Due to Michigan's proximity to Canada, we are exposed to semi-regular news stories detailing the issues with the Canadian healthcare system that drive Canadians to America to receive needed care. That is one reason among so many why I remain steadfastly opposed to any further movement toward a nationalized healthcare system in the US.
One of the primary criticisms of healthcare in the US is that healthcare is rationed by virtue of cost. If you can't pay, then you can't have.
With national healthcare systems such as those in Canada and the UK, healthcare is rationed by virtue of time. You can't have any until the government approves the procedure. In some cases, approval takes a very, very long time. Approaching "never"...or just simply never.
Along comes the case of Jolene Van Alstine, a citizen of the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. She suffers from a rare parathyroid condition. The solution to the condition is the removal of the parathyroid. This is a standard procedure that is known to resolve the problem.
So to solve the issue one sets up an appointment with a doctor and has the procedure done. Spit. Spot. Move along.
Except, one must first get a referral to an appropriate doctor to perform the surgery. No such qualified doctor exists in Saskatchewan. And their NHS has (thus far) declined to offer a referral outside of Saskatchewan.
Apparently, this condition is quite painful. Ms. Van Alstine is in sufficient distress that she has begun the process of applying for MAID from the Canadian healthcare system.
MAID stands for Medical Assistance In Dying. The stated purpose is that a person suffering from an incurable, intractable medical issue can request assistance in committing suicide.
For the record, I think the approach stated above is a sound basis upon which to create assistance in dying. If a person dying from cancer (or Parkinson's, or nerve damage rendering them a quadriplegic, or...so on) is faced with the choice between several months of increasing pain or a quick exit at the moment of their choice, then the latter is the most humane and ethical option on the table.
But in this case, the problem persists because their NHS refuses to give permission to a qualified doctor to set up a practice in Saskatchewan. And they have, thus far, declined to issue a referral to Ms. Van Alstine to visit a qualified doctor outside of Saskatchewan.
You may want to read [one] and [two] articles on this event.
What I find unconscionable is the response from various officials responsible for healthcare in Canada. From the articles:
Starting with this bit of mealy-mouthed non-responsiveness.
"Due to patient confidentiality, we cannot comment on specifics of an individual’s case and outcomes," the spokesperson said. "The Government of Saskatchewan expresses its sincere sympathy for all patients who are suffering with a difficult health diagnosis.
"The Ministry of Health encourages all patients to continue working with their primary care providers to properly assess and determine the best path forward to ensure they receive timely access to high-quality healthcare."
After an American broadcaster steps into help:
Tom McIntosh, a professor of politics and international studies at the University of Regina who focuses on health policy, says Canadians should not allow political posturing to draw their attention away from the real problems.
“Whatever kind of foolish opportunism that Glenn Beck is demonstrating for his own purposes, we, I think, should try not to be distracted by that,” McIntosh said in an interview on Wednesday.
And this from the government health ministry:
A Ministry of Health spokesperson confirmed the meeting shortly after and sent CBC a statement.
"Due to patient confidentiality, we cannot comment on specifics of an individual’s case and outcomes," the spokesperson said at the time. "The Government of Saskatchewan expresses its sincere sympathy for all patients who are suffering with a difficult health diagnosis.
"The Ministry of Health encourages all patients to continue working with their primary care providers to properly assess and determine the best path forward to ensure they receive timely access to high-quality healthcare."
The point, from their perspective, is not that their system is broken in a way that leaves people vulnerable to not receiving needed care. The point is not that they need to take quick action to resolve the issue to keep a person from the alternative; preventable suicide.
Their point seems to be that this is all just an American circus pitching its tent in Canada for fun and profit.
That's not the point. The point is that nationalized health care systems deny citizens their ability to access needed care. Nationalized health care systems fail to respond to market pressures because they destroy the market signals that reveal those pressures.
Had they allowed physicians to open an office where ever the physicians saw an opportunity to serve people (and earn a profit), then this wouldn't have been an issue. Ms. Van Alstine would have had multiple doctors from which to choose.
Had their system allowed a local doctor to make a referral to ANY qualified doctor in Canada, then this would not have been an issue.
The problem is created by rationing care which is the inevitable result of any nationalized health care system.
