The Tribune

EDITOR, The Tribune.

HEALTHCARE should never become a punishment for speaking the truth. Yet that is the troubling impression left by the case of dialysis patient Marvin Johnson, a legally blind Bahamian confined to a wheelchair, whose only apparent offence was having the courage to speak publicly about the standard conditions he experienced in the dialysis unit at Princess Margaret Hospital

Following treatment in the United States recently, Mr Johnson returned home in improved health, only to discover that he would no longer receive dialysis at the public hospital. Instead, he was assigned to a private dialysis facility at no cost to him. While this may appear to be a reasonable solution on paper, it fails one critical test—it is not accessible.

Unlike Princess Margaret Hospital, which is only one block from Mr Johnson’s home and accessible by his electric wheelchair, the new facility requires transportation three times each week. Initially, transportation was provided on two occasions before being discontinued. Today, Mr Johnson is expected to shoulder that burden himself.

His monthly pension is only six hundred dollars ($600), yet transportation alone costs approximately eighty dollars ($80) per dialysis session, or nearly one thousand dollars ($1,000) per month for three treatments each week. That is almost twice his monthly income. It is an impossible financial burden. The result is that a life-saving treatment offered “free of charge” becomes practically inaccessible.

This situation raises a fundamental question: Has meaningful access to healthcare truly been provided if the patient cannot physically or financially reach the treatment? A dialysis patient cannot simply skip appointments. Missing treatments is not an inconvenience---it is potentially a death sentence.

Let us be clear. Mr Johnson is not asking for special treatment. He is not refusing dialysis at the private facility. He simply cannot afford to get there. A life-saving treatment is of little value if the patient has no realistic means of reaching it.

This is not merely an administrative issue. It is a question of fairness, compassion and basic human dignity. If the Public Hospitals Authority has determined that Mr Johnson should receive dialysis elsewhere, then surely it also bears a responsibility to ensure that the treatment it has arranged is genuinely accessible. If transportation cannot be provided, then every reasonable effort should be made to allow him to receive treatment once again at Princess Margaret Hospital, where he can safely and independently attend his appointments.

Equally troubling is the perception that a patient who publicly criticised conditions at a public institution now finds himself excluded from that institution. Whether or not those events are connected, public confidence demands transparency. Citizens must never fear that speaking out about deficiencies in healthcare could jeopardise their access to essential medical services. A healthcare system committed to excellence welcomes constructive criticism because it leads to improvement.

Every dialysis session is a matter of life and death. Missing treatments is not simply inconvenient---it can have fatal consequences. No Bahamian should be forced to choose between paying for transportation and staying alive.

I therefore respectfully call upon the Public Hospitals Authority and the Ministry of Health to urgently review Mr Johnson’s circumstances and arrive at a compassionate, practical solution. Whether that means restoring his treatment at Princess Margaret Hospital or providing reliable transportation to the outsourced facility, the outcome should be guided by one principle: preserving life.

Healthcare is not simply about providing treatment. It is about ensuring that treatment can actually be reached.

The measure of a civilised society is found in how it cares for those who cannot care for themselves. I hope we choose compassion over bureaucracy and humanity over procedure.

DR VERONICA

McIVER

Health Advocate

Nassau,

July 18, 2026.