Refugee health advocates commended the court ruling on the Medevac bill because they found that it is humane and sensible.
The issue was established following the case of a 20-year-old Iraqi man who has been held in custody in Nauru for 6 years. The Iraqi refugee demanded to be transferred to Australia to cure a major depressive order subject to the Medevac laws.
Two doctors that tended to the man and signed his papers regarding his condition demand to be transferred after a remote assessment grounded upon the medical records from the previous treatment the man received while he was in custody. However, the Department of Home Affairs ruled that the records were not sufficient enough for the decision and told that the patients should be examined in person.
Home Affairs minister Peter Dutton told that the patients with such conditions are not required to give consent for the doctors to attend to their needs.
He affirmed also that he was not even aware of how doctors attend to the cases of the patients in the islands Manus and Nauru.
But the Federal Court ruled in contrary to the Department of Home Affairs stating that remote assessment is sufficiently abiding the provisions of the Medevac laws and should be appropriately applied for people who are detained offshore.
Justice Mordecai Bromberg told that whenever appropriate personal engagement would demand a personal consultation with the doctor, transitory individuals who are incapable of being present in any consultation would be excluded from the scope of the Medevac scheme.
The incumbent Chair of RACGP Specific Interests Refugee Health system, Dr. Kate Walker concurred with the court decision highlighting that in-person consultation and examinations are not amenable in offshore detention especially if the individuals are held in Nauru.
Nauruan Government also have their part in hindering refugees who demand care from Australian doctors. This prevents refugees from accessing the provision of the Medevac law that is beneficial to them.
According to Dr. Walker, this would clearly entail that their possible access to medical attention as provided by the legislation very little. The only way Australian doctors were able to provide medical attention to the refugees is through medical records.
Dr. Walker also added that remote medical assessment has been a common practice even within Australia.
The amenability of proper and appropriate diagnosis cannot be fully met in just relying on written records that are done in remote medical assessments.
It is a feasible procedure for patients to be properly attended by Australian doctors before proceeding with any treatment.
However, she still recognized the importance of someone’s medical record as a tool for determining the real condition of the patients.
Minister Dutton told that the reception of patients coming from different places offshore as provided by the Medevac law may provide opportunities for illegal migration and may even foster the said possibility.
He added that such ruling should be appealed and responded in High Court.
According to Minister Dutton, medical assistance has been provided but the permission of the two doctors to see the patient should not be even considered at all.
However, Kristina Kenneally, the current Shadow Home Affairs Minister provided that the legislation in itself is problematic because it seems to provide no effect on such.
She told that the panel is currently working with more applications than has been approved.
Previous cases regarding Medevac law shown that Medevac law, as it is applied by the government fails to meet its purpose. This is due to different cases that involved the transferring of hundreds of people that did not happen at all.
Dr. Walker told that the Medevac law’s purpose is to secure the provision of medical assistance for the benefit of people under the Australian government jurisdiction.
She added that it is the duty of persons like her to provide appropriate and sufficient care in places where there is an inadequacy of medical care.
Medevac law provides such thing at all and should be satisfied. It does not give the refugees a permanent residence within the country.
It is about the doctor’s assessment of urgency of the case that should be taken into deep consideration.
