Canadian Doctors Speak Out for Refugee Health Care
NEWS by Brandon Johnston — Published March 17, 2015 | Comment
- Speakers left to right: Juan Carlos Chirgwin, Samir Shaheen-Hussain, Philip Berger and Janet Cleveland. Photo Brandon Johnston
Members of Canada’s medical community gathered at McGill on Saturday to discuss the federal government’s 2012 amendments to the Interim Federal Health Programme (IFHP), which changed the way refugee seekers qualify for health care within Canada.
The changes made it so that those in the process of seeking refugee status would receive no medication coverage or any supplemental services.
Additionally, those seeking status from countries considered by Canada to be ‘safe,’ such as Europe and Mexico, would receive very limited services. Only if their health posed a threat to public safety would they receive free treatment.
For example, a refugee from Mexico with an infectious disease that could potentially harm members of the public, would qualify for free health services. However, for other medical instances, such as a broken leg, they would be left unprotected.
The cuts were claimed, by the Conservative government, as a means discouraging ‘bogus’ refugee claims and on economic grounds.
Panelists at Saturday’s discussion disagreed.
“The federal government has lied continually for three years about [the amendments],” said Philip Berger, a University of Toronto medical professor and health rights activist. “Costs were absorbed by provincial governments and local hospitals,” Berger continued.
“Rather than treating people on the basis of their medical need, we are asked to treat them based on their legal status and where they were born,” Berger said.
The amendments were brought before a federal court which ruled against the changes, claiming they constituted “cruel and unusual treatment” and were in violation of the Canadian Charter of Human Rights. The decision has since been appealed by the federal government, and a temporary health program now exists.
Janet Cleveland, a psychologist and lawyer, cited an example of a women from Honduras who lost her child due to the amendments. The women was in the process of immigrating to Canada while being sponsored by her husband. Because she had no coverage, she was forced to neglect costly prenatal care. After having a miscarriage, she was stuck with a bill of $40,000 for the 10 day hospital stay she required afterwards.
“Absolutely preventable and absolutely avoidable, and that kind of thing goes on, unfortunately, not uncommonly,” Cleveland said of the case.