Fatality inquiry judge dismisses request for warnings about antipsychotic drugs

In another example of how citizens are routinely put at risk by the health care system, an Alberta judge has ruled that patients and their substitute decision makers do not need to be informed about the risks of proposed drugs or medical procedures.

 

In her report on the fatality inquiry into the Zyprexa-caused death of 61-year-old Carol Pifko in an Edmonton AB nursing home, Provincial Court judge Elizabeth Johnson ignored all recommendations put to her, including that long-term care staff inform patients and their families of the risks associated with Zyprexa (olanzapine). Judge Johnson wrote:

“It would seem to fetter a physician in how he or she deals with a patient or exercises his or her professional judgment.”

The judge’s statement does not square with the law. Every citizen in Canada has the right to refuse consent to medical treatment (including medication), and to be given information by the doctor about what treatments are proposed. That is the law. Canadian laws protect us from being subjected against our will to medical treatment or care that we do not consent to (with one exception, if a person is deemed to be a danger to others or themselves). Our laws were designed to prevent the atrocities committed by doctors in dictatorships such as Nazi Germany.

Informed consent is essential

It is recognized that information about proposed treatments, including medication, is essential to making health care consent decisions. “For consent to treatment to be considered valid, it must be an “informed” consent. The patient must have been given an adequate explanation about the nature of the proposed investigation or treatment and its anticipated outcome as well as the significant risks involved and alternatives available.” Consent – A guide for Canadian physicians, Kenneth G. Evans, General Counsel, Canadian Medical Protective Society, Fourth Edition.

If the person/patient is incapable, then their appointed substitute decision maker (SDM) has these rights. SDMs are also referred to as personal/health care representatives or proxies. If the patient has not appointed an SDM, their immediate next of kin has the right to make those decisions on the person’s/patient’s  behalf. As an example, see the description of the next-of-kin decision-making hierarchy in the B.C. Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act.

All provinces allow for a person, while capable, to appoint another person to make health care decisions on their behalf in the event of incapacity. This issue may be dealt with in health care consent legislation of general application, or in specific legislation. [105] In Ontario, this role is incorporated within the personal power of attorney provided for by the Substitute Decisions Act.”  [IV. Substitute Decision Making: Canadian legislative review, Law Commission of Ontario]  For an example, see the B.C. Representation Agreement Act which governs the appointment of substitute decision makers for health care consent decisions in that province.

Inadequate compliance with the law in the health care sector

Health care consent laws are designed to be “non-paternalistic and consistent with the autonomous decision making rights guaranteed by section 7 of the (Canadian) Charter” of Rights and Freedoms, according to lawyer Margaret Hall’s 2009 report written for the Law Commission of Ontario. However, she notes that this often isn’t happening. She cites a variety of reasons, including attitude: “paternalistic attitudes regarding older adults as persons to be “done to” rather than persons in control of their own decisions.” 

The legal establishment believes its laws are good but that the implementation of the laws (by health care providers, public agencies and authorities) is bad. In her research report, Margaret Hall frankly opines that there is “inadequate compliance with the law governing substitute decision making in the health care sector.” 

In her report examining whether Canada’s health care consent and elder abuse laws were effective, Ms. Hall comments that “entrenched ageist attitudes and stereotypes among (health care) professionals implementing the legislation will increase (patient) vulnerability and the likelihood that autonomy will not be respected,” and that “ … professionals and (possibly particularly) institutional staff may tend to make decisions that primarily meet institutional needs.”

The report is to be commended for its candid assessment of just how vulnerable older people are “on the ground” where legal and health care issues intersect. However, not so laudable is the claim that, “These tendencies (to put institutional needs first) do not connote “badness” or selfishness, but reflect the coincidence of basic human tendencies to prefer decisions in one’s own interests, where they can be plausibly justified, with the ageist social attitudes that provide that justification.”  Upon reading that sentence, one is tempted to say, “Huh??” To “prefer decisions in one’s own interests” is the very definition of “selfishness”, by most any measure.

Paternalistic professionals fetter autonomous decision making rights

And this brings us back to paternalism versus autonomy of the person (or their substitute decision maker). Is the ruling by Alberta Provincial Court judge Elizabeth Johnson in the fatality inquiry into the death of Carol Pifko an example of paternalism roaring back into health care consent law, both in the implementation of the law by the judiciary, as well as on the ground by the health care sector?

Does a person’s right to refuse medical treatment really “fetter” a doctor’s exercising of his or her professional judgment? That’s like saying that doctors don’t want to be provided with facts or scientific evidence because that might “fetter” their opinions and judgment. One would think that ensuring that a doctor is at least mindful and knowledgeable about the risks of pharmaceutical drugs he/she wants to administer would, in itself, be a good thing – especially since it is commonly acknowledged, as in this Canadian Medical Association Journal article, that doctors have surprisingly little training in or understanding of the risks associated with pharmaceutical drugs. As MP Terrence Young explains, much of the “education” doctors get on the risks of prescription drugs comes from the drug manufacturers.

Lastly, since when does “unfettered” professional judgment trump the wishes and rights of a person or their substitute decision maker to say “no” to proposed medical treatment, especially when the treatment proposed presents serious, often deadly, risks?

Many of the people who have contacted Seniors at Risk believe that while laws exist to protect our rights and freedoms, in reality health care providers, public agencies and even law enforcement and legal authorities are increasingly ignoring these laws, and disregarding an individual’s rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

 

Knowledge. CompassionCourage. Action.

 Take a stand against elder abuse.

 

 

Be Sociable, Share!

6 Comments »

  1. JUDGE DISMISSES DRUG WARNINGS… We’ve known this for some time, and this is not the first instance of similar [alleged] murders — because that’s what it is in my view, legally sanctioned murder because M.D. [ordered the drugs be given.]

    What can we DO about it? It requires more than yet another adult daughter wishing she had done more. She did all anyone could do. That is not the problem. She tried. [According to the news reports, t]hey blocked her, lied to her, were abusive of the patient’s rights and what would be the law, if it was a younger person. As it stands now, in Alberta, only the wealthy will get decent care, at home with privately paid for staff, and not be murdered by the medical profession with it covered up, brushed aside, lied about.

    The problem is we all think we have rights in these situations, and now we can see, we patently do not.

    Comment by bodie — July 26, 2013 @ 6:25 pm

  2. JUDGE DISMISSES DRUG WARNINGS… Please give us some guidelines for what we can legally demand our elected representatives to do. It’s obviously not enough to complain. To whom and what should be our demands? I am all too familiar with making complaints to the health care system in Alberta and having them dismissed, if you ask the wrong thing of the wrong department, you wil get “that is not our responsibility”.

    I think we need more than outrage and news on this. Please consult with whomever can draft a cogent, legally viable petition on this issue of seniors care, and let’s get at it.

    Comment by rb — July 26, 2013 @ 7:00 pm

  3. JUDGE DISMISSES DRUG WARNINGS… Does this judge having a drinking problem? Sometimes alcohol has been a factor in bad judicial judgments. Also, it’s very rare that women ever get to become judges, but a woman with such insentience is rarer still! Does she have shares in private health care, one wonders!?

    Comment by Marysue — July 28, 2013 @ 8:27 am

  4. JUDGE DISMISSES DRUG WARNINGS… The entire issue of a physician, hired by a nursing home, acting in the best interest of the patient is the CORE of problems since “Doctor for Hire” is there to add to the window dressing of “nursing care” in a continuing care home. The entire matter should be addressed ASAP.

    Comment by JoanP — July 29, 2013 @ 9:34 am

  5. JUDGE DISMISSES DRUG WARNINGS… I strongly disagree with the judges decision. Not because it is the wrong decision but because it encourages the elderly and their family members to commit violent acts against physicians. This is not the road to a civil society. Why are we bending over backwards to turn seniors into violent terrorists? Doctors shouldn’t have to live in fear that those whom they have hurt will come after them to “get even.” How sad it has to come to that. It would be much better if the law protected the victims rather than the perpetrators!

    Comment by David Dickinson — July 29, 2013 @ 3:37 pm

  6. JUDGE DISMISSES DRUG WARNINGS… Antipsychotic drugs have a black label warning from the manufacturer (Health Canada) that these drugs should NOT be given to the elderly due to severe side effects of death or stroke. These drugs are being prescribed to our love ones as “off label”use to treat the “behavior not the dementia”. These drugs are designed to treat schizophrenia & bipolar. in the US a billion dollar lawsuit was awarded against the manufacturer,Johnson & Johnson for Risperadal. Eli Lily settled 1.42 billion dollar lawsuit over the drug Zyprexa.
    If physicans have this knowledge, how can they NOT provide “informed consent”. This judge has just handed the DRs a weapon to kill.

    Comment by JOAN W — July 31, 2013 @ 6:03 am

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment

Comment moderation is in effect. Please do not submit your comment twice -- your comment will display once it has been approved by a moderator.

back to top LW