{"id":453,"date":"2025-01-30T04:34:32","date_gmt":"2025-01-30T09:34:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/accessiblehealthcare\/?post_type=chapter&p=453"},"modified":"2026-02-10T17:12:15","modified_gmt":"2026-02-10T22:12:15","slug":"more-to-explore4","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.library.torontomu.ca\/accessiblehealthcare\/chapter\/more-to-explore4\/","title":{"raw":"More to Explore: Case Studies in Human Rights","rendered":"More to Explore: Case Studies in Human Rights"},"content":{"raw":"The resources below are provided as optional case studies for readers who would like to learn more about human rights law and disability in healthcare.\r\n

Notable Human Rights Case on Disability in Health Care\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\r\n[caption id=\"attachment_1366\" align=\"alignnone\" width=\"960\"]\"Front The facade of the Supreme Court of Canada in 2022. Photo by Dwong33. Used under CC0 1.0 Public Domain Dedication.[\/caption]\r\n\r\nA court case that some (e.g., Chadha & Rogers, 2023; Malhotra, 2012) consider an important victory for the social model of disability, and which was undoubtedly a landmark for people with disabilities in their dealings with provincial\/territorial health care systems, is the case of Eldridge v. British Columbia (1997). At issue was the lack of sign language provision to Deaf patients at a hospital in Vancouver. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the province of British Columbia\u2019s failure to fund interpreters for Deaf people to access the province\u2019s insured health care services violated the rights of the appellants (Robin Susan Eldridge, John Henry Warren, and Linda Jane Warren). In the absence of an interpreter, Ms. Eldridge and her specialist found they could not communicate effectively about the surgery she had to undergo. Linda Warren testified that, in the absence of an interpreter, which the Warrens could not afford, the birth of their twins and the birth\u2019s aftermath were difficult to understand and frightening. Her physician provided further details about the risks of inadequate communication between doctor and patient during childbirth. Section 15(1) of the Charter<\/em> guarantees equality before the law and equal protection of the law. In the words of the Supreme Court of Canada:\r\n\r\nThe failure of the Medical Services Commission and hospitals to provide sign language interpretation where it is necessary for effective communication constitutes a prima facie violation of the s. 15(1) rights of Deaf persons. This failure denies them [Eldridge and the Warrens] the equal benefit of the law and discriminates against them in comparison with hearing persons\u2026 The appellants ask only for equal access to services that are available to all\u2026 The government has not made a \u201creasonable accommodation\u201d of the appellants\u2019 disability nor has it accommodated the appellants\u2019 need to the point of [pb_glossary id=\"691\"]undue hardship[\/pb_glossary].\r\n\r\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the Government of British Columbia must administer its health care system in a manner consistent with the Charter.<\/em>\r\n\r\nIn this context, the interpreter service was an essential means of obtaining equal access to, participating in, and benefiting from the health care services available to other British Columbians. Ensuring such equality and addressing historical disadvantage meant providing a dimension of service that was somewhat different than what most other residents of the province would need (Chadha & Rogers, 2023; Eldridge, 1997, para. 79). The Canadian Association of the Deaf, Canadian Hearing Society, and Council of Canadians with Disabilities participated as interveners and presented a Factum in this successful case (n.d.), as did the DisAbled Women\u2019s Network Canada (DAWN) and the Women\u2019s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF, n.d.). Chadha and Rogers (2023) attribute some of the gains of the Eldridge case for people with benefits to the engagement of these interveners.\r\n\r\nHere\u2019s some follow-up recommendations to Eldridge: Health Care - Canadian Association of the Deaf<\/a>.\r\n\r\nDespite the gains resulting from Eldridge described above, Chandra and Rogers (2023), in their legal analysis of disability rights case law since that victory, conclude that \u201cdisability progress has stalled\u201d (p. 250). The authors marshal much evidence in support of their view, including that the Supreme Court has recently problematized disability rather than upholding the duty to accommodate and the idea that disabled people are not responsible for their marginalization. It remains to be seen whether the [pb_glossary id=\"739\"]AODA[\/pb_glossary]'s new Standard for health care and the continued efforts of individuals with disabilities and their organizations, along with supportive professionals and other allies, will be enough to avert the widespread demeaning, devaluing, and even ridiculing of people with disabilities that the authors see emerging. Meanwhile, the most recent Independent Review of the AODA by Rich Donovan prioritized as critically urgent a range of recommendations for health care (Donovan, 2023). Donovan and many of the people he interviewed concluded that the AODA is failing people with disabilities and is a \u201cmissed opportunity\u201d (p. 9) because the outcomes have been poor, and enforcement, data, research, leadership, and accountability have been lacking. It remains to be seen how the new standard for health care will address these issues.\r\n

MAiD and Human Rights<\/span><\/h2>\r\nMany people with disabilities do manage to obtain the health care services they need. This can include referral from a family physician who astutely recognizes the need for more in-depth assessment of a potentially life-threatening condition, to complex surgery that can make the difference between life and death. However, many people do not receive the services they need from the health care system. Listen to the following podcast and consider how medical assistance in dying (MAiD) is the only alternative when disabled people do not get appropriate referral or cannot access needed services.\r\n\r\n
\r\n\r\n\"Podcast\r\n

Media Moment<\/h3>\r\nTime: 29 minutes, 55 seconds<\/strong>\r\n\r\nHere\u2019s a link to an excellent rights-focused interview with Gabriel Peters, a disabled woman and activist. Access the following podcast or transcript about MAiD as ever-lurking in the background of the health care decisions of people with disabilities<\/strong>. She describes some of the pressures they experience to \u201cchoose\u201d MAiD when the insured health care system fails to properly address their needs.\r\n