This project addresses complex systems for planning and delivering health care in Ontario. During the LCO’s consultations several stakeholders, especially in the medical field, asked the LCO to explain how law reform is relevant to what they perceive to be medical, administrative or public policy issues.
In this chapter, we explain the law’s contributions to governing the health care sector. We begin by exploring nuanced definitions of what the law is. Then, we discuss fundamental legal rights and principles that must be adhered to in delivering health care and the law’s interaction with professional standards of care.
The purpose of this chapter is to clarify the law’s expansive reach, but also its limits, and the LCO’s approach to law reform.
In contrast, the next chapter of this paper provides detailed information on Ontario’s existing law, policy and institutional framework specific to care in the last stages of life (including key government agencies and health care benefits).
B. Defining “Law”
1. The LCO’s expansive understanding of the law
The LCO has an expansive definition of the “law”, which includes legislation and case law as well as the policies, institutions and everyday practices necessary to implement the law on the ground. Understood in this way, the law can assume various forms and it can be enforced and shaped by many actors.
To begin, the law includes the decisions of governmental and non-state actors whose authority derives from statute, such as regulatory college standards, tribunal guidelines, and government policies and programs. These types of delegated authority do not require the same rigorous procedures as enacting legislation. However, they are a significant part of the legal system and must conform to fundamental legal frameworks, such as administrative and constitutional law.
Take the College of Physician and Surgeons (CPSO), which is one of the colleges regulated under the Regulated Health Professions Act, 1991 (RHPA). The CPSO’s policies must fit within its mandate under that statute, and they must maintain consistency with the Human Rights Code, SDA, HCCA, common law standards of care for physicians and so on. Should these laws change, the CPSO’s policies would change. In turn, the CPSO itself might influence the advancement of the common law when its standards are considered by the judiciary.
There are also different legal traditions in Canada, including Indigenous legal traditions and religious laws. These legal traditions are grounded in protected rights that individuals and communities enjoy under the Constitution and human rights statutes. Other rights under these two sources of law include rights to life, liberty and security of the person; language rights; and the right to be free of discrimination based on grounds such as race, national or ethnic origin, sex, age and disability.
Laws can infringe these guaranteed rights on their face or in practice, and one of the roles that law reform agencies assume is to identify areas of concern that may not be readily apparent. Although the LCO cannot declare a law invalid, we may nevertheless recommend measures that would ensure consistency with foundational rights and principles.
Moreover, where we find that a law is valid or appropriate but there are barriers to proper implementation, we may make recommendations about practical tools for implementation, such as pilot programs, education and training, and advocacy supports in the community.
Given the LCO’s expansive definition of the law, our analysis and recommendations may thus concern a range of instruments and, also, actors from government ministries to regulatory colleges and community organizations.
Laws relating to care in the last stages of life can only be a partial answer to the complex medical, administrative, ethical and social issues that run throughout this project. Stakeholders informed the LCO about various constraints that exceed the law’s reach and, therefore, limit the project scope. Clinical best practices are an obvious example.
Economic pressures in Ontario must also be taken into account as we formulate our recommendations. In our consultations, we heard about the shortage and inequitable distribution of resources available for care in the community, long-term care homes, hospices and elsewhere. Often facilities lack the resources to provide adequate supports to persons who are ill or frail. And caregivers may be stretched to the limits when they use their own finances to help another. As a general rule, the LCO does not make direct recommendations about policies for specific government expenditures. Our suggestions could nonetheless have an indirect impact on resource allocation insofar as changes to legislation, policies, programs and institutions may require funding.
Additionally, while the law can foster change, it cannot transform society by itself. Perspectives on the value of life and death, prejudices against certain groups and opinions on a patient’s best interests illustrate the types of issues that the law can address as a matter of rights and principles, such as safety, equity and dignity. However, the law also exists within the larger context of attitudes and structures that naturally enhance or diminish its effectiveness.
1. Constitutional rights and principles
The Constitution Act, 1867 and Constitution Act, 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, lay the foundation for government powers and duties respecting health care and corresponding rights for individuals.
Under the Canada Health Act (CHA), the federal government participates in regulating health care through its constitutional spending powers. The federal government transfers funds to provinces that provide health care services through insurance plans, such as the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP). Service delivery rests largely with the provinces due to their exclusive authority over hospitals (and other health institutions) and “property and civil rights”, which “has been interpreted broadly by the courts to encompass most professional services”, including health care providers.
There is no constitutional right to health in Canada and the Supreme Court has explained that medicare “is, by its very terms a partial health plan”. The CHA grants conditional funding for the provinces to insure “medically necessary” services provided by hospitals and physicians. Medically necessary services are not defined in standardized criteria and they vary across jurisdictions. But the Act does distinguish them from “extended health care services”, which the provinces are not obliged to fund or administer. Extended services relevant to this project include palliative care in private and long-term care homes not administered by physicians, and medications outside hospital.
The provinces can and do supplement the CHA baseline of core services at their discretion. For instance, the Ontario Drug Benefit Program covers the costs of some prescriptions for persons age 65 and older, living in long-term care or receiving home care. Across the country publicly funded non-core services are inconsistent, there may be limits on eligibility and private co-payments may be charged.
While rights to care arising from the CHA and provincial plans are circumscribed, the Supreme Court has nonetheless found that “where the government puts in place a scheme to provide health care, that scheme must comply with the Charter”. In several cases, the Court has also identified what types of government activities violate the Charter. Below, we briefly summarize notable findings on the grounds of equality and life, liberty and security of the person:
Equality (Charter, s.15): Publicly funded health care services must be provided in a non-discriminatory manner. In Eldridge v. British Columbia (Attorney General), the Supreme Court held that requiring deaf persons to pay for communication assistance services they needed to access the same basket of health services as the general public violated s.15 of the Charter. As a result, the government was ordered to take positive steps to accommodate deaf persons up to the point of “undue hardship” by providing sign language interpretation necessary for effective communication. Section 15 equality protection does not, however, extend to discrimination claims relating to services that governments have chosen not to include in the basket of medicare services.
Life, liberty and security (Charter, s.7): The Charter protects individuals from criminal sanctions against medical practices that deprive them of fundamental rights and s.7 cases have expressly supported rights for persons with terminal illness and chronic disease. In explaining the invalidity of prohibitions against physician-assisted suicide in Carter, the Supreme Court held that s.7 engages principles of autonomy, dignity, quality of life and the right to make decisions about one’s bodily integrity and medical care. Particularly relevant to this project, the Court stated that the Constitution “recognizes the value of life, but it also honours the role that autonomy and dignity play at the end of that life”.
The application of s.7 to health care outside the criminal context is ambiguous. In Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General), the Court split on wheth