Aspies For Freedom

A case in the Canadian Supreme Court has had a good outcome for autistic rights. Michelle Dawson has been working on this case, excellent work Michelle, and a good outcome for all of us.
Parents had tried to force the government to pay for ABA therapy, which could have led the way to all children having the therapy as a human rights issue.

B.C. government does not have to pay for special autism treatment, Supreme Court rules
Canadian Press

Ottawa — The British Columbia government does not have to pay for a costly early childhood treatment for autism, the Supreme Court of Canada said Friday.

The court ruled against a group of British Columbia parents who had sued to try to force the province to pay for the treatment.

The court overturned lower-court rulings that said that autism is a disability that requires attention.

The so-called Lovaas autism treatment, which is said to produce dramatic results in autistic kids, can cost up to $60,000 a year.

The parents, who had paid for the treatments themselves, asked the courts to make the province foot the bill.

The province had argued that it is up to governments, not the courts, to decide how health care money is spent.

I wouldn't call this a victory for autism rights.  The court's decision in the case was based more on the technical requirements of the relevant laws, not the "rights" of the affected individuals.

The parents still have the ability to petition the lawmakers to change the law, although that's not likely to happen.

The court still appears to have said nothing recognizing autistics as equals to everyone else.

But there was a major fear that once it was declared that it was an autistic kids human rights to have ABA, that all kids would be expected to have their rights fulfilled by having ABA, and the decision could affect other countries too. Other parents would be inspired and follow the lead.

Greetings,

Is there a link to any news regarding this?  I would need to read what the media says before I can comment on it but my first reaction would be to suspect the ruling was purely financially motivated.  It is alot of money theyre talking about.  If an order like that was suddenly imposed on the NHS here, theres no way it could cope.

Heres more news on it -

Supreme Court rules against autism group

VANCOUVER -- Parents of autistic children would be better off making refugee claims to live in the U.S., where treatments are widely paid for, one mother said after the Supreme Court of Canada ruled B.C. does not have to pay for costly therapy. The ruling was seen as a signal that governments no longer have to worry about being forced to pay for expensive programs by special-interest groups claiming discrimination.

"It means that these children are not worthy. It means the government has no obligation to do anything, not only for them but for any of us," said Jean Lewis, a Vancouver mother of a 10-year-old autistic child.

She said Canadians should realize the health-care system has become less inclusive than the one south of the border so many criticize.

"If you live under the illusion that your core health need is covered under the Canada Health Act, think again. This judgment has given provincial governments the power to stroke it out at the cross of a pen. All Canadians better be pretty worried about what's gone down here," she said.

Parents of autistic children in British Columbia had asked the top judiciary to force the province to pay for an expensive therapy, arguing that their equality rights under the Canada Health Act were being infringed.

In a unanimous decision, the court said the government had no obligation to pay, overturning lower court decisions that recognized the treatment is medically necessary.

The decision leaves the door open for governments to cut services for the elderly, welfare recipients and anyone receiving special funding based on the argument that denying it would be discriminatory, said Toronto lawyer Fiona Sampson.

"It's a retrenchment on our equality rights in general. It doesn't apply just to autism. Because the court used a very narrow and restrictive interpretation of equality, that interpretation can get picked up in other equality rights contexts," said Sampson, director of litigation for Women's Legal Education and Action Fund.

B.C. Attorney General Geoff Plant said governments can't pay for everything and never promised they would. He said they have to make tough decisions on how to allocate scarce resources.
http://www.canoe .ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePress/News/2004/11/20/722626.html

Hot damn, I thought American news was horribly biased.  Here's another article courtesy of news.google.com that is not quite so nasty:

The Supreme Court of Canada left parents of autistic children in British Columbia to fend for themselves yesterday, refusing to order the provincial government to fund costly, specialized treatment for their children.

In a ruling that brought relief to the government but left the parents apoplectic, the court's 7-0 ruling concluded that British Columbia did not discriminate against a vulnerable group by refusing such funding.

The court said that the costly treatment the parents sought, known as ABA/IBI treatment, is an emerging technique that is not part of the "core, physician-delivered services" provided for under the Canada Health Act, which is administered by the provinces.

The parents had argued that their children's equality rights under the Canada Health Act were being infringed by the lack of funding. But the court said the provincial government had no obligation to pay, and overturned B.C. lower-court decisions that recognized the treatment as medically necessary.

It was the second time recently that the high court refused to interfere with a government decision on how to spend public money or order priorities. Last month, judges upheld Newfoundland's decision to cancel pay-equity payments it had promised to female employees.

Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin expressed sympathy for the autistic children and the parents. "However, the issue before us is not what the public health system should provide, which is a matter for Parliament and the legislature," she wrote.

ABA/IBI, which was developed in California by Norwegian-born psychologist Ivar Lovaas, breaks down language and mental and physical tasks into components that are repeated until an autistic child masters them. Most effective when children are young, it requires long hours of supervision and can cost up to $60,000 a year for each child.

B.C. Attorney-General Geoff Plant defended the $30-million a year the province already puts into various services for the province's 2,500 autistic children. He praised the ruling at a news conference yesterday, saying it clarified "that the government is responsible for making funding decisions regarding programs under Canada's medicare system."

But parents of autistic children were left disappointed and angry.

"Today, my son became a second-class citizen in this society," said Justin Himmelright, of Maple Ridge, B.C., whose six-year-old son Griffen needs four therapists to work with him six days a week.

"I am ashamed to be a citizen of a country that does not stand up for the rights of these kids, that supports policy-makers and lawyers walking on the back of my son."

Sabrina Freeman, one of the B.C. litigants, angrily criticized the court for gutting the equality guarantee in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

"The bottom line is that the court was intimidated by the Attorney-General of Canada and 10 provinces, who spooked them about how much this would cost, which isn't true," she said in an interview. "They threw it back to the provinces, saying that if they want to provide treatment, they can. You know when that's going to happen? When pigs fly."

Patrick Monahan, dean of law at York University's Osgoode Hall Law School, said it took courage for the court to reject the pleas of such a sympathetic group and to follow a principled approach. "The courts shouldn't be in the business of trying to redesign funding for the health-care system."

Although B.C.'s lower courts found the ABA/IBI treatment medically necessary, the province appealed because of the big price tag -- an estimated $50-million to $75-million annually -- and because of the spectre of "copycat" litigation.

Chief Justice McLachlin said that the B.C. courts made erroneous comparisons. She said the proper group with which to compare autistic children is other children who do not suffer from a mental disability, and who seek or receive non-core service funding for an emerging therapy that is only beginning to be recognized.

She said that whether ABA/IBI treatment is or is not "the gold standard" of autism treatment is beside the point. "At the time of the trial, ABA/IBI funding for autistic children was not universal and was only beginning to be recognized as desirable," she noted. "The benefit claimed -- funding for all medically required treatment -- is not provided by law.

"The Canada Health Act and the relevant British Columbia legislation do not promise that any Canadian will receive funding for all medically required treatment. . . . The scheme is, by its very terms, a partial health plan and its purpose is not to meet all medical needs."

"needs"? Boy, they've made a real money spinner out of this haven't they!

I have no problem with autistic kids having therapy to learn to communicate better and to learn to look after themselves. But if the therapy is non-stop, in every waking hour, those kids don't have ANY time at all to just be themselves (of course, that is the idea). That is definitely abuse. If people would be around me, trying to change me six days a week, I would either go insane or kill myself. And I am serious.  I pity little Griffen, poor little guy!

Ursula

I agree.  I can speak from experience.  My father allowed my mother to take me for all kinds of "treatments" until my suicide attempt at age 8.  I was lucky that my father intervened, many others may not.  Perhaps if more NT's knew what the experience is like for us they might see it for the abuse that it is.  Sad though that many times our voices are often not heard because it's always different when it comes to their child.

I agree on this, that is why these are mainly the only therapy areas I would pursue for Dylan. Unfortunately even these therapies are being made very very limited where I live to children with autism and their families.

No child can handle non-stop therapy, all kids need breaks whether it is with those with only speech disorders going for speech therapy or those that have issues that need physical therapy. It's just not something a child with any issue should have to deal with period, not just autistic children.

What I do have problems with the resolution of this case is yes it does give provincial goverments in Canada the right to say no we won't give extra funding even for the most necessary things like funding for respite care for parents, speech therapy, occupational therapy or physical therapy. I live in a province that does really next to nothing to help families with children with autism, even though the province just put $4 million into helping kids with autism (through various means), we don't have enough trained speech therapists, occupational therapists, etc to be able to make the most out of the funding and most likely none of our families will see the money to be able to get respite care or be able to get extra speech therapy in the case which Dylan needs it as he has an additional speech disorder on top of his autism. I think places like BC, Ont. and some other provinces and such shouldn't complain, they have gov'ts that have put funding into things to help their children, they have bigger urban areas which draw more professionals than smaller cities and towns in smaller provinces like where I live.

I'm not advocating period for ABA or anything like that from the gov't for my son. If I was to believe in that fully, I could learn and do it myself. It's cheaper.  Yes some people are being had for sure when doing many of these therapies mostly for money.  :roll: