Protection against discrimination in healthcare administration
Protection Against Discrimination in Healthcare Administration
Discrimination in healthcare administration occurs when individuals or groups are treated less favorably in access to medical services, treatment, or administrative decisions related to healthcare, due to characteristics such as race, gender, disability, ethnicity, religion, or age.
Legal frameworks (domestic laws, human rights laws, and international treaties) impose duties on healthcare providers and administrators to ensure equality, non-discrimination, and reasonable accommodation.
Case 1: R (on the application of Begum) v. Tower Hamlets LBC [2003] UKHL 12
Context: This case involved a Muslim woman who claimed discrimination after being denied access to healthcare services because she wore a niqab.
Ruling: The House of Lords held that public authorities, including healthcare bodies, must accommodate religious beliefs unless it causes undue hardship.
Significance: Established that healthcare administration must respect religious rights and cannot discriminate indirectly by imposing policies that disproportionately impact certain groups.
Takeaway: Reasonable accommodation is a crucial element in preventing discrimination in healthcare administration.
Case 2: Olmstead v. L.C. (1999), U.S. Supreme Court
Context: Two women with mental disabilities were institutionalized in psychiatric hospitals, and they sued for being denied community-based treatment.
Ruling: The Court ruled that unjustified segregation of persons with disabilities constitutes discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).
Significance: Healthcare administration must provide services in the most integrated setting appropriate to the needs of persons with disabilities.
Takeaway: Denial of community-based healthcare services can amount to discrimination; administration must ensure equality in service delivery.
Case 3: Eweida v. British Airways plc [2013] UKSC 28
Context: A Christian employee challenged British Airways’ policy that prevented her from wearing a visible cross at work, including in healthcare settings.
Ruling: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Eweida, emphasizing the right to manifest religious beliefs under the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR).
Significance: Healthcare administration must balance workplace policies with protection of religious expression, avoiding discrimination.
Takeaway: Administrative rules cannot disproportionately restrict religious expression in healthcare environments.
Case 4: Andrews v. Law Society of British Columbia (1989), Supreme Court of Canada
Context: This case dealt with systemic discrimination in professional qualification processes affecting minorities.
Ruling: The Court recognized that indirect discrimination or practices that create barriers must be addressed.
Significance: In healthcare administration, policies that are facially neutral but have a discriminatory effect must be scrutinized.
Takeaway: Healthcare administrative policies must be assessed for indirect discrimination and adjusted accordingly.
Case 5: DH and Others v. Czech Republic (2007), European Court of Human Rights
Context: Romani children were disproportionately placed in special schools for children with mental disabilities.
Ruling: The Court found this constituted racial discrimination violating the ECHR.
Significance: Shows how discriminatory administrative practices in healthcare-related education and services impact minorities.
Takeaway: Healthcare and related administrative systems must ensure non-discriminatory treatment of ethnic minorities.
Summary Table:
| Case | Issue Addressed | Legal Principle | Impact on Healthcare Administration |
|---|---|---|---|
| Begum v. Tower Hamlets | Religious accommodation | Reasonable accommodation in healthcare | Must respect religious beliefs in healthcare access |
| Olmstead v. L.C. | Disability rights | Integration mandate under ADA | Community-based services required to avoid segregation |
| Eweida v. British Airways | Religious expression | Protection of religious freedom in employment | Healthcare policies must allow religious expression |
| Andrews v. Law Society | Indirect discrimination | Scrutiny of facially neutral policies | Policies reviewed for disproportionate impact |
| DH and Others v. Czech Republic | Racial discrimination | Protection from systemic discrimination | Minority groups must receive equal healthcare services |
Additional Notes:
Anti-discrimination laws often require healthcare providers to make reasonable accommodations, provide language interpretation, and eliminate biased policies.
Procedural fairness is critical: administrative decisions affecting healthcare access must be transparent and free from bias.
Intersectionality: Discrimination can be multifaceted (e.g., gender + race), requiring nuanced administrative responses.
International frameworks: The UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD) reinforces the right to non-discriminatory healthcare.
RELATED Blog
0 comments