Re: Restrictions on private health insurance
I am disappointed that the BCMJ allows Dr Brian Day (who is on the Editorial Board) to use the journal to advance the issues of his own ongoing litigation [2021;63:197]. This is not the first time he has been allowed to do this, and it is a potential conflict of interest.
I am surprised that the BCMJ would permit Dr Day to mention that Justice Steeves received care at government expense at the False Creek Surgical Centre: this is totally inappropriate and a serious breach of Justice Steeves’ personal information. It is not at all clear how this disclosure advances what Dr Day is proposing in his editorial. I suggest that the BCMJ follow up with Justice Steeves about this disclosure.
—Liz Keay, MD, MHSc, FRCPC, PhD
Victoria
Editorial Board members are free to compose editorials on topics of their choice. The content of each editorial reflects the opinions of the author.
Dr Day has disclosed his potential conflict of interest in his bio on our website.[1] Regarding Justice Steeves’ personal information, he himself disclosed at the beginning of the trial that he had surgery (government funded) at Cambie. This was not so, and on being informed of his error, he stated he had erred, and clarified that it was at the False Creek Surgical Centre. This information has been in the public domain since 2016.[2]
The point of Dr Day’s statement is to underline the fact that the BC government considers it has the right to send patients who are waiting for surgery to private clinics, but denies citizens that same right. —ED
This letter was submitted in response to “Restrictions on private health insurance.”
References
1. Editorial Board. BCMJ. Accessed 4 August 2021. https://bcmj.org/editorial-board.
2. Fayerman P. BC government lawyer says judge disclosed all details of his private clinic surgery. Vancouver Sun. 16 May 2017. Accessed 4 August 2021. https://vancouversun.com/health/local-health/b-c-government-lawyer-says-judge-disclosed-all-details-of-his-private-clinic-surgery.
This reply from the editor came off as quite defensive and glib. It did not address the perceived impropriety of Dr. Day using his editorial position to repeatedly prosecute his personal grievances about how his court case is going. Although he may have autonomy to write about what he wishes, if he can't think of anything else to write about, maybe he could donate his podium to someone who has something more interesting and appropriate to say?