Show simple item record

dc.creatorFlood, Colleen M.en
dc.creatorXavier, Sujithen
dc.date.accessioned2016-01-08T23:11:12Zen
dc.date.available2016-01-08T23:11:12Zen
dc.date.created2008-09en
dc.date.issued2008-09en
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitationMedicine and Law: The World Association for Medical Law 2008 September; 27(3): 617-644en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10822/955353en
dc.identifier.urihttp://worldcatlibraries.org/registry/gateway?version=1.0&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&atitle=Health+care+rights+in+Canada:+the+Chaoulli+legacy&title=Medicine+and+Law:+The+World+Association+for+Medical+Law+&volume=27&issue=3&date=2008-09&au=Flood,+Colleen+M.;+Xavier,+Sujithen
dc.description.abstractThe 2005 Supreme Court decision of Chaoulli v. Quebec (A.G.) is the most significant Canadian case vis-à-vis health care rights in the last decade. The two litigants were Dr. Chaoulli, a physician originally from France who was frustrated with governmental limits on his ability to practice privately, and George Zeliotis, a sixty-seven-year-old patient with hip and heart conditions who had to wait nine months for a hip operation. Mr. Zeliotis thought that if he were able to purchase private insurance then he could have financed his hip operation in the private sector. Chaoulli and Zeliotis were unsuccessful at both the trial and appeal levels but struck controversial success before the Supreme Court of Canada. In this paper, we first set out the rationale for the majority's decision in Chaoulli and critique four assumptions/conclusions inherent in this reasoning. We then discuss the Quebec government's politically astute response to this controversial decision, in the form of a White Paper and Bill 33. The Quebec government seemed to respond to Chaoulli by liberalizing the law relating to private health insurance. But it did so only for three areas and it also significantly reduced any incentive to buy private health insurance by putting in place measures in the public health care system to cap waiting times in those three specific areas. This nimble policy response balanced the need to respond to the Supreme Court's decision with the need to protect the publicly-funded health care system. However, as we discuss, this response may be in jeopardy due to changing political circumstances, in particular the election of the Action démocratique du Québec (ADQ), the new official opposition in Quebec. Finally, we explore how, across Canada, Chaoulli has inspired a range of different claims to health care based on Charter rights. We discuss three types of cases: first, Charter cases that have sprung up post Chaoulli arguing for greater access to publicly-funded care; second, Charter cases that (similar to Chaoulli) seek to liberalize present regulations and open up the system to further private financing; and third, challenges based in private law, for example tort law, challenging limitations in publicly-funded care.en
dc.formatArticleen
dc.languageenen
dc.sourceeweb:318844en
dc.subjectGovernmenten
dc.subjectHealthen
dc.subjectHealth Careen
dc.subjectHealth Insuranceen
dc.subjectInsuranceen
dc.subjectLawen
dc.subjectPrivate Sectoren
dc.subjectPublic Healthen
dc.subjectRightsen
dc.subject.classificationRight to Health Careen
dc.subject.classificationAllocation of Health Care Resourcesen
dc.subject.classificationEconomics of Health Careen
dc.titleHealth Care Rights in Canada: The Chaoulli Legacyen
dc.provenanceCitation prepared by the Library and Information Services group of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics, Georgetown University for the ETHXWeb database.en
dc.provenanceCitation migrated from OpenText LiveLink Discovery Server database named EWEB hosted by the Bioethics Research Library to the DSpace collection EthxWeb hosted by DigitalGeorgetown.en


This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record


Georgetown University Seal
©2009—2022 Bioethics Research Library
Box 571212 Washington DC 20057-1212
202.687.3885