3) 269-270; DOI: 10.1503/cmaj.050728
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Responses
  • Metrics
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Highlights of this issue
  • The Chaoulli challenge: getting a grip on waiting lists
  • The private sector in the English NHS: from pariah to saviour in under a decade
  • Physicians, it's in your court now
  • Doctors put patients first in health care debate
  • PubMed
  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • La medecine privee fait son entree au Canada
  • Private medical care comes to Canada
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • Transforming race-based health research in Canada
  • Not neutral: reimagining antiracism as a professional competence
  • Time to dismantle systemic anti-Black racism in medicine in Canada
Show more Commentary

Similar Articles

Collections

  • Topics
    • Health care coverage

Content

  • Current issue
  • Past issues
  • Collections
  • Sections
  • Blog
  • Podcasts
  • Alerts
  • RSS
  • Early releases

Information for

  • Advertisers
  • Authors
  • Reviewers
  • CMA Members
  • Media
  • Reprint requests
  • Subscribers

About

  • General Information
  • Journal staff
  • Editorial Board
  • Governance Council
  • Journal Oversight
  • Careers
  • Contact
  • Copyright and Permissions

Copyright 2021, Joule Inc. or its licensors. All rights reserved. ISSN 1488-2329 (e) 0820-3946 (p)

All editorial matter in CMAJ represents the opinions of the authors and not necessarily those of the Canadian Medical Association or its subsidiaries.

Powered by HighWire