43rd Parl. 1st Sess.

August 31, 2022

Royal Assent received. Statutes of Ontario 2022, chapter 16
Read Bill |
Government Page

This is a summary of Bill 7, which is an amendment to the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021 in Ontario. The bill introduces a new provision for patients in public hospitals who are designated as requiring an alternate level of care. This provision allows certain actions to be carried out without the patient's consent, such as determining eligibility for a long-term care home, selecting a home, and authorizing admission. Assessments may also be conducted, and personal health information may be collected, used, and disclosed if necessary. These actions are not subject to certain sections of the Act and are instead regulated separately. Reasonable efforts must be made to obtain consent, and the use of restraints or physical transfer without consent is not authorized. The bill also includes minor amendments to the Act and a consequential amendment to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996. The bill is enacted as Chapter 16 of the Statutes of Ontario, 2022 and is titled the More Beds, Better Care Act, 2022.

Yea
Nay
add
star_border
share

SteelmanSpren in Favour

A steelman argument in favor of this Explanatory Note could be as follows: The Explanatory Note provides important clarification and context for Bill 7, which amends the Fixing Long-Term Care Act, 2021. This note serves as a reader's aid and does not form part of the law itself. It outlines the key provisions of the bill, specifically focusing on the new provision for patients requiring an alternate level of care (ALC) in public hospitals. The new provision authorizes certain actions to be carried out without the consent of ALC patients, such as determining their eligibility for a long-term care home, selecting a home, and authorizing their admission. These actions are only permitted after reasonable efforts have been made to obtain the patient's consent. The note also emphasizes that the actions must be performed in accordance with the regulations, which provide procedures, requirements, criteria, restrictions, and conditions. This ensures that the process is carried out in a regulated and controlled manner, protecting the rights and interests of the patients. Furthermore, the note explicitly states that the use of restraints or physical transfer of an ALC patient to a long-term care home without their consent is not authorized. This safeguards against any potential abuse or violation of the patient's rights. The note also mentions minor amendments to the Act, including a general definition of "personal health information" and consequential amendments to the Health Care Consent Act, 1996. These amendments provide clarity and consistency in the interpretation and application of the law. Overall, the Explanatory Note serves as a valuable tool for understanding the purpose and scope of Bill 7. It ensures transparency and accountability in the implementation of the new provisions, while also safeguarding the rights and well-being of ALC patients.

SteelmanSpren Against

Steelman Argument: Opponents of Bill 7 argue that it infringes on individual liberties and expands the reach of the government into healthcare decisions. They believe that the provision allowing certain actions to be carried out without the consent of patients designated as requiring an alternate level of care undermines the principle of individual autonomy and personal choice. Firstly, opponents argue that the government should not have the authority to determine a patient's eligibility for a long-term care home without their consent. They believe that this decision should be left to the patient or their substitute decision-maker, as they are the ones who understand their own needs and preferences best. By allowing placement co-ordinators to make these decisions without consent, the government is overstepping its boundaries and disregarding the rights of individuals. Furthermore, opponents argue that the collection, use, and disclosure of personal health information without consent is a violation of privacy rights. They believe that individuals should have control over their own health information and should be able to decide who has access to it. Allowing certain persons to collect, use, and disclose personal health information without consent sets a dangerous precedent and opens the door for potential abuse of this sensitive data. Opponents also raise concerns about the lack of oversight and accountability in the bill. By exempting the actions listed in subsection (3) from sections 49 to 54 of the Act, the government is effectively bypassing important safeguards and regulations that are in place to protect patients. This lack of oversight raises concerns about the potential for abuse and neglect in long-term care homes. Lastly, opponents argue that the bill undermines the principle of limited government intervention in healthcare. They believe that healthcare decisions should be made by individuals and their healthcare providers, not by government officials. By expanding the government's authority to make decisions about long-term care placements, the bill sets a dangerous precedent for further government intrusion into healthcare decisions. In summary, opponents of Bill 7 argue that it infringes on individual liberties, violates privacy rights, lacks oversight and accountability, and expands the reach of the government into healthcare decisions. They believe that healthcare decisions should be made by individuals and their healthcare providers, not by government officials.