ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Baby denied treatment by NHS because family have overstayed(521 Posts)
Baby will be permanently disabled, losing use of one arm if she isn't treated soon. NHS trust are refusing treatment, because although the baby was born here her fathers work visa ran out several years ago. They are being supported by an uncle. I think that the child should be treated, she is innocent and I'm really saddened by the number of people posting comments by this article saying they agree with the NHS stance on this.
What do you think?
I agree with you, Goldmandra that this issue is close to some important ethical lines.
And that it was a discussion worth having, all the more so for having you be a part of it.
hides thread?is that because you've exhausted argument and concede you wouldn't know what to do faced with this dilemma
Yet another staggerngly ill-informed comment.
Not at all. I made no comment about the value of those things. I was just pointing out the reality of the decisions that were made. Deciding between offering children treatment and subsidising staff carparking (as happens where I live) isn't quite as emotive. All those things are valuable to somebody somewhere, including the staff parking, but so is the well-being of the child who kicked off the debate and the rule being applied to her is clearly in a reasonable number of people's opinions very close to a fine line between right and wrong.
This is now rapidly turning into a slanging match which is a shame because I think people should be free to debate dilemmas such as the one which prompted this thread but I have no desire to participate in hurling insults. It's a pity some people can't agree to disagree
I will remain hopeful that the majority of NHS managers do so in the light of moral codes alongside many other considerations and are willing to review those decisions/policies when there is a reason.
<hides thread and moves on>
as you said gold you dont have the answers,fortunately other staff are tasked with doing this
and going back to op that decision making needs policies,and criteria.inc eligibility
and if you heve eligibility you have exclusions,thats why its very hard
'It could be a decorating budget, staff car-parking, education programmes, free prescriptions or any of hundreds of other NHS budgets which didn't involve saving the lives of sick British children.'
Yet another staggerngly ill-informed comment. By 'decorating' you mean the painting and other maintainence of the care environment? So, it doesn't rot away and allow infections to flourish that would be then.
Staff car parking - actually in the Trust I work for staff pay - every day. Education programmes - what like education to keep the up to date and safe to do their job> We're not actually doing origami or holiday spanish you know. Free prescriptions - given to children and other vulnerable groups including the seriously ill who have multiple items per month. ' hundreds of other NHS budgets which didn't involve saving the lives of sick British children' - but they involve saving somebod's life. That's what the NHS does and truly people who don't work there have no clue. That's fine but don't pontificate about it. Only exposes your ignorance.
why are you so aghast at fundraising for the op gold? as you accept resources are finite
managing finite resources is exactly why there are funding panels, decision tools
measures to guide decision making for eligibility.^every case is a human story with impact^
What about diverting the £15M used for gagging into caring for this child and others.
Head of the health service, Sir David Nicholson, has admitted that a new ban on the silencing agreements will also be applied retrospectively, allowing whistleblowers who were suppressed for years to reveal the truth.
The embattled NHS boss yesterday was questioned by MPs about why £15million was handed over to 400 departing doctors, nurses and managers in an attempt to ensure their silence.
He confirmed that 44 former members of staff had signed confidentiality agreements this year at a cost of £1.3million, even though the clauses are no longer valid.
No NorthernLurker not at all but I am suggesting that sometimes policies should be reviewed periodically or when there is good reason.
If you had to choose between surgery for this child, to prevent disability or life saving surgery for another child, which would you choose?
I don't know how I'd choose between two children of immigrant families both victims of circumstance, both needing my charitable donation to get treatment they needed to avoid disability or death.
That's the only one I am likely to ever have to make. Which would you choose? The most attractive one? The least attractive one to make it fairer?
If the policy was reviewed and changed funding in another area of the NHS would possibly be reduced. It could be a decorating budget, staff car-parking, education programmes, free prescriptions or any of hundreds of other NHS budgets which didn't involve saving the lives of sick British children.
I completely understand that resources are limited. That is why we need policies in the first place.
Times change. New situations come to light. I believe that sometimes we should reflect on decisions and consider whether it would be right to change them and that this is one of those times.
I know what I believe and why and it feels right to me. You clearly don't believe what I believe and that's OK
SDRG I've asked that repeatedly. Not got an answer.
Goldmandra -'I believe that we should always be willing to review NHS (and other) policies.' are you seriously suggesting that every applicant for NHS care ,that the law does not allow them to receive, should have their case considered on an individual basis - to decide if they're worthy of free treatment? There have been some weird and wonderful suggestion on this thread already but if that is what you mean - wow. Just wow. Is all I can say. And people think the NHS wastes money now........
But the bottom line is at treating this child will mean that the funds spent on her will not be available to be spent on another, possibly sicker child. If you had to choose between surgery for this child, to prevent disability or life saving surgery for another child, which would you choose?
There is no need to be so patronising. I am perfectly capable of understanding the principles at stake. A view which differs from yours can still be valid
I believe that we should always be willing to review NHS (and other) policies. You believe we should not.
Let's agree to disagree?
Flatbread - if you could afford to fund either the operation this baby needs, in order not to lose function in one arm, or life saving surgery for a child like Trazzle's son, which would you choose?
Sadly these funding decisions do have to be made, and eligibility is one of the criteria used. I wish it were not so, and I wish that this baby was getting the treatment she needs, but resources are finite.
There are other ways this child could get the operation - as others have said her parents and community could fundraiser, and I am sure many people would be very generous.
You seem to be somewhat unable to grasp the principe of managing finite resources gold
There is a definition of eligibility,if it changes on case by case basis there no definitives
You're fond of the wee faces ti express displeasure no workable solution though.and oh just give her the op isn't an answer.it's solution to that defined case but not the many others.given resources are finite
I do think the supporters or community could fundraise,its legitimate plenty other parents and organizations have fundraised for health
There been sponsorship activity on mn for health
No one compelled to give,but if one can afford and wants t,o it is a solution
<shakes hands and bows out>
I think the title of the service says it all: NATIONAL health service not INTERNATIONAL health service.
That's about the practical realities of where the service stops.
I think we should just agree to differ, don't you?
"Someone has to decide where to draw the line and that decision should never be set in stone."
But it needs to be. Otherwise how can it be applied fairly? What criteria would make my DS eligible for life-saving treatment while someone else's child with the same condition isn't?
The NHS has never professed to be always available for everything. I have had to come to terms with the fact that my DS may not be able to access life-saving treatment on the NHS because there isn't money available...
'The finite nature of resources is no excuse for not reviewing decisions and applying a moral code. I expect that the people deciding which drugs are available to treat which conditions have applied a moral code. If this is not the case perhaps they need to be reviewed too.'
Nonsense! The finite nature of resources is EVERY reason. It's not an excuse, it's the cause.
Drug availability and applicability in the NHS is determined by clinical need and evidence. Not by 'morals'.
The finite nature of resources is no excuse for not reviewing decisions and applying a moral code. I expect that the people deciding which drugs are available to treat which conditions have applied a moral code. If this is not the case perhaps they need to be reviewed too.
I will never agree to anything that could cost the health or even life or someone who is actually a citizen of this country.
If we follow this logic all aid for any nation in the world should be stopped immediately and every penny ploughed into the NHS. Someone has to decide where to draw the line and that decision should never be set in stone.
Of course anyone who wishes to donate or fundraise to pay for this op should feel completely free to do so
Nothing anyone has said here is an argument against reviewing this policy in the light of the fact that this child is caught up in a situation not of her own making so perhaps this is the time for me to bow out.
OP, thank you for starting an interesting debate which has helped me to think through my own views in the light of those of others.
Exactly. I will never agree to anything that could cost the health or even life or someone who is actually a citizen of this country.
Funding non essential treatment of illegal immigrants will do that. What I want to know if whether the NHS will be making the effort to recoup the money they have already spent on potentially 3 births and physio etc.
also what about our own citizens who have been denied life saving cancer treatment because they live in the wrong postcode even though they have paid N.I. for Donkey's years. Where is the morality in that.
The dad was selfish in his actions, coming here illegally and pretending to be something he was not (maybe not the wife) having 3 kids etc and not making any financial contribution. Now they need our help and may have to finance it themselves and the game is up.
There is existing precedents to fundraise for health,many people do this
There's precedent for Charities fundraising for communities scotcare
There's no reason people can't donate for the op if they wish to. There is no need for a wee face it's a legitimate suggestion given nhs funding is not available
Nhs and social care have finite resources and manage demands in excess of finance
To negate this demanding task staff apply protocols,clinical reasoning and yes consider finances
This impacts upon patients,caters and families.there is eligibility for all welfare benefit and service in order to manage finite finance and huge demand
Just don't get how this could be our responsibility? They have citizenship of another country, they do not pay tax or NI so they have been keeping all the money they have without any contribution to society, and it has been enough to have 3 children. So I see that they have the option to either return to their country and ask for help there or pay for it themselves.
Can you imagine if the NHS pays for this? Then 2 months down the line after the floodgates have opened it comes out there is a new cancer drug but it's too expensive so people will either self fund or die. Do you think we'll all be saying then 'but it was only one child'?! It may start with one, but it will never end with one.
We do have the right to protect our own interests. It might not give the warm, fuzzy endings some people want, but it is what would make the majority if UK citizens happy.
Join the discussion
Please login first.