Caitlin Salvino

“Pharmacare for All” except Women with Disabilities: Identifying Gaps in Canada’s Proposed National Pharmacare from an Intersectional Transnational Feminist Perspective

Introduction

“pharmacare for all” except women with disabilities: identifying gaps in canada’s proposed national pharmacare from an intersectional transnational feminist perspective. Analyze Canada's national pharmacare gaps from an intersectional transnational feminist perspective, revealing how the proposed plan fails women with disabilities and violates human rights.

Abstract

In 2019, following a year-long cross-Canada study, the Advisory Council on the Implementation of National Pharmacare released a report recommending the adoption of universal single-payer pharmacare. Two Liberal Party minority governments and a global pandemic later—the promise of universal national pharmacare has gone unfulfilled. In spite of the delay in its implementation, the Pharmacare Report is far from a dead letter and will form the basis of any future pharmacare design in Canada. In anticipation of the still-promised national pharmacare, this article analyzes the Pharmacare Report from an intersectional transnational feminist perspective. Despite engaging in an analysis of the differential gender and sex impacts of the pharmacare plan through its gender-based analysis plus (GBA+) approach, the report omitted any analysis of the unique pharmacare needs of women living with disabilities.I argue that the report’s failure to consider the impacts of pharmacare on women with disabilities is a fundamental omission that is contrary to transnational intersectional feminist approaches to equality and Canada’s international human rights obligations. My transnational feminist approach is two-fold. First, I apply transnational feminist theories on gender equality by Sophia Moreau and Shreya Atrey to identify gaps in the Pharmacare Report. Second, I argue that Canada’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities necessitate the implementation of pharmacare in a way that is sensitive to the unique access to medication barriers experienced by women living with disabilities. I conclude by partially rewriting the Pharmacare Report and suggesting potential interventions that can be made by treaty bodies to fill its identified gaps.

Review

This timely and incisive article critiques Canada’s proposed national pharmacare plan, specifically the 2019 Pharmacare Report, from a unique and powerful "intersectional transnational feminist perspective." The authors contend that despite the report's engagement with gender-based analysis (GBA+), it crucially overlooks the distinct and complex pharmacare needs of women with disabilities. This omission, the article argues, is not merely an oversight but a fundamental flaw that contradicts both established transnational feminist approaches to equality and Canada's international human rights obligations. The paper thus identifies a significant gap in a policy framework that purports to be universal, bringing to light the potential for exclusionary outcomes even in well-intentioned social programs. The strength of this analysis lies in its rigorous theoretical and normative framework. The authors skillfully employ transnational feminist theories of gender equality, drawing on the work of Sophia Moreau and Shreya Atrey, to systematically expose the limitations within the Pharmacare Report. Furthermore, the article grounds its critique in Canada’s international legal commitments under both the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), demonstrating how the proposed pharmacare design falls short of these obligations regarding access to medication for women with disabilities. By highlighting the unique access barriers faced by this demographic, the paper provides a granular and compelling case for policy reform. The practical contribution is further underscored by the stated intention to "partially rewrite the Pharmacare Report" and suggest interventions for treaty bodies, moving beyond critique to constructive policy development. Overall, this article makes an exceptional contribution to the fields of health policy, feminist legal studies, and disability rights advocacy. Its intersectional transnational feminist lens offers a fresh and necessary perspective on universal social programs, revealing how even seemingly comprehensive policies can inadvertently perpetuate systemic inequalities. The paper's robust argumentation, combined with its actionable recommendations for both policy revision and treaty body intervention, positions it as an invaluable resource for scholars, policymakers, and human rights practitioners. This is a critical and well-researched piece that not only identifies a significant policy flaw but also offers concrete pathways towards a truly inclusive and equitable pharmacare system. I strongly recommend its publication.

Full Text

Comments

You need to be logged in to post a comment.