splinterjete: the ontario government may relist srs

rebecca (

splinterjete) wrote,
@ 2008-05-15 00:20:00

the ontario government may relist srs
the ontario health minister spoke today and dropped hints at the ctv, a pretty major new broadcaster (like... the biggest).

now, what's extra promising is there is a special news conference tomorrow - the international day against homophobia - and many key people have been invited.

of course, what the honourable minister *didn't* say is key. these are inferences and hints at best. no concrete promises, no plan or even aspirations.

that said.... wow. just wow.

(Post a new comment)

	varinobo 2008-05-15 04:52 am UTC (link)
	...WOW. Here's hoping. (Reply to this)

	queerasmoi 2008-05-15 05:14 am UTC (link)
	Took em long enough to even consider it. I'm sure a certain friend of ours, who lobbied said health minister in the past, is thinking similarly. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	*nods furiously* tyresias 2008-05-15 04:00 pm UTC (link)
	I <3 U, Charles! (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: nods furiously queerasmoi 2008-05-15 04:55 pm UTC (link)
	likewise darling :) (Reply to this) (Parent)

mallii
2008-05-15 07:40 am UTC (link)

If they DO start to cover it... that is going to be a very expensive FIRST YEAR for OHIP. How many people in Ontario--nay, how many people do we know personally--could easily be approved within 24 hours of the decision to cover the surgery?

I don't mean that as an opposition, simply an observation... you gotta admit, a lot of people are gonna jump at the opportunity they haven't had for years already.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

queerasmoi
2008-05-15 02:56 pm UTC (link)

Knowing bureaucracy... I could imagine any of the following scenarios:
- Limited # of funded physicians, waiting list stretching back to the Harris era
- Forcing people to go all the way through years of assessment and a "real life test" again in order to be "diagnosed"
- Giving the patient very little choice as to who their doctor / surgeon / surgery method will be

So yeah, I'll believe it when I see it!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

splinterjete
2008-05-15 03:00 pm UTC (link)

see my prognostication below... the biggest hurdle is getting coverage.

the remnants of the Adult GID Clinic (0.75 FTE in terms of staffing) have next to no political clout with Smitherman's health ministry.

a primary care framework - though potentially with some significant limitations on 'accredited sites' (as per B.C.) - is what is likely.

but yeah, the first hurdle is the biggest...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	sonjaaa 2008-05-15 05:55 pm UTC (link)
	Which surgeons does BC allow of for MTF GRS? Brassard? Others? (Reply to this) (Parent)

	deliriumfae 2008-05-15 11:32 am UTC (link)
	takes the jaded perspective I'll believe it when I see it also, what requirements will there be? (Reply to this) (Thread)

	aki_no_kaze 2008-05-15 02:07 pm UTC (link)
	agreed, we don't need another Jurassic Clarke. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	I concur... mindtheft 2008-05-15 02:28 pm UTC (link)
	..when they used to cover it didn't folks have to go to the Clarke in order to have it funded? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I concur...

splinterjete
2008-05-15 02:39 pm UTC (link)

yes. that was the set-up. if one could call it that. it certainly won't go back to that. this is all speculative, of course, but if they *do* reenstate funding what will likely happen is a creation of a physician advisory board. given that the sherbourne health centre has been mandated by the province to be centre of excellence around trans health then i would see them - not as a gatekeeper but in providing policy recommendations - being integral in the next steps.

furthermore, the current practices in b.c. - to draw on *current* practice standards (as 1998 was a long time ago) - will likely also be a influential.

in short, it will (and should) be rooted in a an accredited *primary care* setting rooted in the WPATH Standards of Care.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: I concur... queerasmoi 2008-05-15 02:58 pm UTC (link)
	aren't current public SRS practices in BC failing miserably? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: I concur... splinterjete 2008-05-15 03:01 pm UTC (link)
	i didn't say they were good. but they're the best in Canada. and, it's likely where they're going to look. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: I concur...

tyresias
2008-05-15 04:04 pm UTC (link)

Add a slight difference re: BC vs. ON.

BC had to be taken back to court to recruit Dr. Bowman. Dr. Oliver in Kitchener already knows hows to perform metas and I would not be surprised if there was another doc I'm not familiar with (for obvious reasons) that practices here and already knows MTF bottom surgery procedures. Getting Ontario to recruit a phallo doc is another matter and then convincin the hospitals to give any of these docs OR time is another matter (as BC has already shown). But coverage is definitely the 1st step (it's lack of it is the reason Oliver can't perform the procedures, her hospital refuses to allocate the required resources for her to be able to do her work because it is not covered).

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I concur...

aki_no_kaze
2008-05-15 05:46 pm UTC (link)

I REALLY hope they don't pull something that forces us to only use local doctors... they have the same thing in Quebec.. It is funded if you get it done at a public hospital, but no public hospitals allow the procedure.

I know a few people from BC who have been sent to Brassard for MTF stuff, and I know that prior to about 1990 they used to send people from here all the way to the UK for surgery... so here's hoping they allow us to use out of province/country surgeons

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: I concur... sugarmommaless 2008-05-15 08:30 pm UTC (link)
	"It is funded if you get it done at a public hospital, but no public hospitals allow the procedure." Sounds like abortion care in the Maritimes. Intersectionality. We should all be working together. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2008-05-15 11:50 am UTC (link)
	wow...thats excellent. i really hope theres follow through. (Reply to this)

	re: your latest post aki_no_kaze 2008-05-15 05:13 pm UTC (link)
	don't keep us in suspense hun!! (I realize with your work there is a good chance you can't give us the details we want... but if you can... or can point us to news coverage...) (Reply to this)

	sonjaaa 2008-05-15 05:53 pm UTC (link)
	What about people who paid for it out of their own pocket during the period of it being delisted? If I were you, I'd be somewhat pissed off. Edited at 2008-05-15 06:00 pm UTC (Reply to this)

	sonjaaa 2008-05-15 05:54 pm UTC (link)
	We are lucky that one of the top doctors (Brassard) is in Canada. He wouldn't be my first choice, but if I can go to him for free or go to my first choice abroad and pay myself, I would likely pick the free option. (Reply to this) (Thread)

	Brassard. emilyzilch 2008-05-15 07:06 pm UTC (link)
	I went to Brassard, I had a very good experience. I live in the US (as you know lol) and I preferred him to my choices here... this was about 3 years ago. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: Brassard. sonjaaa 2008-05-15 07:20 pm UTC (link)
	Poke me on IM. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	8 to 10 people per year??? sonjaaa 2008-05-15 07:26 pm UTC (link)
	http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080515/Smitherman_surgery_080515/20080515/?hub=TorontoNewHome the article says that CAMH will be the gatekeepers, allowing about 9 trannies to get surgery per year. So will my turn come in 2042 ? Edited at 2008-05-15 07:57 pm UTC (Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: 8 to 10 people per year???

splinterjete
2008-05-15 08:06 pm UTC (link)

sigh. yeah, soon after i heard that it was to be covered, i heard that it was going to be going back to the status quo (of 10 years ago!) whereby CAMH is the gatekeeper. they don't even anywhere close to the capacity to deal with the number of trans people needing this access, setting aside all the issues of the pathologization of trans identities that a mental health framework brings. i'll get to that later.

i'm ecstatic and dejected all at once.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: 8 to 10 people per year??? sonjaaa 2008-05-16 02:42 am UTC (link)
	Maybe they want to pass it through and downplay it.... "only 10 people a year" so the Conservative MPP's don't vote it down. Then once the noise dissipates in a year, modify the program so it actually reflects the reality of the thousands of people needing surgery and how to screen them properly instead of doing it CAMH style. (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: 8 to 10 people per year???

splinterjete
2008-05-16 02:54 am UTC (link)

yes, i think they're not going to gain anything by saying "there's a backlog of people... 1000 people will get it in the next couple of years... cost $50 million". so yeah, obviously they're being selective with the facts being delivered the way they're delivering them.

but it still doesn't explain the major problem of CAMH being the gatekeeper.

here we go again...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	Re: 8 to 10 people per year??? sonjaaa 2008-05-16 02:58 am UTC (link)
	If I go to the CAMH now, they will ask me to dig up a photo from the 90s when I was a boy so they can compare the before and after and understand my manliness! That's their method. (Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: 8 to 10 people per year???
(Anonymous)
2008-05-16 07:07 pm UTC (link)

Matt here, at CTYS.

Heather and I were at the announcement yesterday and the CAMH issue was definitely a buzz around the reception (which was originally about international day against homophobia). The feeling amongst those who are politically-oriented is that this is the public announcement which will begin a much larger beaurocratic discussion around process.

That's likely why Smitherman seemed pissed that it was leaked early, since all the details weren't yet worked out (he said he's interrogating everyone who knew about the policy to find out who leaked).

(Reply to this) (Parent)

	cyborg_kitty100 2008-05-17 01:09 am UTC (link)
	oi this will screw over all of my healthcare plans... a mixed blessing indeed. crosses fingers the clarke isn't included (Reply to this) (Thread)

	splinterjete 2008-05-17 04:47 am UTC (link)
	i (of course, me!) am coordinating an emergency meeting of key orgs next week to send in policy recs. it looks like - 99% likely - that it's going to ostensibly revert to the system that was previously in place... which is why swift action needs to happen to (if possible) change that... ~becca (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	cyborg_kitty100 2008-05-17 04:51 am UTC (link)
	Yeah, no system in place is better than an abusive one. A number of unions have been fighting and winning to get SRS covered under their health plans. Now with this sham of provincial coverage, it will no longer be available. Then people will lose their opportunity to get ANYTHING because who wants to be "very, very scrutinized" for 2 years? (Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

	splinterjete 2008-05-17 05:00 am UTC (link)
	inclusion in a publically-funded health care system is better than a privately-funded system. at least now we can leverage and use research and professional leverage to lobby for changes in how coverage is doled out. (Reply to this) (Parent)

	splinterjete 2008-05-17 05:01 am UTC (link)
	i can't imagine how frustrating it is for you though. grrrr!!!! (Reply to this) (Parent)

	(Anonymous) 2008-05-22 02:01 pm UTC (link)
	It was fun. (Reply to this)

	(Anonymous) 2008-05-22 03:42 pm UTC (link)
	It was fun. (Reply to this)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login or password? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…

About

Help

Get Involved

Legal

Store

LJ Labs