Case #001 - Patient Ombudsman

Have you ever been treated like you were irrational simply for raising concerns at a hospital?

When you turn to a Patient Ombudsman, you expect your concerns to be reviewed on their substance — not brushed aside through process or technicalities. You expect clear reasons that explain why a decision was made.

But what happens when the review focuses on closing the file instead of examining the issue? When conclusions are delivered without explanation, and institutional responses are accepted without scrutiny?

The individual responsible for creating the confusion is left feeling further entitled, because their actions are neither acknowledged nor corrected, and are instead implicitly validated—allowing the problem to persist and worsen.

The public has grown accustomed to this behaviour from governing bodies. Even highly respected lawyers are often reluctant to challenge it — not because the issues lack merit, but because cutting through government inertia feels impossible.

When oversight defers instead of scrutinizes, trust erodes. Advocacy feels futile. Harm goes unexamined.

Accountability isn’t about blame. It’s about transparency, proportionality, and learning.

If patient oversight cannot do that, then it is not serving the public and instead undermines the very purpose for which these bodies were created.