Short story: a UFC champion gets sick in Manitoba. He goes to a hospital and is properly diagnosed, but not given a CT scan. He then hightails it to Bismarck, ND where he is treated and then admitted to the Mayo Clinic. He proceeds to refer to Canadian health care as third world. The CEO of the health authority objects, looks into his case, and tries to correct the record for the press. This is all well and good.
But, shouldn't the CEO of a health authority be a little reluctant to admit that "
We have checked this particular health record and were are quite confident that the correct diagnosis was given and the best course of treatment offered"? Can't even a blowhard expect some degree of privacy for his medical records?
The complete Globe story is
here.
1 comment:
I thought about this too when I first saw the article. Is this a breach of privacy when she's corroborating what he's said in the media? She didn't say what the records said specifically, only that the health authority is confident in the diagnosis and treatment he received. If there's a breach it's that she confirmed he was there. And corroborated his story in a few ways, by saying the doctor is capable of dealing with that particular digestive condition. What surprises me is that the health authority bothered to say anything. It's not like Lesner's claim would shake public confidence in the Canadian health care system or in Brandon's hospital. Is it? It's immaterial to your argument, but it's also a point of interest that Lesner says he was attempting to weigh in on the US health care reform debate.
Post a Comment