Reflections from young physicians
http://www.100md.com
《加拿大医疗协会学报》
It was heartening to read the articles by Ben Hoyt1 and by Sacha Bhatia and Adam Natsheh2 in response to the potential implications of the decision by the Supreme Court in the Chaoulli case. If these authors reflect the ideas of young physicians and medical students more generally, the Canadian approach to universal health care will not be compromised by short-sighted policy changes that could irrevocably undermine an ethically and professionally commendable approach to the provision of health care services to Canadians.
The evidence-based approach is an intrinsic part of the way young physicians assess potential clinical and policy changes. As these authors have indicated, the evidence from other jurisdictions is not there to support the contention that a so-called private, parallel system would enhance access and decrease wait times.
REFERENCES
Hoyt B. Public versus private: the medical resident perspective [editorial]. CMAJ 2005;173(8):898-9.
Bhatia S, Natsheh A. Should Canadian physicians support parallel private health care? [editorial]. CMAJ 2005;173(8):901-2.(Michael Gordon)
The evidence-based approach is an intrinsic part of the way young physicians assess potential clinical and policy changes. As these authors have indicated, the evidence from other jurisdictions is not there to support the contention that a so-called private, parallel system would enhance access and decrease wait times.
REFERENCES
Hoyt B. Public versus private: the medical resident perspective [editorial]. CMAJ 2005;173(8):898-9.
Bhatia S, Natsheh A. Should Canadian physicians support parallel private health care? [editorial]. CMAJ 2005;173(8):901-2.(Michael Gordon)