There are other incidents too that would request that the patient foot their medical bills and amongst those would be a child involved in an accident when he or she had no seat belt on or an accident arising from a motor cycle where the driver had no helmet and safety wear. I suppose Government treats all these conditions as self-induced. Angry as Government comes across; does the savingram or directive has legal force and effect? In my considered view, the savingram or directive has no force at law at all. In my considered view, the savingram or directive detracts from the Constitution to the extent that the Constitution entrenches the right to equality, human dignity, equal protection of the law and liberty. The savingram, by implication imposes on the citizenry to live their lives in a particular way or risk the wrath of Government in denial of free medical treatment. It seeks to regulate how adults must live their lives or endure the consequences of their immorality in the eyes of Government.
The Constitution as the supreme law is immensely relevant when interrogating issues of healthcare and the provision thereof by Government to the extent that it guarantees that every person is entitled to equality before the law, equal protection of the law and human dignity and also to the extent to which it prohibits unfair discrimination. The Bill of Rights regulates the relationship between the individual and the state. It confers rights on individuals and imposes duties on the State. This has always been premised on the realisation that the State is far more powerful than individuals and individuals are generally considered vulnerable and worthy of protection from the State, which may violate their rights. Government must therefore refrain from any discriminatory practices towards drunkards and smokers and must view patients in the same way as it treat patients for other illnesses. This directive has no force at law at all and neither Cabinet nor the permanent secretary to the Ministry of Health may rule by decree. In any event, does the policy have retrospective effect for smokers? What of those that smoked before the policy was conceived and quit?
