Townsend Ruth, Faunce Thomas
ANU College of Law and School of Medicine.
J Law Med. 2011 Dec;19(2):255-71.
A recent case from the English Court of Appeal (R (on the application of Condliff) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust [2011] EWCA Civ 910, concerning denial by a regional health care rationing committee of laparoscopic gastric bypass surgery for morbid obesity) demonstrates the problems of attempting to rely post hoc on human rights protections to ameliorate inequities in health care reforms that emphasise institutional budgets rather than universal access. This column analyses the complexities of such an approach in relation to recent policy debates and legislative reform of the health systems in the United Kingdom and Australia. Enforceable human rights, such as those available in the United Kingdom to the patient Tom Condliff, appear insufficient to adequately redress issues of inequity promoted by such "reforms". Equity may fare even worse under Australian cost-containment health care reforms, given the absence of relevant enforceable human rights in that jurisdiction.
英国上诉法院最近审理的一起案件（R（基于康迪夫的申请）诉北斯塔福德郡初级医疗信托基金案[2011] EWCA Civ 910，涉及一个地区医疗资源分配委员会拒绝为病态肥胖患者实施腹腔镜胃旁路手术）表明，试图事后依靠人权保护来缓解医疗改革中的不公平现象存在问题，这些改革强调机构预算而非全民医保。本专栏分析了这种做法在英国和澳大利亚近期卫生系统政策辩论及立法改革方面的复杂性。像英国患者汤姆·康迪夫所享有的可执行的人权，似乎不足以充分纠正此类“改革”所导致的不公平问题。鉴于澳大利亚在控制成本的医疗改革中缺乏相关可执行的人权，公平状况可能会更糟。
