• vithigar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      7 months ago

      This is obviously needed

      Shorter wait times are needed, yes, but a law imposing an arbitrary maximum isn’t going to help. Unless you have more and better supported healthcare providers (doctors, nurses, technicians, the entire chain) all that imposing a maximum wait will do is reduce quality of care as people are rushed through or turned away.

        • Jhex@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          7 months ago

          Supposing that people will be rejected from ER so they can maintain their minimum wait time is a wild take.

          This is already happening, sort of.

          When ER rooms are too busy, they refuse intake from ambulances. Meaning the patient stays in the ambulance or in the wait room but under the supervision of the ambulance paramedics, not the hospital… this of course results is even longer wait times, subpar care, and fewer ambulances to deal with emergencies out there

          Keep voting Doug Ford Ontario… he’ll get to this as soon as the bicycle lanes are gone, that’s an obvious priority

    • panda_abyss@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      7 months ago

      Yeah

      The other thing I didn’t like was when they said Finlay “gave up” and he was hypoxic.

      Hypoxia causes drowsiness, fatigue, disorientation.

      I don’t think it’s fair to say he “gave up”.

      He should have been seen earlier, but we all deserve shorter hospital wait times.

      • npcknapsack@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        7 months ago

        Or maybe because we’d prefer to spend our money on reducing taxes for car owners…

          • npcknapsack@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            7 months ago

            Cars? I don’t hate cars. I hate that we’re systematically defunding our health care to give people pointless tax breaks so that people will vote for Ford. Does 200$ really compensate anyone for having fewer doctors?

            • timberwolf1021@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              7 months ago

              No it doesn’t, but then, that’s not really an argument to keep nickel-and-diming drivers. I’m all for fair progressive taxation, but it shouldn’t be composed of a million government fees that pop up every time you have to deal with the government for any reason. I know Ford got rid of the $200 fee and refunded it for cynical, manipulative reasons, but I’m still glad it’s gone, and I have to believe that most people are not stupid enough to be bought by $200.

  • Showroom7561@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    said their 16-year-old son, Finlay, had a few days of mild illness and was suffering from migraines before his condition began to worsen.

    From what I read about this story last week, he was suffering from pneumonia and sepsis (among other health issues).

    The eight hours in the ER, although unacceptable, was the tail end of a much bigger problem with his health.

    He should have been brought in days sooner. Pneumonia almost never kills healthy teens, certainly not in a few hours of waiting, so he had other issues going on and I’m sure the hospital will be aggressively defending against this lawsuit.