“An inevitable death. »« No link with the closing of the emergency room or the ambulance services. The firm and definitive conclusions which were publicly announced by the Minister of Health and Social Services and by the management of the CISSS de l’Abitibi barely 72 hours after the death of Richard Genest are surprising.
Without leaving time for the family of the deceased to mourn, information of a medical nature was displayed in the public arena to arrive at a verdict presented to the general public as being final and without appeal: an “aortic crack. severe and sudden ”requiring diagnostic capabilities and specialized care which, we are told, would not have been available at the Senneterre CLSC emergency room even if it had been opened. The conclusions of the announced coroner’s inquest will give us clearer indications as to the accuracy of this hasty analysis by the high authorities of the CISSS de l’Abitibi.
Beyond this medical question, the Act respecting health services and social services, in article 7, is clear as to the rights of users of the health system in an emergency situation: “Anyone whose life or integrity is in danger has the right to receive the care required by their condition. It is the responsibility of any establishment, when requested to do so, to ensure that this care is provided. This article is based on the right to life and integrity protected by the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Notably, the right to emergency care is not limited by the availability of human, financial or material resources, unlike other rights enacted in this law. It is a fundamental right.
Concretely, this means that any establishment has the obligation: (1) to assess a patient who presents to the emergency; (2) to determine whether a dangerous health problem threatens his life or safety; (3) diagnose this condition and, if applicable, (4) treat the problem or, if this is not possible, stabilize the patient before transferring him to another facility.
It is clear that Mr. Genest’s right to emergency treatment required by his condition when his life or integrity was in danger was not respected.
If Senneterre’s emergency room had been opened, the patient could have seen a doctor or nurse within minutes. Regardless of the limits regarding the diagnostic capabilities of the facility, Mr. Genest would then have benefited from a medical or nursing assessment before being transferred to the appropriate resource. Would that have made it possible, in a probable way, to ensure that his transfer was, from the outset, treated as a priority by the ambulance services? Would that have avoided the confusion that led to his initial transport to the Val-d’Or hospital? We hope the coroner will address these important questions in his investigation.
As it stands, it is quite predictable that such tragedies will be repeated if the authorities stay the course on the large strip of emergency hospital and pre-hospital services they have created in the region.