Poor Shona Holmes. The Waterdown woman who has become the spokesperson for the American right wing's efforts to stop the introduction of any semblance of humanity into their profit-driven health care system that excludes upwards of 50 million people and forces countless others into bankruptcy due to underinsurance can't quite understand the furious response of her fellow Canadians to her perfidy. I'll let you read all of the details from yesterday's Globe and Mail story, which I am reproducing below:
Medicare naysayer famous in U.S. but blasted as traitor back home
JENNIFER YANG
With a report from The Canadian Press Last updated on Friday, Jul. 31, 2009 03:06AM EDT
South of the border, she's become the poster girl for privatized health care and a familiar face on television. But here in Canada, Shona Holmes of Waterdown, Ont., has become vilified as a traitor who sold out her country to endorse a broken health-care system.
"There's been death threats on me ... it's just been awful, absolutely awful," Ms. Holmes said in an interview yesterday, breaking down several times in tears. "It's just absolutely asinine that somebody could speak out about their beliefs and be lynched."
She was recently catapulted into the spotlight after appearing in a U.S. commercial urging Americans to reject government-run health care. In the ad, sponsored by conservative group Americans for Prosperity Foundation, Ms. Holmes spoke of suffering from a brain tumour and soberly declared, "If I'd relied on my government for health care, I'd be dead."
The commercial was lapped up by conservative lobbyists and Ms. Holmes has since appeared on CNN and Fox News; she also recently appeared in Washington to give testimony before Congress.
But north of the 49th parallel, there has been a torrent of vitriol in the media and blogosphere, accusing Ms. Holmes of lying about her health and turning her back on the Canadian health-care system.
On Facebook, a group called "Lets deport Shona Holmes" is littered with messages decrying her as "a liar and a traitor" who should "move to the U.S. if you like it so much."
The outpouring of anger has shocked the 45-year-old family mediator, leaving her afraid for her safety. She's increased security at her home and even given the family dog to her daughter, because of threats that her lawn will be poisoned.
"My life has been turned upside down over this," she said. "I'm terribly hurt. ... But quite honestly I'm quite offended that people are so cold and callous to sick people."
Among the accusations levied against Ms. Holmes are that she exaggerated the severity of her brain tumour and it was actually a Rathke's cleft cyst, which is said to be benign. Ms. Holmes counters that doctors did diagnose her with a Rathke's cleft cyst, but it is still considered a tumour, which her American doctors told her would certainly cause death if not removed immediately.
She said the cyst was pushing on her pituitary gland and causing endocrine issues; she also feared permanent vision loss. Ms. Holmes was first diagnosed with a small tumour in 1998, but doctors said it was not a cause for concern and should be monitored closely.
Then in 2005, she began suffering symptoms that included headaches and vision loss and went to see her family doctor. She was put on a waiting list of six and four months to see an endocrinologist and neurologist, respectively.
Desperate, Ms. Holmes decided to go the Mayo Clinic in Scottsdale, Ariz., which was willing to see her within two days. Today, she maintains she did everything she could to find adequate treatment in Canada, e-mailing and phoning every doctor she could.
The Mayo Clinic diagnosed her and advised her to have surgery in Canada immediately. But when she returned home, she was still unable to find immediate treatment and went back to the Mayo Clinic, which removed her tumour and restored her vision.
Ms. Holmes's cross-border hospital trips cost her more than $97,000 (U.S.) and she has since sued OHIP for reimbursement, an appeal that is still in the works. She also filed a 2007 lawsuit with another plaintiff, Lindsay McCreith of Newmarket, Ont., alleging the Ontario government's monopoly on health care is unconstitutional. On July 14, the Attorney-General responded to the lawsuit by filing a defence claim, denying that either Ms. Holmes or Mr. McCreith were prevented from accessing timely treatment. Yesterday, Ontario Health Minister David Caplan also defended the province's health care, calling it a system "every Ontarian can be proud of."
Ms. Holmes disputed that, however, and said it's a misconception that Canada has a perfect health-care system. She said it was this perception that motivated her to participate in the commercial.
Showing posts with label rathke's cleft cyst. Show all posts
Showing posts with label rathke's cleft cyst. Show all posts
Friday, July 31, 2009
Thursday, July 30, 2009
Andre Picard's Defense of Canadian Health Care
The Globe and Mail's medical reporter, Andre Picard, offers a cogent defense of our healthcare system in today's Globe and Mail. As well, he notes some interesting discrepancies in Shona Holme's 'story.' I have reproduced the article below:
André Picard
Montreal — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 30, 2009 07:23AM EDT
Shona Holmes has become a central figure in the bitter debate about U.S. health-care reform.
The Waterdown, Ont., woman is featured in a TV ad telling her tale of horror – how she had a life-threatening brain tumour but would have had to wait months for treatment. So Ms. Holmes remortgaged her home and flew to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona for treatment, paying $97,000 cash for her care.
“Now, Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.,” the narrator says gravely in the ad, paid for by Patients United Now, an offshoot of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a conservative group that promotes less government and lower taxes.
Ms. Holmes has also recounted her nightmare story in countless media interviews, warning that “free” Canadian health care comes at a heavy price – lack of access – and lamenting her inability to buy private insurance to get quicker care.
“My agenda, if I have one, is to tell them [Americans], be careful what you wish for,” Ms. Holmes told The Washington Times.
Discussions surrounding the provision of health care always elicit strong emotions and outbursts of rhetoric, and Ms. Holmes's case is no exception.
She is, of course, entitled to bash medicare and promote the idea of private health-care insurance both at home and abroad. That is the beauty of free speech. (And, to be fair, Ms. Holmes has always praised the quality of care in Canada; her issue is access and timeliness.)
But a few important details are missing from the “commercial” version of this socialized-medicine-kills tale.
Ms. Holmes did not have a deadly brain tumour, she had a benign Rathkes cleft cyst. Yes, she had vision loss, but it was temporary and reversible. This is not to suggest what she went through was not awful and frightening, but it was not life-threatening.
Initially, Ms. Holmes said she had a six-month wait to see a specialist. Later, she amended that to three months. Canadian hospitals and physicians won't say how long the wait was nor comment on the gravity of her condition because of privacy rules.
For the sake of argument, let's acknowledge that the wait to see specialists like neurologists can be long. It's a problem that needs to be fixed, and the situation is already better now than it was in 2005, when Ms. Holmes had her health problems.
The reality is that, in Canada, we “ration” care. Under our state-financed insurance program, we try to provide universal care efficiently and cost-effectively. We make choices. Getting the balance perfectly right is difficult.
The United States, by contrast, has over-capacity. That is one of the principal reasons that, per capita, care costs about 50 per cent more there than in Canada.
Money buys you access, and lack of money denies you care. In Canada, we have a not-always-happy medium: Universal access with sometimes frustrating waits.
So what happens when a patient feels they are waiting too long for care? Ms. Holmes had a “gut feeling” that her life was in danger and made a radical choice to pay out-of-pocket for immediate care in the United States rather than wait for “free” (read: tax-financed) care in Canada.
Now, she wants to be reimbursed by the Ontario Health Insurance Program. She is also a party to a lawsuit against the Ontario government arguing that a “government-run monopolistic” health system that prohibits the sale of private insurance for medically necessary care is unconstitutional. (The case, very similar to the Chaoulli case in Quebec, is backed by the Canadian Constitution Foundation. It is still before the courts.)
There are complex legal issues here and competing rights that the court will need to balance. But what insurance program, private or public, would ever allow clients to determine their own treatment and reimburse them without question?
In the discussion flowing from Ms. Holmes's ad, it has been noted often that some 45 million Americans do not have health insurance. For them, the right to buy private insurance is moot because they cannot afford it and the Canadian-style system looks pretty appealing. But that is largely beside the point here.
Ms. Holmes is insured – albeit by a state-financed plan. The question is: Can insurers (and providers) delay and deny care, and can they limit and deny coverage?
Of course they can, and they do so all the time. In the United States, health insurance is expensive and it is often tied to employment. Even those with good insurance see their claims denied because of “pre-existing medical conditions,” insurers' attempts to hold down “medical losses” (the industry term for paying for care), and caps on total payouts.
Ironically, for all her lauding of private insurance, someone like Ms. Holmes would find it virtually impossible to buy insurance, given her medical history.
The infamous ad claims that Canadians have long waits and are denied all manner of care because the “government says patients aren't worth it.”
On the contrary, medicare – universal state-financed health insurance – means everyone is worthy of care and entitled to care.
If nothing else, Ms. Holmes' foray into the U.S. health-care debate should remind us of how medicare, despite some shortcomings, is worth it.
Americans can only dream of having such a system to bemoan.
.
André Picard
Montreal — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Thursday, Jul. 30, 2009 07:23AM EDT
Shona Holmes has become a central figure in the bitter debate about U.S. health-care reform.
The Waterdown, Ont., woman is featured in a TV ad telling her tale of horror – how she had a life-threatening brain tumour but would have had to wait months for treatment. So Ms. Holmes remortgaged her home and flew to the Mayo Clinic in Arizona for treatment, paying $97,000 cash for her care.
“Now, Washington wants to bring Canadian-style health care to the U.S.,” the narrator says gravely in the ad, paid for by Patients United Now, an offshoot of the Americans for Prosperity Foundation, a conservative group that promotes less government and lower taxes.
Ms. Holmes has also recounted her nightmare story in countless media interviews, warning that “free” Canadian health care comes at a heavy price – lack of access – and lamenting her inability to buy private insurance to get quicker care.
“My agenda, if I have one, is to tell them [Americans], be careful what you wish for,” Ms. Holmes told The Washington Times.
Discussions surrounding the provision of health care always elicit strong emotions and outbursts of rhetoric, and Ms. Holmes's case is no exception.
She is, of course, entitled to bash medicare and promote the idea of private health-care insurance both at home and abroad. That is the beauty of free speech. (And, to be fair, Ms. Holmes has always praised the quality of care in Canada; her issue is access and timeliness.)
But a few important details are missing from the “commercial” version of this socialized-medicine-kills tale.
Ms. Holmes did not have a deadly brain tumour, she had a benign Rathkes cleft cyst. Yes, she had vision loss, but it was temporary and reversible. This is not to suggest what she went through was not awful and frightening, but it was not life-threatening.
Initially, Ms. Holmes said she had a six-month wait to see a specialist. Later, she amended that to three months. Canadian hospitals and physicians won't say how long the wait was nor comment on the gravity of her condition because of privacy rules.
For the sake of argument, let's acknowledge that the wait to see specialists like neurologists can be long. It's a problem that needs to be fixed, and the situation is already better now than it was in 2005, when Ms. Holmes had her health problems.
The reality is that, in Canada, we “ration” care. Under our state-financed insurance program, we try to provide universal care efficiently and cost-effectively. We make choices. Getting the balance perfectly right is difficult.
The United States, by contrast, has over-capacity. That is one of the principal reasons that, per capita, care costs about 50 per cent more there than in Canada.
Money buys you access, and lack of money denies you care. In Canada, we have a not-always-happy medium: Universal access with sometimes frustrating waits.
So what happens when a patient feels they are waiting too long for care? Ms. Holmes had a “gut feeling” that her life was in danger and made a radical choice to pay out-of-pocket for immediate care in the United States rather than wait for “free” (read: tax-financed) care in Canada.
Now, she wants to be reimbursed by the Ontario Health Insurance Program. She is also a party to a lawsuit against the Ontario government arguing that a “government-run monopolistic” health system that prohibits the sale of private insurance for medically necessary care is unconstitutional. (The case, very similar to the Chaoulli case in Quebec, is backed by the Canadian Constitution Foundation. It is still before the courts.)
There are complex legal issues here and competing rights that the court will need to balance. But what insurance program, private or public, would ever allow clients to determine their own treatment and reimburse them without question?
In the discussion flowing from Ms. Holmes's ad, it has been noted often that some 45 million Americans do not have health insurance. For them, the right to buy private insurance is moot because they cannot afford it and the Canadian-style system looks pretty appealing. But that is largely beside the point here.
Ms. Holmes is insured – albeit by a state-financed plan. The question is: Can insurers (and providers) delay and deny care, and can they limit and deny coverage?
Of course they can, and they do so all the time. In the United States, health insurance is expensive and it is often tied to employment. Even those with good insurance see their claims denied because of “pre-existing medical conditions,” insurers' attempts to hold down “medical losses” (the industry term for paying for care), and caps on total payouts.
Ironically, for all her lauding of private insurance, someone like Ms. Holmes would find it virtually impossible to buy insurance, given her medical history.
The infamous ad claims that Canadians have long waits and are denied all manner of care because the “government says patients aren't worth it.”
On the contrary, medicare – universal state-financed health insurance – means everyone is worthy of care and entitled to care.
If nothing else, Ms. Holmes' foray into the U.S. health-care debate should remind us of how medicare, despite some shortcomings, is worth it.
Americans can only dream of having such a system to bemoan.
.
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
Ontario's Response to Shona Holmes
The government of Ontario has responded to Shona Holmes' outrageous lawsuit which essentially tries to end the universal healthcare enjoyed by all residents. Read the story below, published online today by the Globe and Mail:
Ontario fires back against woman in ad
The Ontario government has filed a defence against a claim made by a Hamilton woman who's at the centre of the U.S. debate over health care.
Shona Holmes is featured in a TV campaign in which she claims she had to mortgage her home and travel to a U.S. clinic for brain surgery in 2005, due to a six-month wait for care in Canada. The ad, which began airing about two weeks ago in all 50 states, warns Americans to reject Canadian-style health care because it failed her.
In the ad, Ms. Holmes states that if she relied on her government, she'd be dead.
The filing — Ontario's first response to a lawsuit launched two years ago by Ms. Holmes — was filed by the attorney general two weeks ago.
The lawsuit says Ontario's monopoly over health services is unconstitutional and that long waiting lists cause patients to “endure significant financial, emotional and physical hardship to access such services in the United States.”
Ontario's defence, filed July 14, denies that Ms. Holmes and a co-plaintiff, Lindsay McCreith of Newmarket, Ont., have been prevented from accessing timely treatment. An official in Attorney General Chris Bentley's office said there will be no comment on the case since it is before the courts. Ms. Holmes said Tuesday she also does not want to discuss the lawsuit to keep it from being “played out in the media.”
The ad, entitled “Shona's Story,” is sponsored by a conservative lobby group and has gained traction in the U.S. media and through Ms. Holmes' testimony before Congress.
Canadian physician Robert Ouellet said he is tired of hearing Canada's health care system being cast as the boogeyman in the vitriolic U.S. political debate over health care reform. Critics of U.S. President Barack Obama's reform drive have accused him of trying to adopt the Canadian system of public health care funding, which they say endangers patients with lengthy waits for medical care.
While Mr. Ouellet, president of the Canadian Medical Association, admits the country's system has its flaws, including excessive wait times for some medical services, he denies the accusation that it puts lives at risk. “To say that the system is a complete failure is not fair. When people go to the hospital they get good quality medical care. ... People are not dying on the street,” said Mr. Ouellet, who practices medicine in Quebec.
The Canadian health care system is “seen as something that separates us from the United States,” said Mike Luff, a spokesman for the National Union of Public and General Employees.
The U.S. attacks on the system are also “ironic“ because “Obama's plan doesn't come close to what the system is in Canada,” Mr. Luff said.
White House-backed bills now making their way through the U.S. House and Senate would overhaul rules for private health insurers, and offer them competition in the form of a government-run health program.
Mr. Ouellet says each country has something to learn from the other about health care, and should also take lessons from European countries that provide universal care while reducing both costs and wait times.
Dr. Brian Day, a past CMA president who has advocated for a bigger private-sector role in Canada, is also dismayed that Americans and Canadians focus on one another and ignore the rest of the world when discussing health care reform. “Clearly the Canadian system has problems, but the United States has more problems. ... Neither country is giving value for money.”
The Canadian government has stayed quiet on the U.S. debate, but it may have no choice but to speak out if the Canadian public grows more upset at what it sees as unfair U.S. attacks on a source of national pride, said Mario Canseco, of the polling firm Angus Reid Strategies. “Sooner or later someone from the federal government is going to have to stand up and say leave us out of this,” Mr. Canseco said.
Canadian politicians may be leery of involvement in the U.S. debate because they recognize if the Americans reform their system it could force Canada to address its own health care problems, Mr. Ouellet said.
“It's good to have someone like President Obama who wants to fix things.”
With files from Allan Dowd of Reuters, writing out of Vancouver
Ontario fires back against woman in ad
The Ontario government has filed a defence against a claim made by a Hamilton woman who's at the centre of the U.S. debate over health care.
Shona Holmes is featured in a TV campaign in which she claims she had to mortgage her home and travel to a U.S. clinic for brain surgery in 2005, due to a six-month wait for care in Canada. The ad, which began airing about two weeks ago in all 50 states, warns Americans to reject Canadian-style health care because it failed her.
In the ad, Ms. Holmes states that if she relied on her government, she'd be dead.
The filing — Ontario's first response to a lawsuit launched two years ago by Ms. Holmes — was filed by the attorney general two weeks ago.
The lawsuit says Ontario's monopoly over health services is unconstitutional and that long waiting lists cause patients to “endure significant financial, emotional and physical hardship to access such services in the United States.”
Ontario's defence, filed July 14, denies that Ms. Holmes and a co-plaintiff, Lindsay McCreith of Newmarket, Ont., have been prevented from accessing timely treatment. An official in Attorney General Chris Bentley's office said there will be no comment on the case since it is before the courts. Ms. Holmes said Tuesday she also does not want to discuss the lawsuit to keep it from being “played out in the media.”
The ad, entitled “Shona's Story,” is sponsored by a conservative lobby group and has gained traction in the U.S. media and through Ms. Holmes' testimony before Congress.
Canadian physician Robert Ouellet said he is tired of hearing Canada's health care system being cast as the boogeyman in the vitriolic U.S. political debate over health care reform. Critics of U.S. President Barack Obama's reform drive have accused him of trying to adopt the Canadian system of public health care funding, which they say endangers patients with lengthy waits for medical care.
While Mr. Ouellet, president of the Canadian Medical Association, admits the country's system has its flaws, including excessive wait times for some medical services, he denies the accusation that it puts lives at risk. “To say that the system is a complete failure is not fair. When people go to the hospital they get good quality medical care. ... People are not dying on the street,” said Mr. Ouellet, who practices medicine in Quebec.
The Canadian health care system is “seen as something that separates us from the United States,” said Mike Luff, a spokesman for the National Union of Public and General Employees.
The U.S. attacks on the system are also “ironic“ because “Obama's plan doesn't come close to what the system is in Canada,” Mr. Luff said.
White House-backed bills now making their way through the U.S. House and Senate would overhaul rules for private health insurers, and offer them competition in the form of a government-run health program.
Mr. Ouellet says each country has something to learn from the other about health care, and should also take lessons from European countries that provide universal care while reducing both costs and wait times.
Dr. Brian Day, a past CMA president who has advocated for a bigger private-sector role in Canada, is also dismayed that Americans and Canadians focus on one another and ignore the rest of the world when discussing health care reform. “Clearly the Canadian system has problems, but the United States has more problems. ... Neither country is giving value for money.”
The Canadian government has stayed quiet on the U.S. debate, but it may have no choice but to speak out if the Canadian public grows more upset at what it sees as unfair U.S. attacks on a source of national pride, said Mario Canseco, of the polling firm Angus Reid Strategies. “Sooner or later someone from the federal government is going to have to stand up and say leave us out of this,” Mr. Canseco said.
Canadian politicians may be leery of involvement in the U.S. debate because they recognize if the Americans reform their system it could force Canada to address its own health care problems, Mr. Ouellet said.
“It's good to have someone like President Obama who wants to fix things.”
With files from Allan Dowd of Reuters, writing out of Vancouver
Thursday, July 23, 2009
Shona Holmes - Part 4
Despite the reluctance of private media to publicly challenge Shona Holmes' veracity about her condition and prognosis, the Hamilton Spectator today ran a story about a woman with the same last name who is receiving a flurry of phone calls very critical of Shona Holmes' lending herself to the American right wing for propaganda purposes. The paper finally reveals (undoubtedly after much soul-searching) that Holmes had a cyst, not a tumour, removed at the Mayo Clinic. I have taken the liberty of reproducing the story below:
Couple getting abusive calls meant for Canadian health critic
July 23, 2009
Carmela Fragomeni
THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR
(Jul 23, 2009)
I am NOT Shona Holmes.
Waterdown resident Palmira Holmes wants angry callers to know she is not the same Holmes from Waterdown whose problems with Canadian health care have made her the U.S. poster girl for forces opposed to President Barack Obama's health-care plan.
Palmira Holmes has been inundated with phone calls from people trying to express their fury over Shona Holmes' decision to become the face of an aggressive American TV ad that slams Canadian-style health care.
Airing in 50 states as Shona's Story, the ad has Holmes explaining: "I survived a brain tumour, but if I had relied on my government for health care, I'd be dead."
Palmira Holmes says "it was like being bombarded" in the last few days as critics called constantly, thinking they'd reached Shona Holmes. Palmira's number is listed as S. Holmes for husband Stephen.
Callers have shouted, called her a liar and tried to shame her, but they are venting to the wrong person.
"We are not related. I don't even know her," said Palmira. "I wasn't even aware this was going on until people started calling me."
It isn't a surprise the other Holmes family is getting calls. Shona Holmes has ignited an issue of clear emotional importance.
Canadian media websites that have carried items on the ad have registered more than 1,000 critical online comments since Monday. A key area of discussion for critics is whether the facts about Holmes' case are accurately portrayed.
"It's unclear to me exactly what her condition was, and why she was put on the waiting list," said Kenneth Sherman, national chair of Democrats Abroad, an organization of American expats who live here but still vote in the U.S.
"No matter what her situation was, it's the worst example of the Canadian system, not the norm."
Holmes came to public attention in 2007 when she and another Ontario resident launched a lawsuit against the Ontario government, alleging undue wait times.
Her statement of claim, filed in the Ontario Superior Court, says Holmes began to get headaches, disturbed vision and other symptoms in March 2005, but was told she had to wait more than seven weeks for an MRI, over four months for a neurology consultation and over six months for a consultation with another specialist.
The MRI in May 2005 "showed an 8-9 mm tumour" and subsequent tests "confirmed a significant loss of vision in both eyes," the statement of claim says.
Concerned by the projected wait for treatment, Holmes had the symptoms evaluated at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, which identified a Rathke's cleft cyst, a fluid-filled sac that grows near the pituitary gland at the base of the brain.
The statement of claim says the Mayo Clinic urged Holmes "to have the cyst surgically removed immediately to avoid the risk of permanent blindness and death."
That operation took place in Arizona in August 2005. Her lawsuit against Ontario is on hold until a hearing this fall to try to recoup the $100,000 cost from OHIP.
Shona Holmes has said she feels so strongly about faults in the Canadian system that she had to act when contacted by the Americans For Prosperity Foundation, which opposes government involvement in health care. The group is among many lobbyists working to derail Obama's plan.
Sherman says Democrats Abroad -- which supports Obama -- is so incensed by misrepresentations of the Canadian system that it will run a counter campaign.
"Most of us members, like myself, have had insurance coverage in both systems, so we know the pitfalls as well as the benefits of both," Sherman said. "Americans here in Canada feel we have a unique tale to tell. We're going to share that with letters and phone calls to our congressmen and back to hometown newspapers ..."
Meanwhile, Palmira Holmes has had to warn her eight-year-old son not to answer the phone. Palmira said the family can't even change their number because they run their business from home.
"I just can't shut it off."
She has called Hamilton police to find out what she could do and is waiting to hear back.
"I'm just stressed and terrified."
cfragomeni@thespec.com
Couple getting abusive calls meant for Canadian health critic
July 23, 2009
Carmela Fragomeni
THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR
(Jul 23, 2009)
I am NOT Shona Holmes.
Waterdown resident Palmira Holmes wants angry callers to know she is not the same Holmes from Waterdown whose problems with Canadian health care have made her the U.S. poster girl for forces opposed to President Barack Obama's health-care plan.
Palmira Holmes has been inundated with phone calls from people trying to express their fury over Shona Holmes' decision to become the face of an aggressive American TV ad that slams Canadian-style health care.
Airing in 50 states as Shona's Story, the ad has Holmes explaining: "I survived a brain tumour, but if I had relied on my government for health care, I'd be dead."
Palmira Holmes says "it was like being bombarded" in the last few days as critics called constantly, thinking they'd reached Shona Holmes. Palmira's number is listed as S. Holmes for husband Stephen.
Callers have shouted, called her a liar and tried to shame her, but they are venting to the wrong person.
"We are not related. I don't even know her," said Palmira. "I wasn't even aware this was going on until people started calling me."
It isn't a surprise the other Holmes family is getting calls. Shona Holmes has ignited an issue of clear emotional importance.
Canadian media websites that have carried items on the ad have registered more than 1,000 critical online comments since Monday. A key area of discussion for critics is whether the facts about Holmes' case are accurately portrayed.
"It's unclear to me exactly what her condition was, and why she was put on the waiting list," said Kenneth Sherman, national chair of Democrats Abroad, an organization of American expats who live here but still vote in the U.S.
"No matter what her situation was, it's the worst example of the Canadian system, not the norm."
Holmes came to public attention in 2007 when she and another Ontario resident launched a lawsuit against the Ontario government, alleging undue wait times.
Her statement of claim, filed in the Ontario Superior Court, says Holmes began to get headaches, disturbed vision and other symptoms in March 2005, but was told she had to wait more than seven weeks for an MRI, over four months for a neurology consultation and over six months for a consultation with another specialist.
The MRI in May 2005 "showed an 8-9 mm tumour" and subsequent tests "confirmed a significant loss of vision in both eyes," the statement of claim says.
Concerned by the projected wait for treatment, Holmes had the symptoms evaluated at the Mayo Clinic in Arizona, which identified a Rathke's cleft cyst, a fluid-filled sac that grows near the pituitary gland at the base of the brain.
The statement of claim says the Mayo Clinic urged Holmes "to have the cyst surgically removed immediately to avoid the risk of permanent blindness and death."
That operation took place in Arizona in August 2005. Her lawsuit against Ontario is on hold until a hearing this fall to try to recoup the $100,000 cost from OHIP.
Shona Holmes has said she feels so strongly about faults in the Canadian system that she had to act when contacted by the Americans For Prosperity Foundation, which opposes government involvement in health care. The group is among many lobbyists working to derail Obama's plan.
Sherman says Democrats Abroad -- which supports Obama -- is so incensed by misrepresentations of the Canadian system that it will run a counter campaign.
"Most of us members, like myself, have had insurance coverage in both systems, so we know the pitfalls as well as the benefits of both," Sherman said. "Americans here in Canada feel we have a unique tale to tell. We're going to share that with letters and phone calls to our congressmen and back to hometown newspapers ..."
Meanwhile, Palmira Holmes has had to warn her eight-year-old son not to answer the phone. Palmira said the family can't even change their number because they run their business from home.
"I just can't shut it off."
She has called Hamilton police to find out what she could do and is waiting to hear back.
"I'm just stressed and terrified."
cfragomeni@thespec.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
