Courts vs. Decision-Makers? – Balancing Individual and Community Interests

Thursday 30th October 2008 13:30 – 15:00

Colleen M Flood, Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto.
Chris Newdick, Barrister and Professor of Health Law at the University of Reading, UK
Dr. Keith Syrett, Reader in Public Law and Health Policy at the University of Bristol, UK

In this session, we will examine the manner and means through which individuals challenge priority-setting bodies, more specifically, the issues that arise out of court challenges to health care resource allocation. We will focus on judicial review (providing a quick primer on this process and analyzing the differences between procedural and substantive review in administrative law), human rights, and constitutional law.

We will illustrate how these challenges are employed through specific cases from the Australia, Canada, New Zealand and UK. These cases will assist us in elaborating a theory of priority- setting as it applies to the task courts face when forced to balance individual versus collective interests in health care allocation. We will also explore the differences which may arise when an individual challenging the decision-making body alleges that a decision is not only unreasonable but based on discrimination and thus contrary to human rights.

Our discussion will aim to illuminate the processes through which courts approach various types of challenges to contribute to the discussion of how priority-setting bodies could organize their decision-making so as to pass muster if scrutinized by a court.