Caring for the most vulnerable

The bedrock principle of Canada’s health-care system is clear: access to potentially life-saving medical care should not be denied to those who cannot afford it. Yes, resources are scarce and must be used efficiently. But Canadians have a right to expect that every possible effort would be made to help the most vulnerable among us — especially the very young.

That’s what makes the case of Shaylyn and Grayson Grant so disturbing. The twins from Oshawa, Ont., were born prematurely in January. Shortly after birth, they contracted a bacterial infection that ravaged their stomachs and intestinal linings. The damage done to their intestines was serious and left both babies unable to digest milk or formula — their bodies simply can’t absorb the nutritional content of the liquid.

In order to survive, the infants require Neocate, a specialized formula whose nutritional value can be absorbed directly by the body, without needing to be digested by the intestines. The formula is expensive — $300 a week, a cost that will increase as the babies grow stronger and eat more. In time, as their bodies heal, it is hoped the twins will be able to move to normal formulas and foods. But meanwhile the Grant family must somehow come up with the money for the formula. If the children don’t get Neocate, they die. It’s that simple.

Both parents are employed; their employer’s insurance plan does not cover Neocate, which is (bizarrely) deemed a nutritional supplement, not a drug. The real question though, is what kind of “universal” healthcare system would not cover the costs of a readily available, tried-and-tested product that is critically necessary to prevent the death of sick children?

Watching the pennies in a socialized medicine system often requires tough choices. But the Grants’ plight is not akin to situations where the public is asked to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars on an experimental, unproven treatment. Neocate is available. It’s proven. It’s safe. And it will give these two little babies the chance to lead normal, healthy, productive lives. It is, in other words, exactly the reason that we have a universal health-care system in the first place.

Members of the public will no doubt offer help. The couple’s private insurer may make a compassionate exemption. Either outcome would be welcome. But they’re both beside the point. If Ontario won’t care for these two children, it should stop pretending it has a universal system.