Fig leaf in place

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 12/02/2009 (6442 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The Winnnipeg Regional Health Authority has released the opinion of a lawyer who advised against releasing the administrative review of the 34 hours Brian Sinclair spent waiting in an emergency room, where he died, unattended, in his wheelchair.

It makes a lengthy case why the WRHA could not release information of a personal nature. It contains no legal rationale as to why basic details – edited to protect privacy – of Mr. Sinclair’s contact (or lack thereof) with staff or other persons at the ER could not be released.

Rather than erring on the side of disclosure, the WRHA opted to protect these details, the release of which could have curbed a rising public anger and suspicion. Secrecy meant the WRHA looked evasive or incompetent when the chief medical examiner revealed months later that Mr. Sinclair did, in fact, go to the ER triage desk, directly contradicting the WRHA officials’ explanation.

According to Ombudsman Irene Hamilton, no law compels a public body to withhold reports that might be set before an inquest. The provincial privacy act prohibits public bodies from publicly releasing personal information, including medical information, but governments and their agencies know how to use a black marker to censor sensitive information.

Health Minister Theresa Oswald’s first instincts were right. She told the legislature on Nov. 25 she would ask the ombudsman if the administrative report could be released with an inquest pending. She committed to release the review if Ms. Hamilton said it could be made public. She also told Ms. Hamilton, however, to consult WRHA president Brian Postl on the matter. According to Ms. Hamilton, when Dr. Postl told her the WRHA would not release its report, her advice became unnecessary.

Some members of the public have demanded that employees of the Health Sciences Centre or the WRHA lose their jobs because a man who needed a simple catheter change and a course of antibiotics died while waiting 34 hours in an ER. Without the benefit of an inquest’s examination, it is impossible to know if anyone’s actions were grossly incompetent or negligent. The calls for firings are at least premature and perhaps grossly unfair.

The WRHA, however, owed Manitobans greater disclosure. It chose to lean on a lawyer’s view that allowed it to default its responsibility to an inquest, noting that the judicial hearing would give full "context" to the events.

Manitobans are appropriately impatient with a public body, a premier who has deferred to the WRHA’s legal advice, and a health minister who decides people are incapable of weighing the weaknesses and strengths of facts released apart from that "context". Ms. Oswald has the legislative authority to direct the WRHA to release its review, edited for privacy concerns. That she and Premier Gary Doer choose not to do so is a disservice to Manitobans.