Baby denied treatment by NHS because family have overstayed

(521 Posts)
wonderstuff Thu 14-Mar-13 22:12:30

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/03/13/erbs-palsy-baby-sanika-ahmed-denied-treatment-_n_2866288.html

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?

tribpot Thu 14-Mar-13 22:19:29

To be completely accurate, the parents claim the baby has only a month before a delay in treatment would result in her being paralysed. Obviously the hospital are not able to confirm or deny the accuracy of that.

But assuming it is true, the problem for the hospital is that they will have to absorb the costs themselves if the baby does not qualify for free treatment. I don't think it is reasonable for them to do so, and funding should be found whilst the parents' legal status is clarified. But ultimately a line does have to be drawn between those who do and those who don't qualify for NHS treatment, as with any other entitlement.

nancy75 Thu 14-Mar-13 22:23:52

A saf story and it is easy to argue for both sides, no normal person wants a child to suffer unnecessarily, however the nhs does not have a never ending amount of money.
As the parents visa ran out in 2009 I wonder if they were charged for the mother giving birth in an nhs hospital?

My understanding is that people not entitled to be here are entitled to emergency treatment only, which this is clearly not. It is sad for the child, but the right decision I think. Where do you stop?

paintyourbox Thu 14-Mar-13 22:38:49

Why did it take the parents 3 months to respond to the hospitals request regarding their immigration status?

Surely they knew they were illegal and could have sorted this out a long time ago? Their daughter is going to suffer because of their inactivity, not because of our NHS.

These policies exist to prevent an influx of so called "health tourists". People coming to this country just to recieve medical treatment for free.

scaevola Thu 14-Mar-13 22:41:19

The BBC report on this says that the condition is the result of birth injury.

If that is true, then NHS should indeed be fixing it, because IIRC birth is counted as a medical emergency and therefore she was entitled to the delivery on NHS regardless of immigration status. And if something went wrong during the birth, then there should surely be an obligation to fix as far as possible the conditions that arose. That might mean subsequent NHS treatment, or a compensation payout that would allow private treatment.

There is no mention of other litigation following birth trauma.

So I am rather left wondering if part of this story is missing.

wonderstuff Thu 14-Mar-13 22:43:23

Wow. I would find the money. I believe I am damn lucky to have been born to the privilidge that is being a Western European, I did nothing to deserve it, it is luck. If I was so unlucky as to be in the position this family is in I would hope others would show me compassion. If I was the decision maker and I decided a child should be permanently disabled, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror. What sort of life awaits a disabled person in Bangladesh do you think?

You aren't entitled to 'emergency' treatment free of charge. The entitlement is to A&E care only. It's clear that the hospital are not refusing treatment. They're refusing free treatment by telling the parents there will be a bill. Rightly so. These people are not entitled to live here nor to benefit from the NHS. The child's situation is the responsibility of the parents not the hospital.

nancy75 Thu 14-Mar-13 22:55:53

Unless premature I cant see how child birth would be classed as emergency anyway, it's not an unexpected event at the end of a pregnancy

EverythingsBeachy Thu 14-Mar-13 22:59:18

Why would you automatically assume that anything going wrong in child birth would automatically result in a compensation claim? Things to wrong through no ones fault sometimes

Mrsdavidcaruso Thu 14-Mar-13 23:33:34

I have already posted on the other AIBU thread.

The NHS is not there for all the world to use for free, other countries charge both its citizens and tourists for health care in the USA if you have no money or insurance you don't get treated.

It is also rather telling that having totally flouted the laws of this country by over staying the parents are trying to use the law to get the operation, I am assuming the law firm they are using is doing the work for free otherwise one would ask why are the parents spending money on lawyers if they cant afford to pay for the treatment.

My own 8 month old DD died as a direct result of NHS cuts when they closed our A&E department and she died because we couldn't get treatment in time.
I am helping raising funds for another UK child to go to the USA for treatment as our NHS wont fund the operation she needs, yet illegal immigrants believe they have the right to have free treatment.

Of course its emotive when its a child, but the situation she is in is due to the parents not getting their immigration status sorted out and they, not UK citizens or the UK health service must bear the responsibility.

WizardofOs Thu 14-Mar-13 23:40:40

Erbs palsy can be caused during birth by use of instruments or perhaps having to manipulate the baby during the birth. Usually it is just one of the risks of using instruments but then generally there is not much of an option at that point.

scaevola Fri 15-Mar-13 09:25:57

I made the assumption that things may have gone culpable wrong because the BBC reported it in terms of "birth injury" rather than a more neutral phrase about complications.

In this case, it may or may not lead to a compensation claim: as I posted, there is nothing else in the article about this. But it is prima faciae a possibility here.

And the entitlement for free to all-comers isn't A&E only: childbirth is also included.

ubik Fri 15-Mar-13 09:30:10

But emergency care such as this is not free if you are not a UK resident. I think even children airlifted from some war torn country for emergency medical care by the NHS usually have some sort of benefactor paying.

scaevola Fri 15-Mar-13 09:31:45

Indeed they do.

But parturition is covered.

ubik Fri 15-Mar-13 09:37:07

But this is not accident nor emergency. But the baby is born!

"We understand that Mr and Mrs Ahmed are attending an appeal hearing next month that will rule on their legal right to remain in the UK. We are happy to see Sanika as an outpatient pending the results of this appeal."

This seems fair enough - the hospital are following guidelines.

ubik Fri 15-Mar-13 09:37:35

sorry too many buts

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 09:38:50

And yet I know a number of people who are UK nationals who have had to raise funds to purchase life-saving treatment abroad that is not available on the NHS - not just losing movement in the arm, but their child's lives to cancer.

Tbh, given that we are talking about denying a child healthcare on the basis of the immigration status of their parents, the NHS is probably in breech of the UN convention on the rights of the child, to which the uk is a signatory. Several of the articles mention that states must ensure children's rights to healthy development, health care and disability support to lead a full and healthy life. These rights are supposed to be the minimum that the uk signed up to.

ReallyTired Fri 15-Mar-13 09:48:52

Where do you draw the line? It is sad, but the NHS is not a world health service. I hope that some charity pays for the treatment that Sanika needs.

Sanika's plight might well be sad, but it is no worse than some random baby with Erbs palsy in another third world country. I would rather that British tax payers money goes on overseas aid to help countries set up their own health services.

Januarymadness Fri 15-Mar-13 09:49:21

Erbs Palsy is generally a result of a shoulder dystocia at birth. There needs to be no medical failure for this to occur. It is something that often just is.

I do not know enough about the case to comment specifically. However as dd had a shoulder dystocia I would say it is a a marvel of nhs care that the child is alive. So dont jump to bash the nhs.

SolomanDaisy Fri 15-Mar-13 09:50:18

I don't think childbirth is automatically free. I am a UK citizen living abroad and would have to pay to give birth in the UK.

Given the urgency I'd have thought in this case they should treat the child then argue about the costs.

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 09:51:49

Are they denying her care orfree care?

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 15-Mar-13 09:51:54

Is that for every child in the UN, or is each country that signed taking responsibility for its own citizens?

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 15-Mar-13 09:52:36

Sorry, that was to Arbitrary.

Corygal Fri 15-Mar-13 09:53:18

Why can't the parents or the uncle pay the bill? It won't be huge. It's standard for native Brits to struggle to go private when the NHS does the same to them.

I don't get the "problem" except as the parents not wanting to pay medical costs for their kid.

The child hasn't come here for medical treatment. She was born in this country and cannot get necessary medical treatment simply because of her parents' immigration status. The child has done nothing wrong.

The UNCRC doesn't say that States only have responsibilities to their own citizens. By signing the convention the UK agreed to assure these rights for every child in the UK. They also signed up to help governments in poorer countries make provisions to ensure the rights of children living in those countries.

Note that every child in the uk is not the same as every child who is a uk citizen. The uk immigration system has allowed this family (and the child) to remain in the country.

Mrsdavidcaruso Fri 15-Mar-13 10:01:07

Arbitary Has the parents own country signed the UN convention, if so perhaps they could pay our NHS for the operation, as the parents and the child are still their citizens not ours.

Branleuse Fri 15-Mar-13 10:03:56

they are denying her free care, not care. They are not entitled

Mrsdavidcaruso Fri 15-Mar-13 10:04:36

Arbitary - Would the parents have actually owned up to being illegal immigrants if they hadn't had to prove their status to the NHS

I suspect its not a case of the immigration systems 'allowing' them to stay but a case of the parents not declaring their status until they had to

The whole point of the UNCRC is that all the signatories (every country except the USA and Somalia) have agreed to make special provision for children. I'm sure the bean counters will find some way to argue that the money is more important that the child's rights to healthcare, but it really saddens me to see how much the dominant rhetoric of austerity and viewing the child as the private property of it's (nuclear) family affects how people respond to a case like this,

Well, the uk immigration system has let them stay. It might not have intended for them to stay, but it hasn't deported them. And, since they've been presenting at hospital and such like, it doesn't look like they've 'hiding'.

The sad fact here is that a child is not getting necessary healthcare and all anyone seems to care about it who pays for it!

ParsingFancy Fri 15-Mar-13 10:08:44

"We're not denying her care, just denying her free care," is the line used by the US system so no one has to take responsibility.

The insurance companies say, "We're not denying care, just denying payment."
And the hospitals say, "We're not denying care, just denying free care."

So no guilt. And no treatment.

If we're going to go this route, we should at least have the guts to admit that what we're actually doing is denying care.

ReallyTired Fri 15-Mar-13 10:11:23

"The uk immigration system has allowed this family (and the child) to remain in the country. "

NO !!!

The family have overstayed their visa. They are illegal immigrants. If the govenant pays for this child to have treatment then it sets a present. It means that any illegal immigrant can turn up, take the piss and demand free health care.

"The child has done nothing wrong. "

Children in developing countries with medical conditions have done nothing wrong. Not every child in the world is entitled to free health care at the expense of the UK tax payer.

What does take the piss is that the family will probably get legal aid which amounts to more than the cost of the operation. I feel that the parents should approach charities for help with the costs of the operation.

givemeaclue Fri 15-Mar-13 10:12:37

They are seeing her as an outpatient. For inpatients there is a fee. Can't see problem?

DontmindifIdo Fri 15-Mar-13 10:16:51

Is childbirth free on the NHS if you aren't entitled to NHS treatment? when I had DS I was living in a part of south london with a large immigrate community, I had to provide proof to the hospital I was been booked into that I was entitled to NHS treatment prior to the birth - I believe I took it along when I went for my 12 week scan.

She wasn't entitled to scans and routine treatments, although I suppose if you present in labour they'll treat you first and work out later if you're entitled. I understand some hospitals are better at recovering the costs than others.

This isn't an emergancy, the hosptial won't get funding. The family shouldn't have been here by the time the mother got pregnant, let alone had the baby. There's a lot to be said for using this as a reason why it's better to remove people once their work permits expire rather than leave it until they've been living here illegally for several years and there's now a crisis in the family.

The uk government could have taken steps to remove these 'illegal immigrants' at any point in the last 6 years. They don't seem to have done so.

It's very easy to wail about 'illegal immigrants' etc.

In signing the UNCRC, the UK agreed to support other countries in ensuring the rights of the children who live within their borders. So the DFID does provide support with healthcare, etc. The convention doesn't compel them to ensure healthcare provision for all children in the world themselves, but in signing it the government did agree to ensure healthcare provision rights for all children living in the UK.

But, of course, this is all about the money. It doesn't matter about the people involved. Or the fact that we are talking about a very young child. Clearly she needs to be punished for her parents' actions,

JaquelineHyde Fri 15-Mar-13 10:25:25

The child in question is BRITISH by birth

Surely we have no right to deny a British citizen who would have a British birth certificate treatment on the NHS.

This child will be entitled to a British Passport like anyone else born here but because her parents are foreigners who have over stayed she is being denied free treatment like every other British born child.

FYI the parents will also not be allowed to claim a single penny in child benefit or tax credits etc for this child despite the child being a British born citizen. I suspect that makes some of you feel all warm and fuzzy inside as well! hmm angry

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 15-Mar-13 10:30:02

I think the child should be treated, as it is a time-sensitive issue.
However, she isn't going to be a British citizen as she is not the child of British citizens, nor has she or they been granted indefinite leave to stay.
She'll have to apply.

Pleasesleep Fri 15-Mar-13 10:30:30

I'm pretty left wing but I don't see that they can treat the child for free. She's not entitled to free care as she isn't a UK citizen. It's fairly unreasonable for the parents to expect it especially as they are here illegally.

I don't think the UN convention applies because they are here illegally? I'm not an expert but with things like benefits you're not entitled unless you are a uk national, that could similarly affect the rights of the child I.e. no food etc. and there has never been a legal challenge. I would have thought it would come up before now if it did contravene the UN. I think the risk is it sets a precedent for future cases, ultimately we can't fund everyone. That's terribly sad and unfair but we just can't. We have to prioritise, and we have chosen to prioritise our own citizens. Argue against that priority if you like, but you should then be fully aware of the consequences that would bring.

I don't think the child is a uk citizen. Being born here does not make you a citizen.

But, the child is a child. And the UK has responsibilities towards that child. It doesn't make any difference who her parents are or what they've done. This vulnerable, disabled child lives in the UK (through no fault of her own) and requires medical help.

But people would rather gnash their teeth about her parents being illegal immigrants.

Goldmandra Fri 15-Mar-13 10:33:50

In my view the authorities are allowing her parents to remain in this country while certain processes are under way. If they should be sent back, this should happen now. If there is a reason originating from UK policies to delay this, the UK should ensure the child's welfare in the meantime.

If the family was returned to their home country the welfare of the child becomes the responsibility of that government alongside all of the other children resident there. Sadly, that probably (but by no means certainly) means that this operation would not be available to her.

While she is present in this country through no fault of her own I feel that she is entitled to the same care and support as any other child. She should also be entitled to an education, nutrition, social services intervention, etc.

Were her family to be given leave to remain she would then be entitled to costly treatment and support to help reduce the impact of the disability on her future life. Giving her the operation on the NHS could save system a considerable amount of money.

Pleasesleep Fri 15-Mar-13 10:33:55
ReallyTired Fri 15-Mar-13 10:34:19

Being born in Britain does not automatically entitle you to a British passport.

Her parents were not settled in the UK and neither of them have British citizenship.
The baby is not entitled to british citizenship. Sanika was only born in the UK because her parents broke the law and were here illegally.

"FYI the parents will also not be allowed to claim a single penny in child benefit or tax credits etc for this child despite the child being a British born citizen. I suspect that makes some of you feel all warm and fuzzy inside as well!"

Its not OUR problem. What about other BRITISH people who need treatment on the NHS. Hard decisions have to be made as the NHS does not have a money tree.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 10:36:03

Oh Jacqueline you absolutely do NOT get British Cotizenship by having been born here!

Why can't her parents pay? I would assume that they have little or no money.

Antenatal care is definitely not free on the NHS. I don't believe that childbirth is either. I'm fairly sure I know someone who has been billed for giving birth.

The UNCRC applies to all children, regardless of immigration status (although there are special provisions within it for refugee children). It's about the universal rights of children.

The child can have the medical help but her parents will need to pay for it - just as they would in their own country.
I agree this is a very difficult and sad situation but the NHS is not a world-wide system for healthcare provision and it is very far from a bottomless pit. The pot of money is the same as provides free contraception for all of us, antenatal care, transplant surgery, physiotherapy and some fertility investigations and treatment to name but a few. It is impossible for the NHS to meet every need. We can't do it. i know this is going to sound brutal but the child needs life enhancing treatment, not life saving.

JaquelineHyde Fri 15-Mar-13 10:40:26

Apologies if I got that wrong.

So right if she's not British then lets leave her to rot hmm

Wow what a lot of heartless bastards there are in this world.

WidowWadman Fri 15-Mar-13 10:41:00

NHS entitlement has nothing to do with citizenship - just residency. I'm not a citizen, but am a resident, who's entitled to NHS care.

Unfortunately the abilities of governments in their abilities to make provisions for these rights will differ. Which is why there's stuff in there about (e.g.) how primary education (as a minimum) should be free and richer states should help other states to ensure this. The uk can provide healthcare and education to all children living within it's borders.

givemeaclue Fri 15-Mar-13 10:44:27

She isn't being left to rot! She is being seen by the nhs as an outpatient!

Goldmandra Fri 15-Mar-13 10:45:17

Seeing her isn't treating her!

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 15-Mar-13 10:46:43

Heartless?
Where would you like to see funds redirected from within the NHS to pay for cases like this, Jacqueline?
IVF? Obesity/smoking initiatives? Where would you take the money from to enable all children resident, legally or not, to get free health care for whatever they need?

OneLittleToddleTerror Fri 15-Mar-13 10:49:25

Even UK citizens have to pay for NHS treatment. My PIL are born and bred English for as many generations as you can look back. They migrated to NZ some 30 years ago. When they were here visiting last year, MIL paid to see our GP despite being British (They aren't naturalised kiwis btw. Their only nationality is British).

The dad's visa ran out in 2009. The child is born after 2009. They are overstayers. I don't see a reason why NHS has to give them free treatment.

To put myself in their shoes, I'd have gone home.

ReallyTired Fri 15-Mar-13 11:00:01

The family have overstayed long enough. They should be put in handcuffs and put on the first plane back home tonight. It is unfair on honest immigrants to allow them to stay.

WidowWadman Fri 15-Mar-13 11:00:13

Nebulousboojum

NHS entitlement is there for all UK residents. Citizenship is not neccessary for entitlement to treatment. Do you want to change that?

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 15-Mar-13 11:02:15

Not at all, what gave you that impression confused

soapnuts Fri 15-Mar-13 11:03:47

childbirth is not free if you're not resident in the uk - i'm a uk citizen but not resident and i had to pay. having said that it was about a 10th of theprice it would have cost me for equivalent care elsewhere albeit without the swanky private room - pretty good value for money if you ask me. they've got really hot on chasing it recently and why shouldn't they? where else in the world would this even be a question because where else has healthcare free at the point of delivery?

sad as it is for the child it would set a dangerous precedent and nhs just cant afford it.

thekidsrule Fri 15-Mar-13 11:03:48

this has been on our local news

what i dont get and probably flamed is that the family have two other young children either twins or about 2-3yrs old

his visa ran out in 2009 but they clearly have had 3 children in that time,that is irresponsible in my view when they have no legal right to be in this country

OneLittleToddleTerror Fri 15-Mar-13 11:13:41

@ReallyTired It is unfair on honest immigrants to allow them to stay.

Exactly. There are many honest immigrants who will never overstay. It's a worry in our minds and that's why DH and I chose to move here when we graduated instead of the US. (DH moved to NZ with his parents when he was a wee boy). But US is much better for PhDs in tech. Most of the PhDs we graduated with are in the US now. And strangely most married US citizens grin.

Yes but you're still talking about the parents and their choices/actions. The children haven't chosen to overstay a visa; they've had no choice in the matter. Most people seem quite happy to punish children for their parents actions.

The better question to ask is: why the parents have been able to stay here and have multiple children given that their visas are no longer valid? There are plenty of provisions in uk law to remove people who have no right to remain in the country. Given the visas ran out in 2009, it seems that the ukba haven't been doing their job properly. The ukba seem to have 'allowed' them to stay (in the sense that they haven't made use of their powers to remove them).

Mrsdavidcaruso Fri 15-Mar-13 11:24:02

Arbitary - where was the UNCRC when my Baby died? where was the healthcare provision when the NHS closed my local A&E, What about children of UK citizens who are denied treatment on the NHS due to post code lottery and other funding issues are they not covered by the UNCRC?

This is how I see it.

If the parents had gone on TV and said, we are illegal immigrants and we cant get free NHS care please help us get the money, my purse would have been open and I would have looked at ways to help them raise the money, a lot of UK citizens would have done the same.

But no, we are being asked to support people who have shown they have no respect for the law by over staying, but who now want to use our laws to get them free treatment that they are NOT entitled to.

ReallyTired Fri 15-Mar-13 11:25:51

"Given the visas ran out in 2009, it seems that the ukba haven't been doing their job properly. The ukba seem to have 'allowed' them to stay (in the sense that they haven't made use of their powers to remove them). "

Yes, the UKBA has not done their job properly, however the family have taken advantage and broken the law. Frankly this family should be deported ASAP.

There are heart breaking cases of children suffering all round the world. Why is Sanika more deserving than other children? I feel that more good can be done by over seas aid going to support programmes like

flying eye hospital

This little boy in syria is every bit as deserving as Sanika.

drainpipes for limbs

Sometimes you have to be cold and unemotional to help as many people as possible. Otherwise you get a situaiton where the cute and highly photogenic baby girl gets more help than the baby boy with a major facial disfigurement.

As I have said previously, this family should be sent home ASAP and not get ANY further NHS treatment.

Goldmandra Fri 15-Mar-13 11:35:47

As I have said previously, this family should be sent home ASAP and not get ANY further NHS treatment.

The system in the UK, for whatever reason, has not yet reached the point where the family is being removed from the country. The UK is allowing them to remain. Therefore the UK should take responsibility for the welfare of the child.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 13:37:17

Goldmandra but should this family not have taken responsibility for itself and left of their own accord before the visa expired?

It is rare that there is a good reason for overstaying. In fact, I can't think of one. If their argument is that they fear persecution in Bangladesh then they should have claimed asylum as soon as that became apparent which, if it were a reason for overstaying, would have been in 2009 and would have been done and dusted by now.

If it were a lack of resources, there are organisations who will organise returns.

Yes, the Government needs to get better at removing those who are here illegally, but should this family then be absolved of all responsibility? The parents made a choice to overstay. They chose to break the law.

Goldmandra Fri 15-Mar-13 14:05:18

Goldmandra but should this family not have taken responsibility for itself and left of their own accord before the visa expired?

Absolutely!

However they didn't. Our system is allowing them to remain here for now and the child has no say in where she is. She is here, her injury occurred here and should be treated equally to all other children who are here.

AThingInYourLife Fri 15-Mar-13 14:21:04

I'm torn on this but most persuaded by Northern.

This family isn't entitled to free treatment.

Who is to lose out to provide it?

I assume this treatment isn't available in Bangladesh?

ThePathanKhansAmnesiac Fri 15-Mar-13 14:37:38

Treat her.Just that.

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 15:00:46

Heartless? Heartless is that proton-beam therapy won't be available here until 2017, a treatment that has been saving the lives of children with cancer. The holdup is expense. So families here have to raise the money themselves or petition to get it paid for, for British children, or their child dies.

Overstayers are criminals. Their actions make it more and more difficult for any honest immigrants and now, even students. No one 'let' them stay therefore the NHS should pay for them. They broke the law! Now they want treatment for free, too.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 15:38:55

Soupy I would imagine that that question is at the basis of their immigration appeal.

But if its not life-saving treatment, that question is, in the eyes of the law, basically irrelevant. She would have to be at imminent risk of death on return to Bangladesh to be allowed to stay here on the basis of ill health.

Gold the difficulty is where do you draw the line then? At 16? At 18? And then people with sick children from impoverished countries will find the means to get here and get world-class free treatment for their child. Of course that is something that should be available to everyone on the planet, but it would completely break the NHS.

And yes, that IS what would happen. I have lost count of the number of women I have had to tell that their baby is not British after they arrived here heavily pregnant, believing that that would be the case.

I note that they can afford to engage the services of a solicitor for a judicial review. Are those free?

I also think it largely irrelevant whether the treatment is available in Bangladesh TBH. The NHS aren't refusing to treat her, they are refusing to do it free of charge. I can't imagine they have any grounds to use their daughters health as the basis for their appeal to stay given they should have left well before she was even conceived.

" wonderstuff

Wow. I would find the money...If I was the decision maker and I decided a child should be permanently disabled, I wouldn't be able to look at myself in the mirror."

Can you find the money then?

gimmeanaxe Fri 15-Mar-13 15:53:26

I dont care what her parents have done. She is here. She is suffering. she could be left permanently disabled, a fate I'd wish on no child whether in the UK or in Bangladesh. She should be treated. There should be compassion.

There will be other children in Bangladesh who are suffering. Should the NHS treat them?

BigSpork Fri 15-Mar-13 15:58:45

Immigration procedures can take a while - the parents were likely hoping to be able to hand over proper paperwork but, as has been on the news repeatedly lately, the asylum and immigration systems have a giant backlog (while continuing to put their prices up for the latter at least) so it has taken longer than they have expected. Asylum cases going back ten years are still in process, so there is no guarantee those would be "done and dusted" if that was their route in 2009 and as the article says, they are already in one of the systems and are waiting on a hearing. You can't speed the immigration system up. It is very possible they put in paperwork back then and it is only now is being heard.

As an "honest immigrant", I don't see these people affecting me at all. All the changes to immigration law have been over ideology rather than situations like this -- hence why both parts of a couple must now has to be 21 to bring a spouse over and none of the people caught out by it are from the groups they said they were targeting but have caught out many from Canada and the States and similar, but the change fit their ideology.

I suspect, do to being unable to pay tens of thousands of pounds for the procedures, they were advised to go to the media with it for help but haven't been able to do a very good job of it. It must be hard to scramble a public appeal with a very ill child and immigration at the same time, and may not be able to negotiate a payment plan with the hospital that might make it easier to do so and raise the funds over time as has been done before.

Blu Fri 15-Mar-13 16:01:42

My understanding was that the NHS is available to people who live and / or work in the UK.

So if the family overstayed the visa, but have continued to work, pay taxes, why wouldn't their child be eligible for treatment? They have been working without a visa, but they have still been working. I assume - because they wouldn't have been able to claim benefits.

Therefore the system merrily relieved them of tax and NI without noticing that the visa had expired.

Many possible holes in this assumption, of course.

Mrsdavidcaruso Fri 15-Mar-13 16:02:28

gimme she can be treated but not for free, if there was an appeal for funds to help the parents pay for the treatment I would be happy to help - just as I have donated money to help 2 UK children get life saving treatment that the NHS will not pay for.

Immigration procedures can take a while

They've had since 2009 to sort out their immigration status.

Agree. I'd happily donate some cash. But I don't agree the system should change. But the op has said she'll find the money anyway.

Therefore the system merrily relieved them of tax and NI without noticing that the visa had expired.

Did it? Have they been paying taxes?

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 15-Mar-13 16:09:37

So back to my question that didn't get an answer. Where do you find the funding from?
IVF treatments? Obesity/smoking -related health issues? All areas that have been portrayed as non-essential at some point.
We'd all like to find the funding for every need to be met, but where would you cut?

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 16:10:32

I've known several overstayers. Believe me, they weren't paying tax and NI. They went to ground after their visa was up. They were working, though.

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 15-Mar-13 16:12:41
Goldmandra Fri 15-Mar-13 16:17:57

There will be other children in Bangladesh who are suffering. Should the NHS treat them?

No. They are not living here. That is part of a wider debate about the fundamental principle by which those who live in the UK get access to an unfair proportion of the world's wealth and probably a whole other thread.

This child isn't in Bangladesh.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 16:26:48

Spork with the greatest respect, I know a lot about the immigration laws and the system in the UK.

Had they applied to extend their visa before it expired, and it was only being decided now, they would still be able to benefit from the NHS. They would not be over-stayers.

Yes there are some outstanding asylum cases going back 10 years. There are relatively few dating back to 2009 and they usually relate to, for example, war criminals. The system was completely redone in 2007 and most home office decisions are made in 6 months. With appeals then following within a month or 2.

Her parents chose to overstay. Yes, they did not know they would have a daughter who is so sick, and it sucks that the daughter will be disabled when there is something that could be done.

As expat says, there are children dying of cancer in this country because something could be done, but the NHS won't pay.

If you allow one child, the floodgates WILL open. Her parents took a chance when breaking the law. If they had stayed in Bangladesh, no doubt they wouldn't even know this operation existed (disclaimer: I know nothing about the Bangladeshi healthcare system).

As many people have said, she can have treatment, but they have to pay. This happens in pretty much every other country in the world. Why should the UK be any different?

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 16:28:48

Soupy about availability of treatment in Bangladesh... I was looking at the situation from a legal point of view. It's relevant to a visa application but not to the moral argument.

Yes, Legal Aid is often available for Judicial Review.

flatpackhamster Fri 15-Mar-13 16:31:01

Blu

My understanding was that the NHS is available to people who live and / or work in the UK.

So if the family overstayed the visa, but have continued to work, pay taxes, why wouldn't their child be eligible for treatment? They have been working without a visa, but they have still been working. I assume - because they wouldn't have been able to claim benefits.

They wouldn't be able to work, either.

Therefore the system merrily relieved them of tax and NI without noticing that the visa had expired.

No it didn't.

Many possible holes in this assumption, of course.

To work legally, you have to have an NI number, work permit, etc.

There is no way for the hospital to find the money for this treatment without a cut to another service. It is as cut and dried as that. The NHS has finite resources and this is what that means. Only treatments that have been authorised can be offered, and that can only be offered to people entitled to receive them.

Every debate on this issue has the same dynamics - people wanting expensive unproven drugs, couples desperate for IVF, people without NHS entitlement. They ALL want help and it's money that's the barrier. Nobody enjots these conversations but it's inevitable with a finite resource. What one person has somebody else therefore cannot have.

Which child with entitlement to NHS treatment shall we deny in order to pay for this case? Your child? Mine?

Fact is that in most places around the world this child would never even have got as far as a clinic visit because you are asked to produce proof of ability to pay before you cross the threshold.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 16:35:17

it is very sad. But unless we say the NHS is for every person in the world in medical need, then I don't think exceptions can be made. A charity should pay for the treatment or a private hospital could offer to do the treatment with doctors giving their time free.

Goldmandra Fri 15-Mar-13 16:36:35

How many would pass through 'floodgates' opened to allow children of immigrants born here and who became ill here to be treated here? I am not sure it would be a flood.

This is not health tourism. The parents didn't arrive here because they knew their child would need this surgery.

This is about the child's rights, not the rights of the parents.

lolalou22 Fri 15-Mar-13 16:37:45

My word when did the nhs grow a pair its only the same as any other country that is why you can't travel without insurance this countries health care is hemridgeing out money they have to draw the line somewhere and yes its sad for the family however in the u.s they won't even send an ambulance until they have your payment method and are you insured

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 16:39:48

Hmm, it is interesting that some of the people here being callous about this child and arguing that it is her parents responsibility...

...are the same ones who wail when there are benefit cuts for work-shirkers with children saying 'but, it is not the children's fault'

Bloody hypocrites. They pretend to care about children and how the actions of parents shouldn't impact children's well-bring. Except, yup know, when it is the child of an immigrant. Well it seems all they want is justification for taking money from the tax-payer to fund their own lifestyles.

Legal Aid is often available for Judicial Review.

As illegal immigrants, are they eligible for legal aid? That seems strange to me.

flarbread No one is being callous, they are being realistic. The NHS is short of funding. What are you going to cut in order to treat the children of illegal immigrants?

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 15-Mar-13 16:54:04

Still no answer to that question, NotADragon.
One of the things that astounded many of the Bengali parents of the children I taught was that medical care and doctors were free in this country, unlike Bangladesh.

SisterMonicaJoan Fri 15-Mar-13 16:54:46

It is sad but we have cancer sufferers in this country who are being denied treatment due to costs, we have fundraising for children to go abroad for treatment because the NHS cannot afford to provide the treatment. Whether we like it or not, it does boil down to money.

For me, the fact that the parents have only just applied for leave to remain after being told they would have to pay for their daughter's treatment is very telling. It's reasonable to suggest that would still be living under the radar as illegal immigrants if it wasn't for this turn of events.

undercoverSAHM Fri 15-Mar-13 17:04:12

Why doesn't anyone who feels strongly that this child should have free treatment send them money towards paying for the operation? You could probably send it direct to the hospital in question.

Sadly, the NATIONAL health service cannot pay for all the sick and disabled children in the world to be treated, lovely as that would be. A line has to be drawn. I would rather money went to foreign hospitals treating many suffering DC than to a family here illegally.

ImTooHecsyForYourParty Fri 15-Mar-13 17:05:37

My eldest has erbs. He has had a couple of operations - a rotation, plates, etc.

Unless she has such a severe injury that her nerves were totally severed, then it's really unlikely that her arm will be totally paralysed for life. My son had a very severe injury - he also had torticollis - (and the physio I had to do for that was heartbreaking!) and he has quite a bit of use of his arm today.

I doubt the accuracy of the report. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't read right to me, based on my experience of erbs. I'm not trying to claim to be an expert, but it just doesn't seem quite right. You don't 'slowly get paralysed' with erbs palsy. The injury that caused the paralysis happened at birth, as with my son's injury (result of shoulder dystocia). It doesn't get worse after that. It's not degenerative. It's caused by nerve damage during the delivery. The damage is done there and then. My son's arm was totally paralysed at birth because the doctor pulled on his head when he got stuck and she caused extensive nerve damage.

I also doubt that if the op isn't done in a month, that there will be nothing to be done. It just doesn't work like that. I know Jackie is quoted as saying the 9 months is optimal, but everything I have read suggests that if it's surgery on the nerves it can be done up to a year old quite successfully. I know kids who've had surgery later. My own son was 2 and a half when he had his first op.

However. On a personal level, I think it is bloody awful that a baby is not going to be treated. I understand the legalities of it, I get that the NHS is not a bottomless pit, I do, but having a child with this and knowing all they have to go for and how much of a struggle things are - my son is 13 and can't fasten tight buttons, struggles with zips and only managed to learn laces last year and is still hit and miss! Erbs Palsy needs a LOT of treatment. Operations, physio and then there's all the aids you need - splints, etc. I can't help but feel really sorry for that child.

It's also really painful. When my son started to get some sensation back in his arm, he chewed his fingers to the bone. Seriously. We had to splint his arm in the end and he still has scars.

mymatemax Fri 15-Mar-13 17:07:08

They are not denying her care at all, just saying someone will have to pay.
If i went to another country & became ill, i would be billed.
We are very fortunate to have a fantastic national health service for those eligible to be able to use.
Thankfully It is not selective based on income, gender, disability, race or religion But it cannot treat the entire world.
Sad as it is for this child, we make choices in life as individuals & as parents and It seems they have been aware of their status in the UK for a very long time.

SisterMonicaJoan Fri 15-Mar-13 17:13:39

"It's a baby" what if it where 5 babies, 10 babies, 20 babies, 50 babies of illegal immigrants? Where would you draw the line?

How would you feel if this baby received free treatment then there was no money left in the pot for an operation your DC needed? It is an over-simplification I know but illustrates that there is a line and the NHS is not a bottomless pit.

gimmeanaxe Fri 15-Mar-13 17:17:45

'What are you going to cut in order to treat the children of illegal immigrants?'

MP's second homes and moats wink

MrsDeVere Fri 15-Mar-13 17:18:43

<despair>

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 17:21:09

soupy I'm not sure about all Legal Aid but you certainly can be eligible for legal aid for asylum and til very shortly, immigration, and judicial review without being here legally.

Certainly it makes sense for asylum and immigration matters because otherwise the people who needed legal advice the most would not be able to access it.

It's done on a means and merits test. Not on the basis of citizenship or legal residence.

Actually, thinking about it, I think it's all legal aid. I've certainly referred illegal immigrants for family and care advice. And obviously everyone is entitled to free reps for criminal matters...

Trouble is I think some people do believe its a bottomless pit.

This decision is not an attempt to punish the child because of the parents. It's because there is no money.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:24:35

There's statutory duty to provide emergency treatment,but not routine treatment
Unless the parents finance the treatment themselves.hospital is correctly applying rules
The child is unfortunately going to suffer. Child is not uk citizen her parents were illegal

Why should the NHS pay for this child's treatment more than any other organisation? Why not ask the police to pay? Or BT? Or Tesco?

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 17:32:22

flarbread No one is being callous, they are being realistic. The NHS is short of funding. What are you going to cut in order to treat the children of illegal immigrants?

I would
-cull the number of NHS managers and sack DN without pay
- remove financial payoffs and gagging of whistleblowers
-benefits for people who are able to work and choose not to
- people on benefits on this thread who argue that their children should not suffer for the sins of the parents, but are righteous about others

And provide free healthcare to anyone who needs it, especially any child.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 17:33:38

Goldmandra I would put money on it being a significant enough number for the already stretched resources of the NHS. And there are estimated to be, what, a million people living illegally in the UK? Some of those will be children with significant health problems.

Yes it's horrible but there simply isn't enough money. I am all for immigration. I am all for people coming here.

However the NHS has rules. Ill ask you again - where do you draw the line? At what age? Or severity of illness? Because this girl's illness is not life- threatening. So that covers quite a lot of illnesses...

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:35:42

Free healthcare to anyone who needs it. untenable,unrealistic,sentimental
How do you plan to finance this? Can you realistically predict number of pts?
It's all v well doing bus stop whom,but nhs needs managers it needs managed.it has limited amount if money

'provide free healthcare to anyone who needs it, especially any child'

Worldwide? You're posting nonsense now.

How about IVF for illegal immingrants flatbread?

I am a NHS manager btw. Believe me you don't want to cull me grin You want me where I am.

Well if you cull all the NHS managers then it really will be a free for all wrt treatment. Oh and clinicians. And treatment they offer - why bother with evidence? And guidelines and best practice around infection control. But does any of that stuff actually, really matter?

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:41:42

Flatbread if you feel so strongly make a standing order to your local nhs trust
You could make additional contributions so anyone,everyone can get free healthcare
If you're so committed,you can make additional contribution for any ward.they'll be delighted to accept

Nancy66 Fri 15-Mar-13 17:42:04

I'm pretty sure that overstayers aren't classed as 'illegal'

flatbread those things may go some small way towards stopping the NHS having to shut A&E and maternity wards and cut services. It won't fund free healthcare for anyone who wants it.

the op has said she'll find the money from somewhere for the baby's treatment

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 17:43:35

Nancy they absolutely most certainly are. Someone who has overstayed their visa has little right to stay in the uk as someone who never had a visa. Both are illegal.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 17:44:03

The point is that this country is so generous in it's provision of services people think it's free. it isn't free. There is no free dental treatment, free prescriptions, free NHS treatment, free legal aid. It all has to be paid for.

aufaniae Fri 15-Mar-13 17:49:37

Yes of course she should be offered treatment, especially if she was born here.

monkeysbignuts Fri 15-Mar-13 17:50:22

The nhs are not refusing to treat the baby but they are asking the family to foot the bill.
I may be unpopular but I do think the nhs is right. We pay national insurance towards the nhs and if I was in America and something happened requiring me to have an op I would also have to pay (unless I had insurance etc)
The point is that other countries would ask for payment yet our nhs which is free to British nationals is expected to do it for free? Why should the nhs pay out for an operation that costs 10, 000+ to people who are illegal in this country. And the fact that they have the ordacity to be illegal and take the nhs to court shock

AlistairSim Fri 15-Mar-13 17:50:54

I totally get what you're saying, nothern/expat etc but I think that until the family are actually on a plane home, the UK should have a duty of care to the baby.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:51:07

Born here to illegal immigrants, child not uk citizen

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:52:43

Statutory duty care is access to emergency medicine.not automatic access to non emergency care
The trust has correctly applied the rules as I read it

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 17:54:49

Alistair but then it has a duty of care to an extra million people living here illegally. Where does the money come from?

Morally, of course she should be treated. Legally and practically? No.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 17:57:50

No duty care as been breached.the rules have been applied
The aghast amongst you could raise funds,pay for treatment.set up a fund
Hospital would accept payment for the treatment.maybe do just giving page

Trazzle I don't think the NHS has a duty to treat her. I think the people who want her treated (me included) should put their hands in their pockets and donate what her treatment is worth to them. And then the next illegal immigrant/child of II who needs treatment...and the next...and the next

Sorry, that should have read a moral duty to her.
We, as society have a moral duty towards her maybe. The NHS has no more duty towards her than tesco.

AlistairSim Fri 15-Mar-13 17:59:34

I agree with you, Trazzle, I really do.

I just can't look at it intellectually without thinking "It's just a little baby"

(which is one of the many reasons I'm not in Politics etc)

Or to put it another why. why shouldn't a private hospital treat her? Why aren't we all up in arms about that? Why does the NHS get to be "bad guy"?
Realistically, anyone could pay for her treatment. Yet it seems as though the NHS is expected to.

I agree AS. But then we either need to vote for whichever politicians stand for free healthcare for absolutely all, or deal with it on a case by case basis

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 18:01:09

Nhs has historically provided care for anyone who needed it in this country and that has hardly bankrupted the system.

NHS is a bloated, inefficient organisations, and it is not illegal immigrants that are making it so. It is the management, corruption and inefficient.

Like I said, if any of you take any benefits from the state, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You want freebies for yourself, but will deny others. Frankly, this child, who is blameless, is more morally entitled to state handouts than most of the lazy work-shirkers on benefits

nomoreplease Fri 15-Mar-13 18:02:21

Sit on a continuing care panel and have to decide whether to treat old people to keep them alive for a few years with expensive drugs, it's hard but decisions have to be made and they should be made within the boundaries of the law and not with bleeding hearts.

nomoreplease Fri 15-Mar-13 18:02:22

Sit on a continuing care panel and have to decide whether to treat old people to keep them alive for a few years with expensive drugs, it's hard but decisions have to be made and they should be made within the boundaries of the law and not with bleeding hearts.

MyHeadWasInTheSandNowNot Fri 15-Mar-13 18:02:34

It is a shame for the little girl but the NHS does not have a bottomless pit of money - that is the cold hard fact of the matter.

Her parents are responsible for her health, not the NHS (UK taxpayer). We cannot afford to fund health care for anyone who chooses to live here illegally, we just can't. If we are seen to do that for this little girl, where will it end?

Alistair - Why? Her parents have a duty of care, not UK taxpayers.

She was born here to parents who are illegal immigrants - treating her will encourage other overstayers/illegal immigrants and we can't have that - our NHS is stretched beyond its limits already sad

LtEveDallas Fri 15-Mar-13 18:02:54

The story confuses me. The father worked for a year between 2008 and 2009. What has he been doing since? Why didn't he apply for leave to remain back then?

Is he working? How? They've got 2 other kids - how do they pay for them?

The child was born 8 months ago. The hospital asked the parents for proof of status shortly after, but their status has only be confirmed now, with one month to go. It seems as if the family ignored the hospital for 3 months - what were they doing in that time?

The family have only applied for leave to remain now, why not apply when child was first diagnosed?

Have the parents done anything to try to fundraise themselves? Do they have any friends? Couldn't they fundraise for them? A friends child born with CP require treatment in USA to help him walk - the NHS couldn't/wouldn't fund it. In 6 months we had raised £78,000 - enough for the treatment, airfare and continuing care back home. He is walking now - it's like a miracle.

I feel annoyed that the NHS/PCT are taking all the blame here, when surely the honourable thing for the family to do is to shoulder some of it themselves. I think the family need to be proactive and instead of complaining that the NHS won't help, should go out and DO something themselves. £10,000 shouldn't be that hard to raise.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 18:03:41

So what you going to do Alistair?opine we all pay?or you could fund raise
Can you Give what you can afford?set up standing order fund
You lead by example then,donate what yo can afford to the wee baby treatment

monkeysbignuts Fri 15-Mar-13 18:04:14

I am sure if it was a middle aged man or woman who need the operation no one would give two shits

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 18:06:48

Flatbread,Alistair,set up a just giving page.fund raise if you feel so strongly

Ir would be very inefficient of the hospital to treat the child without a payment route. The fact that this decision has been made is actually a mark of efficiency.

Contrary to what flatbread apparently believes NHS managers don't sit around swilling champers and thinking up new and interesting ways to make ickle babies suffer.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 18:14:12

SPB I'm in total agreement with you!

I probably used the wrong words. What I meant is that it's shit that any child in the world has to go without treatment which could be available to them.

This could be Joseph at any time due to the NHS potentially not offering treatment that he may need.

As a parent, I think it sucks that a child lives (albeit illegally) in a country where treatment exists but she can't access it.

I agree that the NHS is not, and should not be, responsible for her care though.

Someone said that it should be easy for the parents to raise £10,000. I doubt that. Illegal immigrants don't tend to have a large support base and most people they know will either also be illegal or be on very low incomes. Although now it has been in the press, that's by the by. I don't think they would be able to raise it themselves though.

monkeysbignuts Fri 15-Mar-13 18:15:50

I am ex nhs staff and know for a fact how tight money is. Even ordering pens and paper etc.
northern are you sure you don't get the champers out in those meetings [grins]

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 18:16:12

I challenge any of the nhs managers/ clinicians are crap crew to shadow for week
Make the call about funding homecare,treatments,staffing, the next quarter budget
It's easy to opine about nhs but actually do sweet fa yourself.if you think this deserves funding, be proactive and fundraise

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 18:16:15

Eve there's every chance that the parents did apply for leave to remain when the girl was born. It can take months to get a decision.

Agree with that.

sorry tha was to trazzl

TheNebulousBoojum Fri 15-Mar-13 18:17:53

Islam has a strong tradition of giving to charity, it's one of the 5 pillars.
Perhaps some of the oil rich nations such as UAE and Saudi Arabia could sponsor a poorer one instead of building enormous structures and buying golden trinkets.
They could start by sponsoring this child.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 18:19:44

Well has any of the aghast who think nhs should pay actually donated or fundraised?

SisterMonicaJoan Fri 15-Mar-13 18:27:06

flatbread "Like I said, if any of you take any benefits from the state, you ought to be ashamed of yourself. You want freebies for yourself, but will deny others. Frankly, this child, who is blameless, is more morally entitled to state handouts than most of the lazy work-shirkers on benefits"

Benefits = freebies?? Quite frankly, your tone and comments are insulting to the many families who need benefits to survive or top up their income to a living wage.

As a pp said, if this were a 40 year old person who was an illegal immigrant we wouldn't have this thread.

SisterMonicaJoan Fri 15-Mar-13 18:30:06

Trazzle Many of the articles online reporting this case state that they family have only now applied for leave to remain.

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 18:31:37

I definitely think that nhs should pay. And I pay for nhs through my taxes, so I should have a say in how my money spent (hint, not on £500k to payoff a whistleblower)

I think everyone, except the inept nhs managers filled with self-importance know that the nhs is terribly inefficient and bloated with useless pencil-pushers.

I would like fewer nhs managers, especially like those on this thread. Anyone who lacks compassion for a child suffering, doesn't deserve to work in healthcare

One thing I do take away from this thread, is that the ones who are saying parents are responsible for their children are the first ones to say 'but what about the innocent children?' when we discuss cutting the welfare state and their own benefits.

I hate hypocrisy and there is so much of it on this thread.

shock

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 18:34:50

Hypocrisy?like you're not willing to dig deep or make voluntary contribution
But feel nhs should fund this?why aren't you fundraising if so aghast
So globally yiu think nhs should pay,but haven't said what you'll do if so upset

did you ever think that it's compassion for the many children the NHS is funded to treat that means that people who understand that money is finite say that this child should not have their treatment paid for by the NHS.

Exaplin to me why the NHS should pay rather than BUPA please?

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 18:37:02

Sorry monica I hadn't seen that. I stand corrected.

flat, please can you explain why you feel the NHS has an obligation to treat but not BUPA? Or why the NHS has an obligation to pay but not Tesco?

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 18:43:49

Because NHS is funded by us, and we as a state, have an obligation to take care of the vulnerable. Isn't that obvious?

It is not as if we expect Barrett to provide housing for the homeless, we do it through the state.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 18:44:51

What has the expat community here in uk done for family?have they fundraised

But if we had an obligation it would be a statutory duty of the NHS as main healthcare provider. It isn't. Because it simply isn't practical for UK taxpayers to provide free healthcare for everyone in the world

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 18:45:55

Flat you're the hypocrite harrumphing nhs should pay and morality but you don't donate or fundraise?

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 18:46:10

'One thing I do take away from this thread, is that the ones who are saying parents are responsible for their children are the first ones to say 'but what about the innocent children?' when we discuss cutting the welfare state and their own benefits.

I hate hypocrisy and there is so much of it on this thread.'

Hypocrisy? The welfare state and benefits exist to those who qualify and are entitled to access them. That includes people who came here as immigrants and used legal channels to gain leave to remain. The NHS provides healthcare free at point of service to those who qualify and are entitled to access it. This includes quite a few classes of immigrants, including full-time students and those on work permits.

NEITHER, however, is accessible to people who are not legally in this country in non-emergency cases.

Yet according to you, anyone who points this out is a work-shy scounger and hypocrite. hmm

Or if you believe that we do have an obligation, politicise this. get some economist somewhere to calcualte what it would do for your taxes if that were to happen. Because you can't base healthcare on the cuteness of the recipient and treat cases that happen to pop up in the media.

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 18:56:06

The argument for a welfare state is fundamentally a moral one. That innocent children should not suffer for the mistakes or recklessness of their parents.

It is first and foremost a social contract, and then codified in law.

If you cannot see that an innocent child should not be denied healthcare in the country she is living in then you don't deserve to benefit from taking from others.

I am happy to have my taxes benefit others less fortunate because I see it as a moral obligation to help those worse off than me.

But it seems those who are more than happy to take from taxpayers are incredibly righteous about others who are in a more vulnerable position.

I imagine that this dad was working and paid taxes and NI contributions. Which went towards people on benefits sitting on their asses and tut-tutting about how we shouldn't help this child.

Mrsdavidcaruso Fri 15-Mar-13 18:58:24

Flatbread I pay for the NHS through my taxes and my baby DIED due to the closure of my local hospital A&E. Do you not think that if I had say in how 'my' money was spent I would have demanded it was used to keep the unit open.

However like the rest of tax payers I know that I have no claim to that money it's used not for me but for everybody who needs health care and who in turn pay their Tax to help fund me and my family when we need it.

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 18:58:52

'I imagine that this dad was working and paid taxes and NI contributions. Which went towards people on benefits sitting on their asses and tut-tutting about how we shouldn't help this child.'

Because everyone on benefits sits on their arses and tuts. hmm Because this person was definitely working and paying taxes for the 3-4 years he was illegally staying in the country. hmm

You have an active imagination.

Sorry who are the people on benefits that are tut tutting on this thread?
And there are many many vulnerable people in the world - can you really help them all?

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 19:00:34

'If you cannot see that an innocent child should not be denied healthcare in the country she is living in then you don't deserve to benefit from taking from others.'

She's not being denied, her parents are being told they must pay for it, same way you have to in any country where you are not legally living and mostly, even when you're legally there at all.

Sorry Mrsd.
flatbread, I agree with you that the baby should be treated. As I've stated before I think that hte people who think she should should pay. Like everyone else, I'm a sucker for a story. I'm sure there's an II somewhere in the countryill or dying tonight for want of treament but we dont know it. But I dont agree that we should not change the law to extend the NHS's services to people who are here illegally. Which is effectively what you want.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 19:03:28

If i went to USA,and unfortunately got Ill I'd have to pay.that's rules and how it goes

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 19:03:52

'I imagine that this dad was working and paid taxes and NI contributions. Which went towards people on benefits sitting on their asses and tut-tutting about how we shouldn't help this child.'

Yes. In 2008. For 1 year.

I imagine a world where children don't die of cancer. It's imagination, isn't it.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 19:05:11

expat made the point a lot better than me thanks

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 19:11:20

expat,

And what if her parents cannot afford the care? Should the child be disabled?

Well, if that is the attitude, why have a welfare state at all? I certainly don't need it. I have private health insurance and enough in the bank.

So I see no point in paying for anyone else. If others cannot afford healthcare or food for their children, too bad. It is the parents responsibility after all.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 19:14:00

Welfare state operates on eligibility it's not universal provision
Just as there are adults who are people without access to funds,based on eligibility

SecretNutellaFix Fri 15-Mar-13 19:14:06

As an overstayer it is highly unlikely he will have been paying tax, national insurance contributions, etc as you need proof of eligibility to work to get a job legally.

So I would be willing to hazard a guess he has been working for cash in hand, which means that the person employing him has broken the law and how much tax have they avoided paying as a result?

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 19:22:16

Stop making excuses, Scottishmummy.

Are you telling me that you are perfectly comfortable with a child born and living in our country being denied healthcare and being left permanently disabled because her parents cannot afford to pay?

And like I said, if you are comfortable with that, you have no moral justification for taking from a welfare state which is based on compassion for the vulnerable within our society.

Btw, in the US, this child would be a US citizen because she was born there and her rights are not dependent on her parents actions.

Blu Fri 15-Mar-13 19:22:18

I don't think it is uncommon for overstayers who were employed on visas to continu with taxed and insured work.

Sure - the company who employed him / them will be in trouble...

We don't really know at the moment.

But in any case, when you make a policy or a law, this is the human face of it. This is what happens, it is applied and implemented. I can't see that it can be just overlooked as soon as it becomes an issue.

Morally and emotionally I would like to see this child treated in this country that she is resident (on whatever status) but that isn't possible under the laws we need to make.

Maybe someone will start an appeal for her. It might be a good starying point amongst her relatives and friends.

Domjolly Fri 15-Mar-13 19:25:31

If they didnt over stay they would not have this issue and of course instead of going back were there child would be treaed as soon as they touch down

But yet they will most likey stay prolong the chance of ther child getting treatment and no doubut to stay here when they are clerly not entitled

I had to wait 18 months for my ds to get seen at hospital why should a child who is not even ment to be here jump the que

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 19:25:37

Don't get all moral high ground and arsey with me.no excuse.legit interpretation of rules
Seeing you so aghast what's your excuse for not fundraising or making voluntary donation
Advanced morality is the application of protocols and recognition there finite amount money in nhs

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 19:29:30

flatbread I don't think being a US citizen entitles you to free healthcare though, does it?

(I genuinely don't know anymore!)

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 19:30:05

Child born here to illegal parents,no automatic Entitlement to citizenship

If you were born in the UK to parents who are not British citizens and are not legally settled here

Even if you were born in the United Kingdom, you will not be a British citizen if neither of your parents was a British citizen or legally settled here at the time of your birth. This means you are not a British citizen if, at the time of your birth, your parents were in the country temporarily, had stayed on without permission, or had entered the country illegally and had not been given permission to stay here indefinitely.

Domjolly Fri 15-Mar-13 19:33:54

You are correct scotyish mummy the reason why this is the case because we would end up ith the same problem as irland with mother litaruly coming here whilest pregant or getting pregnant whilest her so they came claim citizenship for there children and get to stay its hard enought to get people out as it is

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 19:35:27

Oh yes I will donate.

And work towards dismantling the welfare state, especially the bloated NHS.

I have no need for it and am damned if I am going to have my taxes fund the whiners who are willing to let an innocent child suffer, but are happy for their own handouts.

If you cannot afford healthcare for your child? Too bad, let your child be disabled, it is your responsibility.

If you cannot eat? Ask Tesco to donate food

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 19:37:01

Good for you

Mrsdavidcaruso Fri 15-Mar-13 19:37:17

I dont agree with the NHS funding this op Flatbread and I don't get handouts I pay my taxes and NI just as you do

Clearly Flatbread has recently had a NHS colonoscopy. Well known side effect is the expelling of a lot of gas afterwards.

What is healthcare like in bangladesh?

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 19:50:32

You know what flatbread, my son has cancer. It is very aggressive. There is an 80% chance that it will come back even if it is successfully treated now first time round.

If it comes back, there are a couple of clinical trials starting in the UK. But they may not be appropriate. There may not be space on them.

In those cases, the NHS will not find his treatment. It's not cost-effective (in their opinion). I would have to find up to £500,000 for him to be treated abroad.

If I can't get that money, he won't just have lost the use of an arm. He. Will. Be. Dead.

My son is British. DH and I are taxpayers. The only benefits we claim relate to DS' illness because I can't work full-time and care for him. Up til now I have always worked, as has DH.

The situation is shit. Absolutely shit. But I understand that the NHS cannot be a catch all for anything and everything.

So yes, I understand that a child born here and living here may not get the treatment he or she might want or need. With respect , I suspect that I understand that a whole hell of a lot more than you do.

And I still don't think the NHS should have to treat this girl for free.

Trazzles - we've got 20% in Joe's favour. You know we're praying that will be the outcome don't you? <<hug>>

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 19:54:09

Flatbread,make an advanced directive,about treatment and nhs preferences
let gp know contents

Blu Fri 15-Mar-13 19:55:42

Being a British Citizen is not part of the criteria for NHS treatment, though.

Living and working here is.

see here

and here

I wonder whether a child can be lawful or unlawful in the context of being 'ordinarily resident'. She would seem to be 'ordinarily resident' because she has never lived anywhere else, and she herself has not acted unlawfully....

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 19:56:47

Well, then you believe that a child is responsible for the actions of her parents.

And she should be punished and denied care because of her parents legal status.

What next, should we deny children of criminals care, because, you know, they are born to criminals?

After that deny care to children of parents who have not contributed to NI?

After all, there are limited resources and if we can only provide them to a select group of children living in our country, we can come up with new laws to further restrict the pie.

And since it will be made legal, we should all be ok with it then.

And after all, the children of the 'outsiders', illegals, criminals and non-employed are really not being denied care, because after all their parents could go private...

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 19:57:33

My mate, who is British, is in the US just now with her 3-year-old daughter, who had a brain tumour. She was too young for radiotherapy, and the only treatment that can save her, proton beam therapy, is not available here till 2017 due to cost. Monies had to be raised for her child, or she would certainly die. In addition, the child took a serious blood infection after completing the treatment. She has been to ICU and had an unsuccessful surgery to site a line in her somewhere for her infections to be treated as all her veins are blown out. She is not being denied care, but her mother must pay for it.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 19:57:58

Of course I know that Northern (hugs back) am just setting out the bare facts for the benefit of flatbread who seems to think that we are all typing on this thread from our ivory towers paid for by income support.

Blu Fri 15-Mar-13 19:58:29

Is that to me. Flatbread? Because if so you need to go back and read what I posted again.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 19:59:04

Blu,irrespective of location of birth,child born to illegal parents
Child has no automatic right to uk citizenship on that basis
She entitled to emergency care,not routine care

If you were born in the UK to parents who are not British citizens and are not legally settled here

*Even if you were born in the United Kingdom, you will not be a British citizen if neither of your parents was a British citizen or legally settled here at the time of your birth. This means you are not a British citizen if, at the time of your birth, your parents were in the country temporarily, had stayed on without permission, or had entered the country illegally and had not been given permission to stay here indefinitely*.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 19:59:52

expat I really hope that your friend's DD is doing ok. I want to do kisses or hugs or hand- holding or such but none of it seems right.

tethersend Fri 15-Mar-13 20:04:25

Can anyone else feel the ground rumbling?

Ah, ok- it's just Nye Bevan spinning in his grave...

So, Flatbread, you think the welfare state should be dismantled and you don't care because you have private health insurance? confused

And you call others on this thread hypocrites?

With regard to the 'ordinarily resident' issue - you can only be resident if you have a legal right to be here. When I deal with overseas visitors, there are two questions to be asked - on what basis are you here and how long will you be staying. I had a heart-breaking conversation the other week with somebody who wanted a relative to visit. Said relative has a British passport but would just be visiting and the treatment they need, whilst life prolonging, is not deemed 'emergency' care - because it's a predictable need. I had to tell them they would have to pay. Very decent and reasonable person that was who accepted that and is making other plans. I don't enjoy that kind of conversation, it sucks.

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 20:08:52

Blu,

Not to you at all.

To the righteous ones on this thread, who gave happily used NHS money, I.e., our tax payer generosity for their own children, but begrudge it to another child born here, just like their own.

And who advocate that we should have a welfare state when it comes to their own needs because of, you know, the 'innocent children', but point to the US and other countries to justify denying care to others.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 20:09:04

Blu read link you posted,the parents illegal.not lawfully settled.this affects child eligibility
^Anyone who is deemed to be ordinarily resident in the UK is entitled to free NHS hospital treatment in England. “Ordinarily resident” is a common law concept interpreted by the House of Lords in 1982 as someone who is living lawfully in the United Kingdom

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 20:10:34

flatbread am I a "righteous one"?

If so, please reconcile my last post with your statement there.

Blu Fri 15-Mar-13 20:10:42

Scottishmummy - but citizenship is not central to eligibility for NHS treatment. Being 'ordinarily resident' is. Her citizenship isn't the issue: "Anyone who is deemed to be ordinarily resident in the UK is entitled to free NHS hospital treatment in England. “Ordinarily resident” is a common law concept interpreted by the House of Lords in 1982 as someone who is living lawfully in the United Kingdom voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of their life for the time being, with an identifiable purpose for their residence here which has a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled"

Clearly her parents are not here lawfully. I am asking / discussing whether it is possible for a child to be here 'unlawfully' since she herself has not done anything unlawful. Except be born to unlawful parents. But she is surely 'ordinarily resident', albeit because of the unlawful actions of her parents. But if I were a lawyer for the child (and i am not a lawyer at all, of course) migt I be able to argue that she is eligible because she is ordinarily resident and has not, herself, dne anything unlawful.

Blu Fri 15-Mar-13 20:12:00

sm - x-posted smile

LOL at Tethersend.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 20:13:23

Blu as an immigration lawyer myself... No she can't.

I suspect if the child were of an age where she could live here alone - 16 upwards - then there might be a case to be made for her being resident even though her parents aren't. That isn't the case though. She is utterly dependant on her parents so I think it's hard to resist the arguement that their situation is her situation.

Yes, soup is right. This would be the end of the welfare state.

JaquelineHyde Fri 15-Mar-13 20:16:13

Wow this thread makes me feel all warm and fuzzy...Grown women squabbling over whether or not a sick child should recieve free healthcare.

It's so lovely when I see the true spirit on MN in action hmm

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 20:17:05

Blu reread your own link carefully,the parental status as illegal impacts on child
Irrespective of being born here,as illegals they were not ordinarily resident,nor was child

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 20:20:43

'I am asking / discussing whether it is possible for a child to be here 'unlawfully' since she herself has not done anything unlawful. Except be born to unlawful parents. But she is surely 'ordinarily resident', albeit because of the unlawful actions of her parents. But if I were a lawyer for the child (and i am not a lawyer at all, of course) migt I be able to argue that she is eligible because she is ordinarily resident and has not, herself, dne anything unlawful.'

What Trazzle said because children who are the children of immigrants are not here in their own right but as dependents of their parents.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 20:20:59

You know what Jacqueline,this part of the moral dilemma clinicans face in nhs
Get allhmmhumphy as yiu wish,but nhs is finite funding these discussions happen
Maybe put your hands over ears and pretend it doesn't happen,or mn are bad uns for discussing it

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 20:22:12

I'm still trying to figure out who all these work-shy scroungers are on this thread . . .

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 20:29:02

I'm still waiting for flatbread to comment on the validity of my views grin

mymatemax Fri 15-Mar-13 20:29:35

The original visa is likely to state no access to public funds etc, if they had applied for continuing leave to remain the terms of the original visa can continue (including any RTW etc).
So they either were never entitled to NHS treatment/public funds etc or if there were no such restrictions ont he original visa they have not applied to have it renewed before the original expiry or the orignal terms would stand.

So either way the parents were completely aware of their lack of entitlement.
Maybe the local Nuffield can help, they are no more obligated to treat the baby than the local NHS

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 20:31:36

Hopefully she will be okay, Trazzle. Her type of tumour has a high recurrence rate and this treatment is the best way to give her the best chance of long-term survival, as chemo is not shown to be effective on it and she is still too young for radiotherapy (she was only 2.5 when the tumour was discovered).

JaquelineHyde Fri 15-Mar-13 20:32:02

Discuss it all you want scottishmummy it will never, ever make me feel good to hear other people justifying reasons not to treat a sick child.

I won't ever pretend it's not happening (a really hard thing to do when I volunteer with some of the most vulnerable people in society just like this family) I will just continue raising awareness and money to help people in these situation.

Feel free to try and patronise me all you want with your wise words about moral dilemmas and funding and I will feel free to judge and hmm as much as I like.

So please go back to your squabbling and let the warm fuzziness of getting one over a stranger on the internet make it all better.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 20:32:05

Right to clarify,nhs have statutory duty to provude emergency care,but not non routine
Bupa as private company have no obligation to provide any care,emergency or routine

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 20:33:34

Keep saying lalala Jacqueline to anything you don't want to read or think about
If you're so aghast donate some money,start a just giving page

Blu Fri 15-Mar-13 20:34:20

I don't think any one individual would be happy to see any child anywhere not get all the help possible.

I want Trazzletoes' DS to have everything possible, I wanted Expat's dd to have all the magic possible whether within or without the budget.

But as grown-ups someone has to make a policy and a law, and then for things to be fair it has to be upheld.

My questions are around getting clarity of what eligibility actually means.

If that family turn up outside my house hungry, I would feed them. But I can't ask a democratically run structure which belongs to everyone to act in any way except within democratically decided policy.

JaquelineHyde Fri 15-Mar-13 20:37:06

Sorry scottish did you read my post...You know the bit about volunteering with people like this family and already rasing money and awareness for people like them.

Wow if I didn't know any better I would suspect you don't read anyone elses posts and just keep posting pointless comments to try and make sure you win every argument...Oh hang on a minute... hmm

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 20:37:35

There is clarity on this blu,parents illegal.this impacts on child eligibility to non emergency care
Child isn't ordinarily resident as at time birth parents were illegal
It's a v challenging situation,but there is clear case guidance and application of protocols

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 20:39:27

Yes your I read your indignant ire,and you can fundraise for this case if so aghast
Yes you volunteer, I get that.doesn't mean you can't additionally fundraise for this case

ReallyTired Fri 15-Mar-13 20:43:01

JaquelineHyde The world population is 7 Billion. We cannot provide free healthcare to everyone on the planet.

Watch Comic relief to hear of tragic stories of babies dying in Africa. Maybe comic relief should fund this girl's operation.

Blu Fri 15-Mar-13 20:47:05

I am all clarified now, sm!

If I ran a hospital and this little girl showed up I would treat her immediately.

Which is why I don't run a hospital, or berate people who do run them on my behalf , within protocols laid down by our (sic) governmnent on my behalf (sic).

If every country had an NHS there would be no problem. :states obvious:

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 20:48:58

Blu where would my DS potentially get treatment and expat 's friend's DD get their treatment then, eh? grin <deliberately obtuse>

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 20:56:35

Staff in health and social care routinely make v challenging and difficult decisions
Finite funding,growing demand,wide range of complex cases
This is the reality of health and social care,and it's tied up with shrinking budgets

Astley Fri 15-Mar-13 20:57:26

I think you'd be hard pressed to find many countries that would happily pay for an illegal immigrants child to have non emergency treatment for free.

We have to draw the line somewhere, for the safety, security and well being of the people who actually do have the right to free treatment.

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 21:03:14

Why can't one of the charities in this country step in to pay for the treatment. Isn't that what charities are for.

It's just so easy to say 'treat the child'. To advocate giving whatever expensive and non-emergency care is wanted because 'it's right'. What has to be understood though is when you've done the nice, fuzzy warm bit there is still a bill to pay. This is what finite resources mean. There is a point beyond which you cannot go.

£10,000 is the figure quoted below. I only know dialysis costs so for reference that would be nearly 63 dialysis sessions at tariff rate. That will keep any one patient alive for about 21 weeks. How much do you think it costs to keep the UK population on dialysis alive for 21 weeks? Well there's about 20,000 patients on dialysis receiving NHS care at the moment.....

I have no problem at all with saying that the NHS cannot pay for this discretionary treatment. That may sound callous. If you knew me you would know I'm anything but though - and that might give some of you pause of thought. This isn't about betraying the NHS. This isn't about letting down the welfare state. It's about what is and isn't possible with the resources we have.

Astley Fri 15-Mar-13 21:16:59

Here here NorthernLurker.

No one is arguing that the child shouldn't be treated. What were arguing is who should pay. I say they bloc, closely followed / topped up by private hospital or bu. pa. why should the nhs be the bad guy and they, with their profitable organisations, get to wash their hands of it?

Public, not bloc.

BoffinMum Fri 15-Mar-13 21:21:05

Child should be treated quietly without making a big thing out of it. If I was a medic, I would do it myself.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 21:22:48

Agree northernlurker.with finite resources financal decisions need to be made
And one can get all its wrong and be all luffly,fuzzy but that doesn't address issues
As uncomfortable it is,these decusions need to be ade and discussed.it's advanced moral reasoning to have the discussion,it's avoidant to not have the discussion

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 21:26:50

To treat child you'd need clinical team,appropriate hosp environment,follow up therapy,medication,analgesia
No doctor can quietly slip that in at end day,unnoticed.
This isn't some ach just do it, quick job

Am I right in thinking that in America every child born there has a right to be American ? If so, or in any case, maybe the same should apply here.
I feel if baby was born here she should get treatment she needs on NHS.
All the best to the family.

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 21:29:10

No, scottish but I thought there was a suggestion on here that a private hospital could take responsibility for the care and just take the financial hit.

I assumed that was also what the poster meant when they said they would do it if they were a Dr.

ReallyTired Fri 15-Mar-13 21:30:55

"Am I right in thinking that in America every child born there has a right to be American ? If so, or in any case, maybe the same should apply here."

Different countries, different rules. America has no NHS and very limited social security.

Why should illegal immigrants be rewarded with free healthcare and citizenship for their kids?

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 21:31:33

If nhs change eligibility criteria,increasing demand how will it be funded?
It's all v well to say just treat child.pragmatically who pays
How is surge in demand accommodated?

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 21:33:18

Juggling yes that is the case in America.

It's a lovely idea but not practically workable, especially in the days of the European Convention on Human Rights.

A child is born here, they are automatically British and so have the right to live here. That automatically allows their parents to live here with them too (unless say the father has no contact).

The child grows up. Say she moved abroad. Has a child herself. That child is also British (by descent). They all have a right to live in the UK.

I've said it before, I am all for immigration but even I realise there have to be limits on the sheer volume of people who can call this island their home.

Exactly. Op is asking for major change to eligibility rules. Which will be the down fall of, well I want to say nhs but that's done for amyway, our benefit system.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 21:37:37

Changing eligibility to service has huge ramifications and cost
Sentimentality is cheap
Good nhs and health and social care is not cheap,esp if demand increases

Viviennemary Fri 15-Mar-13 21:40:09

The NHS and benefit system is at breaking point because it has been stretched beyond its limits. Why can't some rich person pay for this treatment. David Beckham or somebody like that. Isn't he supposed to be giving all his salary to some French charity. He could step in here. Or another footballer. But it's always the NHS is the villain.

If tesco were to do it it would go a long way towards repairing their horse-torn image
<cynical>

But I don't much care about their motivations

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 21:43:34

'Am I right in thinking that in America every child born there has a right to be American ? If so, or in any case, maybe the same should apply here.'

Yes, everyone who is born on US soil is an American by birth. This does not, however, entitle anyone to free healthcare or for their parents to have the right to stay there. Some states offer healthcare provision for children on a sliding income scale. You have to pay for it and/or qualify for it.

They will treat in emergencies, but you will be billed and they will chase up that bill.

That's the system there.

The system here is different. Citizenship operates differently, and entitlement to benefits and NHS operate differently (people who are here on work permits, as full-time students, spouses, fiances and other limited-stay visas do not have recourse to public funds, but they do have access to use the NHS not just in an emergency capacity).

leave visa will set you back around £1000 and nationality the same.

I still quite like the American idea, that everyone born in this land has rights to citizenship and things that go with that.
But perhaps it was instated in America when it was a young and relatively empty country (not forgeting the native peoples)
Perhaps it's not practical in UK, I don't know ?
Another idea I liked was surely a charity or private hospital could step up to this ? £10k is not a huge amount - you could save that on NHS homeopathy treatments ?!

Trazzletoes Fri 15-Mar-13 21:50:47

Juggling it was the case here until some time like the mid-70s... And was the case in Ireland until relatively recently.

The US has a lot of "space" which also helps, I think. I hate the notion that "we are full" but there is a finite amount of space and resources here. As a country we very much punch above our weight and are a very attractive destination - and easier for people to get to illegally than the US if they are coming from anywhere other than the Americas.

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 22:12:29

'But perhaps it was instated in America when it was a young and relatively empty country (not forgeting the native peoples)'

Historically, it was instituted because the nation's 'founding fathers' were denied British nationality based on their birth abroad and that of their parents' birth in the colonies, and all that went with that, BUT, and this was their major but, they were required to pay all British taxes and duties on goods and comply with all British law. They were also not permitted to select representatives to Parliament to oversee their interests (which were entirely economical/trade/money-based). The motive was not an altruistic one.

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 22:14:01

V interesting post, expat

timidviper Fri 15-Mar-13 22:16:23

I work in the NHS in a deprived area and we make decisions every day regarding what treatments can and can't be offered to our patients. I have, this week, had a patient shouting at me that he is entitled to what he wants, as opposed to what the NHS thinks he needs, because he has paid in since he was 16 yet we treat "all these foreigners". I am happy to make and defend those judgements because the money is needed for others entitled to NHS treatment but I am not sure I could justify them for those with no entitlement.

If this child's parents are here illegally you can guarantee they will not have been paying any sort of contributions to our systems and we have to draw a line somewhere, awful though that is for the poor child

How do you mean the motive was not an altruistic one expat ?
You lost me a bit there !

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 22:20:44

Yes these are the challenging difficult decisions clinicians make daily
And in absence of finite resources,there are protocols to manage finances
And I do think the ach think of the child isn't really engaging about significant issues

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 22:41:38

'How do you mean the motive was not an altruistic one expat ?
You lost me a bit there ! '

What, their motive for making nationality automatic at birth? They did it as a reactionary thing, to being forced to be British in all but nationality. Britain, back then, denied them the right to arm themselves and also forced 'quartering' on anyone. This was a law that forced anyone to quarter British soldiers in their dwelling house or business, at their expense with no compensation from the British government.

MrsHoarder Fri 15-Mar-13 23:00:14

Also the main reason to allow immigration as a country is because we benefit from some types of immigration, bringing in skill sets we don't have enough of or providing cheap labour to allow our own young people to aim for more ambitious careers. Not to be altruistic except in the case of refugees.

We can't as a country house the world's poor, and we really don't want to make ourselves the destination of choice for the poor who need medical treatment. So yes, we require people who are not ordinarily resident to pay for healthcare, like every other country in the world.

If you want to help struggling children it is probably best to send money to drainpipes for limbs and help hundreds, not help one child receive the best treatment, but if you feel like setting up a fund to pay for the operation, feel free.

Corygal Fri 15-Mar-13 23:02:59

I still don't see this - why can't the parents or the child's family pay? The child needs treatment - it's the parents who want free treatment.

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 23:34:38

This is the most disgusting thread I have seen in MN. And that is really saying something.

All of you denying a child born and residing in our country treatment that would otherwise leave her paralysed have truly petty souls.

But it will come back to bite you. Today we are intolerant of immigrants, tomorrow it will be anyone on benefits and the day after those on minimum wages and then anyone worse off than us.

We will dismantle our welfare system. Because of petty souls who purse their lips and count the pennies and anxiously and jealously guard their own interests. And have so lost their humanity to argue that it is ok for a child to be left untreated and become disabled 'because of the rules'

It's not ok. But you can't get something from nothing. And eligibility is the one prevailing rule when it comes to accessing public services. If we scrap that we scrap public services. And then everyone loses

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 23:39:47

Do you understand content of thread or is this just right in handwringing
Child isnt uk ciizen,there are difficult decisions.this isnt petty in least
It's the v challenging decisions nhs make.but you don't want to hear that,cause you're banging on

flatbread Fri 15-Mar-13 23:53:39

I am an economist. I understand data very well. Probably much better than most on this thread. So keep the patronising comments to yourself, ScottishMummy.

An interesting observation - people like me, who never use the welfare state we pay for, are often generous about others using it. But the ones who take the most, be it benefits or NHS resources, keep banging on how others shouldn't get it.

Like I said, you think you are 'saving' the system for yourselves by being petty penny-pinchers. But it will have the opposite effect.

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 23:54:48

No one is denying anything, flatbread. What they are saying is pay for it.

'But it will come back to bite you.' I'm disgusted by that. And one part of me is tittering, given what I've seen in this life.

Disgusting is the numbers of children whom I know, and whom I won't, because they came after the death of my child, who cannot access lifesaving treatment in the UK due to cost. The sheer desperation and panic of their families, some of whom I know personally.

Funding prevails. Across all ages in teh NHS. It has to. Things will get worse, with an ageing population and medical advances. I can't even imagine how adults are compromised, I've only seen how children are. That is bad enough. The loss of their lives.

This child is not being left untreated, the issue is one of payment.

A fucking word of difference.

Flatbread you are making a lot of assumptions abt other posters

scottishmummy Fri 15-Mar-13 23:57:07

Understand?really all you've done is handwringing and gawd blimey
You must grasp finite resources vs infinite demands,how is that accommodated
You want to terminate "bloated" nhs yet advocate free unrestricted access to service?that's pretty contradictory

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 23:58:24

'An interesting observation - people like me, who never use the welfare state we pay for, are often generous about others using it. But the ones who take the most, be it benefits or NHS resources, keep banging on how others shouldn't get it.'

Then who are these people on this thread you keep bleating about, flat? Who are these 'workshy' scroungers getting hands out? If you're going to hurl accusations then have the spine to name names.

Go on! Name me and Trazzle. My child's illness didn't result in a paralysed arm, she is dead.

expatinscotland Fri 15-Mar-13 23:59:12

She costs the welfare state nothing now. My husband is back at work.

Expat, you do know the sympathy is all still there. We haven't forgotten. You never will and it is shit.

scottishmummy Sat 16-Mar-13 00:03:54

I need to acknowledge following posts
expat,death child is a seismic life event.so sad
Mrsdavidcaruso, sorry to read your baby died
Trazzletoes, sorry to read our son has CA

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 00:07:48

Expat, I have no idea of anyone's personal circumstances on a virtual forum. And I am truly sorry for your loss.

My observations are based mostly on my experience interacting with people in real life.

(Although some of these user names seem familiar when it comes to defending, say, a mum with 11 kids getting benefits 'because the children shouldn't suffer, they are innocent'. And yet turn around and callously justify a sick child being left paralysed. Because she is not part of their circle)

Mrsdavidcaruso Sat 16-Mar-13 00:17:28

Please note flatbread that I have never posted on a benefits thread so don't include me in this

expatinscotland Sat 16-Mar-13 00:18:23

Then back it up, flatbread, because you have already accused people on this thread of being hypocrites. Who then? Trazzle has admitted she's taken benefits. I am admitting it, too. When our child fell ill we claimed them fully. Our children are not and were not non-emergencies, they are and were children with life-threatening illness.

I have already known, personally, three children who have relapsed of the cancer Trazzle's son has, and we were only there for a little less than 8 months. They have all had to go abroad and raise money to pay for it because of how things work statistically in the NHS and their OS rates.

I have known, personally, a further two families who have had to similarly fundraise for other types of cancer for the same reasons.

Decisions had to be made, and the decision was that their OS rate was so low as to not justify the cost of bringing that treatment to the UK.

This is an emergency. This is life-threatening. And so funds are being raised privately.

If these children can be denied treatment due to cost, then why shouldn't those who are illegally here pay up for non-emergency treatment?

Honestly, tell me that. Because I can promise you, you move heaven (if there is such a thing) and Earth to get the monies to pay for that child when it means they will die without that treatment.

And I would wish that on no one.

Trazzletoes Sat 16-Mar-13 00:54:59

expat thank you. You are saying everything I want to.

I feel I need to say that DS hasn't relapsed yet he's still in the initial treatment stage. But there's a good chance of relapse and a reasonable likelihood of treatment abroad.

flatbread how can you be unaware of our personal circumstances? expat and I have both posted details several times on this thread, asking you to respond directly to us. You have conveniently ignored us.

If you want to call me a benefits scrounger, go ahead! But at least have the decency to tell everyone who you are talking about rather than bleating on about how we are all doing it.

Incidentally, you try holding down a job while spending, at the last count, 5 weeks in hospital with a very, very sick 3 year old.

The idea that I'm a scrounger is laughable. I am extremely lucky to still have my job so when this is over I will go back to my contracted hours and continue with my income tax and national insurance contributions.

Today we are intolerant of immigrants mmm-hmm I am one of the most "tolerant of immigrant" people I know. I am an immigration solicitor. I help people come here. I help illegal immigrants get visas. I advise people on matters like this all the time.

There has to be a line drawn somewhere. As expat has already pointed out, British Citizen children don't necessarily get life-saving treatment on the NHS due to lack of funds. Can you explain why a child with no right to live here should qualify for non-emergency treatment?

It's you that is saying that a child born here deserves to be treated, so why do they deserve to be treated above other people who were born here with "a greater claim" by virtue of Citizenship?

expat and mrsdavidcaruso if I haven't already said it, I am so so sorry for your losses ((()))

expatinscotland Sat 16-Mar-13 01:07:15

Trazzle, I know the road you walk. I hope he gains remission after the treatment, I know how long it lasts, and maintains it. Aillidh was, in a sense, 'lucky'. There is a worldwide prescribed protocol for her cancer. Baby Charlie Harris-Beard went through it, when it failed, he had to go to Germany for trail. It failed in him, and there is a question mark over it.

Hard decisions have had to be made, and friends of mine, their children have fallen under it. And it is an emergency. A grave emergency.

This is not an emergency.

Trazzletoes Sat 16-Mar-13 01:13:17

Thank you.

I completely agree with you.

expatinscotland Sat 16-Mar-13 01:14:00

I was told, by her amazing cons, that if the transplant were successful, and she relapsed within 18 months, the odds were so low we could elect to go straight to palliative care.

I do not know of anyone who was treated with bone marrow transplant for AML who has survived two transplants.

One came in, after she died. She was 15, the age of cognisence, apparently. She had had a successful transplant, but relapsed. She elected to have further chemo to remit her, but that if she took infection requiring transfer to PICU, she elected to die in our unit rather than go upstairs, her odds being so low (about 4%).

She died there of pneumonia, about 6 weeks after Aillidh.

We came to know 4 girls with AML in the time we were there. Only one is still alive.

expatinscotland Sat 16-Mar-13 01:15:12

I wish him the BEST. And if you have a fund set up for him, just tell me where it is.

expatinscotland Sat 16-Mar-13 01:15:58

am still in touch with Vanessa Riddle's family smile. Relapsed Stage 4 neuroblastoma.

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 01:28:49

"Child should be treated quietly without making a big thing out of it. If I was a medic, I would do it myself."

By stealing public resources?

Or would you cover the entire cost yourself?

I'm so glad we have NHS managers like Northern. It reassures me regularly on threads like this.

scottishmummy Sat 16-Mar-13 01:33:24

Yadda yadda,clearly person saying that is not a doctor. sentimental rot

expatinscotland Sat 16-Mar-13 01:39:46

Medics are not autonomous beings. They do not operate in vacuums. The day my daughter through a PE, that's a pulmonary embolism, her cons rang me on my mobile, met me alone in her office, then someone came in, 'They're all ready.' She had teleconference with 3 other consultants, 1 in the US and 2 in Europe, to discuss what to do next with our daughter.

scottishmummy Sat 16-Mar-13 01:45:28

Nhs is an organization,with systemic chain of command and decision making
And uncomfortable Discussions about finance,mortality,resources

expatinscotland Sat 16-Mar-13 02:00:14

Life is a chain of command. I remember one afternoon, my daughter was written up for a drug called Ribovirin. I knew where that right up had come from, it came from D E***son and her cons, both professors. The ICU nurse was bitching, that it had to be written up on Cardex. The junior was afeared at her. I lead her into the vestibule. I said, 'You are a doctor, Patricia. These are your orders. I know from whence they came. And why. You do, too. Your job is to dispense your orders with no backchat. If you are not fit to do that you best say it now, I will fetch our superiors.' 'I don't want to make enemies,' she replied. 'Then you should rethink your career, if you think dispensing your orders means making enemies, you are not fit to hold your job, because this is a minor unpleasantness for what you must face. Now, I will give you twenty seconds, from now, before I go for our superiors.' It took her 2 counts.

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 08:09:19

British Citizen children don't necessarily get life-saving treatment on the NHS due to lack of funds. Can you explain why a child with no right to live here should qualify for non-emergency treatment

Because the child is born and living here? The treatment would be provided to other children who were born here? Andd she is being discriminated and will be left paralysed because of who her parents are?

If you cannot see the moral argument, I am afraid you are very selfish. Our welfare state is based on moral principles that children living in our society should not be made to pay for the sins of their parents.

If we say one child should be responsible and denied care because of her parents, then well, morally it applies to all children.

Our social laws are not like laws of physics, applied from outside. They are based on our moral beliefs.

And frankly, when I see people like you lacking compassion for a vulnerable child, when you have taken and taken from us for your child, I am horrified.

And I think, why on earth should I show compassion towards those who have no compassion for those more vulnerable?

If you can't see that this sick child should be given treatment paid by us, then frankly, I don't see why I should want to pay taxes that go towards benefits and an NHS for you.

I will stick with my private health insurance and private pension and vote for the dismantling of our welfare state. Because morally, I don't feel any obligation towards those who are so mean-spirited that they will deny a child born here, just like their own children, a routine protocol that would stop her from disabled in life.

Like I said, it is your sanctimonious selfishness and lack of humanity towards those more vulnerable that will kill the welfare state. You can try to excuse it by any penny-pinching explanation you want, but I can equally use those arguments to deny care to you and your family (e.g. limited resources, each one gets only equivalent to how much they have paid it etc.).

I agree flatbread in as far as it's disappointing to see the lack of generosity by some here.
If current guidelines are that there is no funding for this child's treatment then again I'm surprised and disappointed.
I accept there do have to be limits sadly, but feel all children born or living here (perhaps for X amount of time) should get the treatment they need.

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 08:47:43

If all children born here are to be entitled to free NHS care regardless of the status of their parents, expect the UK to be inundated with heavily pregnant women arriving from abroad to give birth here.

When Irish citizenship was available to everyone born on the island there were massive problems with this kind of thing.

Hospital consultants asked the government to deal with it because it was putting a massive strain on maternity services (in the good times) and was putting the health of the women arriving, and their babies, at risk.

There are clear rules about who is entitled to NHS care. And they tend to the generous.

BoffinMum Sat 16-Mar-13 08:48:31

Both, a thing. Because I had the power in my hands that allowed me to ameliorate suffering. Shoot me, if you like.

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 08:52:47

Shoot you? hmm

Yeah, because you are just the good hearted ickle Bambi, prepared to steal public resources to make yourself feel good while other people suffer because if your theft.

And everyone who doesn't agree with free non-essential surgery for anyone who can rock up in the UK and demand it is someone who goes around shooting people for sport.

ImTooHecsyForYourParty Sat 16-Mar-13 08:57:45

Can I just point out, further to my post above, that the child will not 'be paralysed', that is coming across like the child won't be able to walk etc. The words used by the parents that she is being "slowly paralysed" is not accurate.

She has erbs palsy. Like my son. Her arm will have limited function. No other part of her will be affected now or at any time in the future. It is not degenerative. She will not continue to lose function or become paralysed in other parts of her body. She will have problems with that arm. It's not easy to tell at 8 months old how much function she will recover. At that age, my son had no function at all.

I just think it's important that we know what it is that we are talking about. We are talking about an arm that may have limited function - my son can't lift his arm straight out in front, can't raise it straight above his head, or behind his back and like I said in my first post, struggles with fiddly things.

I just want to make it clear because it reads like she will end up in a wheelchair or something and that's simply not the case.

That isn't me saying that that's ok! I feel dreadfully sorry for her and I know what the parents are going through. I wish there was the money to treat her or that the parents could afford it.

Mrsdavidcaruso Sat 16-Mar-13 09:02:02

Yes flatbread you have already told us what a self important person you with your private healthcare and private pension ( I think YOU should look up the definition of sanctimonious the urban dictionary would be a good start).

There is NO discrimination here - have you not read the threads like mine who have made it clear their child DIED due to lack of NHS funding? Have you not read the threads that spoke of children being denied healthcare due to postcode lottery NICE and medical procedures that the NHS will not fund?

How the hell can this be discrimination when other children are dying and suffering.

Thanks for telling us more Hecsy, and best wishes to you and your family too.

Sounds like you did a good thing there Boffin acting/fighting for a good outcome in something where you had some influence/opportunity to do good, and also expat with the junior doctor.

Just shows I guess that different people will see and judge things very differently
(looking at AThing's post for example)

Trazzletoes Sat 16-Mar-13 09:11:59

flatbread do you not understand that I am trying to keep the NHS for future generations? So that your children and their children can continue to benefit from this amazing healthcare system that we have.

Do not mis-understand me - I thank God/ luck/ providence/ whatever EVERY day that I and my child are able to use the NHS and that he has at least got treatment right now.

I will continue to say that I don't think this child should be entitled to free NHS treatment simply because she was born here. I genuinely don't see how being born here can possibly qualify you as a special case given that there are so many children born here to illegal immigrants every year.

Anyway, you are missing our point spectacularly: expat and I have talked about children "born here" which appears to be your magic criterion, who are denied life-saving, emergency treatment due to lack of funds. But you believe that a different child should get non-emergency treatment which is being refused due to the same lack of funds... And you can't see how that is a totally odd point of view?

You honestly can't see the difference between a child being alive or dead? And a child being disabled? Well.

Perhaps I am selfish, but I would prefer the situation where money is spent on keeping a child ALIVE than money being given to keep a child having full use of all their limbs. Regardless of birth or nationality or anything like that.

And how the heck dare you be so rude to expat?

Timetoask Sat 16-Mar-13 09:16:37

Isn't there a charity that could help?
I am on the fence really, feel sorry for the child but also think that the NHS cannot cope with the demand.
In these cases, I think the parents should seek help in their country or origin, or find a charity that could fund the treatment.

Isabeller Sat 16-Mar-13 09:22:08

So if the NHS is dismantled how many will it take to debate the heart and head rending dilemmas of every person unable to find funding for their treatment?

Very sad to read of the painful situations of posters and probably lurkers too who have lost a child or are facing their child's serious illness, my thoughts are with you.

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 09:23:36

Boffin didn't do anything.

She's just making hypothetical, sentimental claims about what she would do if she were a medic.

OK, apologies, sometimes I find it hard to keep up when things get a little complicated, especially when I don't read all the posts.

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 09:34:23

You don't read all the posts? shock

Mortal sin! Burn in hell! wink grin

Iteotwawki Sat 16-Mar-13 09:35:33

I have huge sympathy for the child, but it's not about treatment being denied to a child born in the UK. It's about the UK government not being responsible for providing free healthcare to her parents and by extension, herself.

There isn't enough money in the system to fund essential care for children that the UK government are responsible for. If we cut the pie into even thinner slices, whose child is going to be denied care? Whose failing hip joint will not be replaced because this child was treated instead? How many cataract operations could be done with this money, allowing people to see again?

Yes this is sad. But there are millions of children worldwide who would benefit enormously from living in the uk, it's still not the UK government's responsibility to feed / house / educate / treat them.

So as much as I have sympathy for the child, I don't see that it's the responsibility of the UK govt to pick up the bill for her care.

AuntieMaggie Sat 16-Mar-13 09:36:26

Having spent last night in childrens a&e and the amount of emergencies that came in during my time there I agree the parents should pay. Otherwise which one of those other parents are you going to turn down for treatment?

Flatbread if you're an economist you need to resign from your job before you do serious damage. Your apparent belief in unlimited, uncontrolled expenditure without income is an unsustainable economic policy. I'm sure you could get another job though. Perhpas with the coalition?

Boffin - what you're suggesting would be the theft of public resources. It's very easy to say 'if I were a doctor' - when you aren't. The doctors, nurses and managers concerned in this child's care also have responsibility to many other children. They can't go off on a crusade based on theft. I'm surprised at you tbh, that you can't see the big picture here.

I said this lower down and I'm going to say it again - if this child is treated, which child shall we not treat? Because that's the crux of the matter. It's not about prejudice at all. It's about finite resources being managed according to the law. So come on all you hand wringers. Tell me which children don't get treated in order that this one does.

I spend enough time on here as it is AThing - I can't read everything ! smile

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 10:04:33

NorthernLurker, oh no, I don't need to resign.

I understand healthcare economics very well. And can look beyond grabbing and hoarding resources for my own family while denying others.

If you give up the moral argument for helping the innocent and vulnerable in society, you are left simply with an economic one. And that will eventually mean no free care for anyone. Each family only gets what they put into the system and each child will get care according to the means of their parent

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 10:27:41

"And can look beyond grabbing and hoarding resources for my own family while denying others."

hmm

Why not argue against what Northern is saying?

Implying that she, a compassionate Christian NHS manager, is hoarding resources for her family should be beneath you.

You are wrong to imagine that you are making a moral argument and she is making an economic one. She is making a moral argument too.

How scarce resources are distributed is an ethical choice, and one Northern is at the sharp end of every day in her work.

Insisting that all children in Britain must be given free NHS care has certain merits, but as things are currently configured it either can't be afforded, or other treatment must be denied to pay for it.

So how will we do it if it is an absolute moral imperative?

Who pays and how?

And how do we manage the incentives to illegal immigration we create by giving everyone who can arrive here full access to the welfare state?

Another founding principle of our welfare state was that everyone paid in according to their means and was entitled to receive based on need.

You want to scrap the first part of the compact. It's hard to see why anyone would be happy to pay into a system that allowed that level of freeloading.

Trazzletoes Sat 16-Mar-13 10:54:53

flatbread who is grabbing and hoarding?

Certainly not me! If you actually bothered to read any of the posts, I have spelt out on here that my son could die because of NHS policy. I can understand why they have that policy - money. I don't like it, because its my son, but I understand that there have to be rules and there have to be limits.

I have considerably more to lose than this family. mrsdavidcaruso has already lost more than this family. We both still realise there are limited resources.

It's all very well throwing your hands up and saying you'll sack all the managers etc. but you aren't in charge. The money needs to be found now. It's not there.

Goldmandra Sat 16-Mar-13 10:55:45

And how do we manage the incentives to illegal immigration we create by giving everyone who can arrive here full access to the welfare state?

She didn't arrive here. She was born here and sustained the injury here.

Another founding principle of our welfare state was that everyone paid in according to their means and was entitled to receive based on need.

Children cannot pay in anyway.

You want to scrap the first part of the compact. It's hard to see why anyone would be happy to pay into a system that allowed that level of freeloading.

Lots of people have said they are happy to reach into their own pockets to pay for this child. I doubt that this is because she is cute. It is probably because she is in a situation not of her own making where she is being discriminated against.

The NHS has to make this sort of very difficult choice on a daily basis and I don't envy those who have to make them. However I do believe that we have a responsibility to children whom we are allowing to remain in our country and who were not brought here with that health need.

Of 1 million illegal immigrants only a small number will be children with serious health issues which have arisen here and require costly intervention.

The fact that there is such a hot debate about this issue implies that this decision may be just the wrong side of a very fine line.

RainbowBelle Sat 16-Mar-13 10:55:56

If push came to shove, which parent here would willingly donate their own child's place for similar surgery if it was needed (assuming a confirmed entitlement for UK NHS treatment) for a child in the position described of the OP?

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 11:08:36

compassionate Christian NHS manager

Lol. So now let's get religion into it.

It is the classic bogeyman argument. Scaremongering and de-humanising others to deny care. 'They' are grabby and want to just come and take.

And it is ironic that many of the people making the argument are the ones hogging benefits and NHS. I guess they somehow think they are more worthy and entitled to take from our society.

Anyone who thinks that a sick child living in our society should be denied care because of her parents, doesn't deserve to benefit from our welfare system either.

There are a lot of ways NHS can be made more efficient. Cull pencil-pusher 'managers' for one. If you look at comparative private systems, the level of inefficiencies in NHS are shocking.

I would be fine with cutbacks on IVF. It is more important that living children in our society are prioritised for care than conceiving more.

And I am fine with all of us paying a fee when we go to GPs so that can be used to fund care.

What I am NOT fine with is a sick child living in our community being denied care because of how we judge her parents.

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 11:11:33

"She didn't arrive here. She was born here and sustained the injury here."

She may not have arrived here, but her parents did.

And if being born here automatically entitles you to full NHS care, then that will create an incentive for more people to come and have children here.

"Children cannot pay in any way."

No they can't.

But currently the expectation is that their parents have paid in.

Entitlement to free NHS care is based on parents' status.

We can only change that if we make a lot of money available from somewhere.

Where?

Raise taxes? Treat fewer people within current budgets?

"However I do believe that we have a responsibility to children whom we are allowing to remain in our country and who were not brought here with that health need."

As I understand it we were not allowing her to remain in the country until after she had been turned down for surgery.

So it seems that your attempt to narrow the criteria would be unworkable. As would (IANAD) the pre-existing condition restriction.

So we're back to covering all children born or brought here.

"Of 1 million illegal immigrants only a small number will be children with serious health issues which have arisen here and require costly intervention."

I don't think your restrictions are workable.

I think you would have to make free NHS care for all conditions available to the children of all illegal immigrants.

And I think that will be very costly.

Thanks for discussing smile

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 11:15:19

Nobody is judging her parents.

Just pointing out that they (and she) do not qualify for NHS care under the current rules.

But clearly you are just using this as a lever to argue for dismantling public healthcare.

Your arguments aren't moral, they are ideological.

And you're obviously quite a virulent benefits basher, so your support for this child's treatment seems disingenuous.

Trazzletoes Sat 16-Mar-13 11:18:23

flatbread you keep saying the same thing. You do not address ANY of the points being made on this thread.

<talks to a brick wall>

By the way, I am not a "they". You know my name. You can call me Trazzle. Ignoring me doesn't make me go away. Bitching about me by calling me grabby and selfish doesn't make me go away.

I have explained NUMEROUS times my point of view: that a child's LIFE should come before NON-EMERGENCY TREATMENT. I'm still waiting to hear from you why loss of use of a limb is worse than the death of a child.

But since you are completely ignoring my numerous posts addressed to you, I doubt I'll ever get my answer.

"defending, say, a mum with 11 kids getting benefits 'because the children shouldn't suffer, they are innocent'."
Yep probably me

And yet turn around and callously justify a sick child being left paralysed
Absolute bullshit.
The difference is one of eligibility.

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 11:27:17

Frazzle, so ok. Let's use healthcare resources for for life-threatening care. And let everyone pay for routine care, ok?

That kind of catastrophic coverage does exist in the US and we can apply it here. I am fine with that. What I am not fine with is discriminating between children based on the actions of their parents.

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 11:36:50

Trazzle not Frazzle blush

flatbread, which child should be denied treatment so this one can be treated. Pick one
And if you bothered to read any other posts which you quite clearly aren't, you'd see that many people, me included, have said we'd gladly send money to a fund set up to help this little girl. But what we won't do is agree that NHS eligibility criteria should change - that wouldn't just affect her, it would affect many more like her. Basically more children would die, children who are currently eligible for NHS treatment, to treat children who are NOT currently eligible. Ah hang on but you'll whipo out your magic pot, and magic up some cash to treat them all, oh and while you're in there, I'll have an aston martin.

OK, now you haven't read that, feel free to go back to calling me a benefit scrounger.

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 11:45:41

"That kind of catastrophic coverage does exist in the US and we can apply it here. I am fine with that."

Most people are, rightly, terrified of that.

Including lots of Anericans. Hence healthcare reform.

But you've revealed yourself as someone uninterested in the welfare of sick children but very interested in dismantling public healthcare.

Your argument basically boils down to

"If the NHS cannot cover X unaffordable thing, then it must be dismantled."

That is an ideological argument making hay out of a sick child's predicament to push a pre-existing, self-interested agenda.

The moral argument is being well made by Goldmandra and she of the UN rights of the child argument earlier in the thread.

People with private healthcare wanting to remove all but "catarophic" treatment from non-wealthy British children, on the pretext of NHS care being discriminatory against people who are not ordinarily resident here, are not honest participants in this argument.

TheNebulousBoojum Sat 16-Mar-13 11:49:20

Presumably, if the parents had been deported as soon as permission to stay had been denied, then flatbread would have accepted that Bangladesh would have been responsible for any medical provision required.
Which considering the dire state it's in might well mean that the girl may well not have survived birth.
Considering the absolute venom shown towards anyone claiming benefits of any kind, perhaps improved protection against immigration is something that would be approved of. There were certainly a huge number of first generation families entitled to a range of benefits in the area I worked in, from FSM to housing grants, because they were on minimum wage or unemployed. They were in the same situation as many of the indigenous population in the same area.

Trazzletoes Sat 16-Mar-13 11:52:06

sigh that is not what I am saying AT ALL.

I love the NHS.

At the moment, people who are eligible are entitled to routine care. That's brilliant. I am very happy with that. Long may it continue.

What I am saying (apparently til I'm blue in the face) is that if my son relapses, there's a good chance we will have to go abroad for treatment as the NHS may well not fund life-saving treatment.

My point is: in cases where the NHS can't/ won't fund, I would rather that money was spent on life-saving emergency care rather than non-emergency care because, in my view, a life is more important.

scottishmummy Sat 16-Mar-13 11:58:26

Flatbread if you're an economist you'd know finite finanial resources vs infinite treatment demands is problematic. You seem ti really lack grasp that if eligibility criteria change there will be increased demand. That essentially needs costing and paid for

See you recommend cease ivf treatment flatbread.so already you're thinking about how in a stretched service not all demands can be met. You suggesting Stopping ivf is managing finances by terminating service.you're giving an example of refusing to fund treatment based on cst

This case is about eligibility to service And ultimately finances

The v worthy well if I were a doctor I'd just do it,that's sentimental rot.everyone operates transparently,it's not just about dr piling in.it's real life not Holby
Getting a Theatre time slot,getting medical team,porter,anesthetist,nurses, post op support hdu, physio,ot,nurses,

Thank you for your comments Athing smile

"if eligibility criteria change there will be increased demand. "
You'd think that would be obvious to an economist. And that money trees don't actually exist

Neither the money tree nor the funding fairy grin It's hard to be disillusioned.......grin

No the funding fairy does exist. She comes to the homes of us benefit scroungers. She lightly dusts round, cleans the bathroom and then leaves a little pile of £50 notes in the front hall.

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 13:08:47

Bet she sits down and smokes some fags in front of the flat screen TV while she's there.

The lazy bitch.

Well if she does she takes all her stubs and turns on the pebble air fresner before she goes

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 13:37:31

scottishmummy, I don't mind being patronised by people smarter than me. But when petty people with their small minds make trite comments, it is hard to decide whether to laugh or groan with irritation.

Trazzle, so your point was really not that all of us should sacrifice so that children get necessary care. Just that you and your family should have access to as much care as you possibly can, by denying other innocent children.

Yes, there is no cash fairy. And you know what, the argument you are using against this little child, will be turned against you. We have finite resources, so we divide it on how much each one has contributed. No free NHS, no benefits or handouts more than your own contribution. Each one is on their own and children are the responsibility of every parent, not just for illegal immigrants.

This thread has just clearly illustrated the hypotheses I presented early -the ones who take from the system the most are the petty-minded ones who will jealously prevent the more vulnerable than them from benefitting. Complete takers with no decency towards other vulnerable people, especially innocent children.

So who are these people you keep cowardly alluding to but refuse to name? And your superiority in both money and intellect is getting a little unbelievable now - do you really think we are all thick?

What it has clearly illustrated is that you are making assumptions about who in this thread claims 'benefits' and are smugly patting yourself on the back.
I want to protect the vulnerable in our society. The last 3 words of that sentence are the ones that are in dispute here. I will happily donate to people outside our society, as will many people arguing against changing NHS eligibility criteria. Why are you not seeing that? It's like a block.

scottishmummy Sat 16-Mar-13 13:45:13

Mat read you write long irascibke posts with no intellectual content
You throw accusations at unnamed posters but don't answer direct questions put
You recommend need to limit sone services eg ivf but advocate free access to health for all who need it...but ivf is healthcare,people will passionately say they need it

.can you see how contradictory you are. You're all over the shop

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 14:09:51

"Complete takers with no decency towards other vulnerable people, especially innocent children."

[my emphasis]

grin

So it's OK to lack decency towards vulnerable people if you are not vulnerable yourself?

It's fine for you, with your private healthcare, to advocate reducing entitlement to healthcare.

But it's not OK for people who rely on the NHS to protect it from claims it can't afford and was never intended to meet?

You hypocrite!

scottishmummy Sat 16-Mar-13 14:13:25

Flatbread you want free access to healthcare for all, but want to reduce ivf provision
You're all over the shop
Shadowboxing and generally a bit accusatory to unnamed many

dikkertjedap Sat 16-Mar-13 14:15:06

I haven't read the whole thread.

As I expect that I will find some views quite upsetting, so rather avoid them.

I feel actually very strong about this. I think that the girl should be treated and that afterwards the NHS should attempt to recoup the costs if there is any realistic chance of recouping the full or only a part of the costs (otherwise it is just a waste of resources to try to get the money back).

Treating this little girl does IMO not risk opening the floodgates to lots of illegal immigrant children coming to the UK for treatment for hugely expensive ailments. The UK is a great place, but it is not the only place on earth where people may go.

In the Netherlands (yes, one of the most expensive healthcare systems in the Western world and generally regarded as one of the best, or even the best), children of illegal immigrants have the right to healthcare, not just necessary treatment but treatment needed from a medical point of view (it is enshrined in Law that providers refusing necessary treatment can even face up to four years prison), right to education (until they become 18) and the right of legal representation.

Expensive, maybe. Others will have to pick up the tab, yes. Sign of a civilised society, yes and I am proud of that.

I don't think that children should suffer if there is any realistic chance to avoid it due to the actions of their parents.

I hope that somebody reads about this little girl's plight and will be willing to (part) fund her treatment. I expect that the parents are too scared to actively fund raise in order to get her the necessary treatment sad.

scottishmummy Sat 16-Mar-13 14:20:57

No,as sad as this is it isnt about one wee girl.it's the precedent it sets
You have to have eligibility criteria to manage scarce resources that are in high demand
We struggling to meet statutory demands without accommodating other new demands,and thats the reality. All the handwringing and poor we girl is sentimental without addressing who pays!if pay fir this op is it a stand alone act or does nhs pay for all treatments demanded

dikkertjedap - there is no prospect of reclaiming these funds. The parents have no legal standing here. They can't work.

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 14:32:33

Of course you can have access to healthcare for all, but limited provisioning without discrimination.

That would mean we all pay for some services, while others are free to everyone in our society. Irrespective of nationality, criminal record, whether they work or not. As long as you live in our country, we have a social pact to take care of each other, especially children, through our public services.

We can be tougher on immigration, to limit people coming through, if we feel we can't support more.

And if we cannot afford it, we all cut-back and pay more, so that services are available to everyone in our society. That is just basic decency. Otherwise we deny illegal immigrants now, tomorrow it will be benefit seekers, the day after it will be another group.

I cannot fathom how you can think a child, who might live next door to you, should suffer needlessly and be denied healthcare that your children get courtesy all of us.

Athinginyourlife, I have private healthcare and have happily contributed to NHS in the past. No longer. This thread has opened my eyes to the extreme pettiness and selfishness of people who take from the rest of us, but advocate denying care to a sick, vulnerable, innocent child living in our community.

scottishmummy Sat 16-Mar-13 14:34:49

Anyone aghast can of course donate or set up a just giving page
The Bangladeshi community could set up a fund?£1 from each adult expat
The nhs cannot recoup the costs,but people could fundraise to pay trust costs

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 14:40:32

Dikkert, good to see your post.

Glad that the Netherlands has a humane approach to this.

But I think all the people on benefits and users/abuses of our welfare state and NHS will strenuously argue that we should neglect this child. Because they want to jealously guard the resources so they can take as much as possible.

For the millionth and final time
We all want her treated. We are arguing about who should pay. Your constant claims that we want her neglected and disabled are starting to make you sound fairly dim. Read the words people are recording on the thread.

dikkertjedap Sat 16-Mar-13 14:50:34

SPB - it just doesn't seem so. If it were the case, why then not have her treated now and see what options there are to recoup the costs afterwards. That approach I can reconcile with people wanting her treated. An approach were the parents have to cough up the money first (which they clearly don't have) I cannot reconcile with people wanting her treatment. Just empty words and people possibly trying to justify their lack of morality.

Put a tax on bankers' bonused, that may help to fund healthcare for children from illegal immigrants. grin

dikkertjedap Sat 16-Mar-13 14:51:06

sorry, should say additional tax on bankers' bonuses.

AThingInYourLife Sat 16-Mar-13 14:53:25

"But I think all the people on benefits and users/abuses of our welfare state and NHS will strenuously argue that we should neglect this child. Because they want to jealously guard the resources so they can take as much as possible."

hmm

People are more likely to care about and want to protect a system the have a stake in.

That was built into the welfare state from the start.

But what is really objectionable is someone who doesn't need the welfare state trying to justify dismantling it because the oiks aren't grateful enough.

if people (the public) want her treated, they will pay
The NHS (or more likely a private hospital) will want payment as they always do.
If you offer to buy food for someone who has fallen on hard times, you don't expect tesco to give them it then ask for payment a few weeks later.
Do you feel BUPA should treat this child? If not, why not? Why the NHS? Neither organisation receives specific funds to treat children who are ineligible for NHS treatment. Why is the NHS the baddie?

Don't disagree with your comment about banker bonuses BTW. And can I throw in a few MPs and their duck houses?

NHS providers get paid by the way. By NHS commissioners. They don't do work free of charge - they bill (for most acute work, some is still managed separately)

Sorry my first 2 setences are true as of now. Give it a few days and watch the NHS disintegrate before your very eyes.

LtEveDallas Sat 16-Mar-13 15:04:05

I still cannot understand why the family of this child, or why the UKs Bangladeshi community havent thought to fundraise for this operation themselves? Why haven't they rallied round when one of their own needs them - like we all did for Aillidh, and like my co-workers did to help Oliver walk.

This family would have been aware 3 months ago that they were unlikely to receive this operation 'for free' on the NHS. At that point they should have started fundraising. They could have used the kind of publicity they are currently receiving to push their cause. Instead of being proactive and actually trying to help their daughter they thought it was more important to engage the services of a solicitor - NOT one that specialises in Immigration Law, but one whose website shows compensation claim success.

the whole thing is leaving a very nasty taste in my mouth.

I also read that the second expert the family got to assess their daughter was from Bangladesh - so they have contacts over their able to so this, but not to give their daughter the treatment they say she desperately needs? It doesn't add up.

According to Government figures, Bangladesh receives around £250 million a year from Britain's £8 billion annual aid budget. Heres an idea - if the family wont pay, why not take the money for the operation out of that? Of course it may mean that more seriously ill children in Bangladesh die...

I've paid in to the NHS for nearly 30 years now. I haven't used the service for 24 years, neither has my husband. Even my DD was born overseas. If I could I would have happily given every last penny of my NI contributions to Expat, or to Trazzle if it would keep their children alive, or even to Oliver to enable him to walk.

If this young girl needed a life saving operation I may feel differently, but right now I do not think that her needs are greater than those being turned down for life saving cancer treatment - that £10,000 is needed elsewhere and the family are well able to fundraiser themselves - they just need to get off their backsides and do it.

dikkertjedap Sat 16-Mar-13 15:08:07

I don't think cases like these will make the NHS disintegrate.

Hasn't happened with the Dutch system anyway and they have implemented this policy many many years ago. It has repeatedly been challenged in the courts (also in the Netherlands there are plenty of people who think that children from immigrants should not have the same rights as other children), each time the courts ruled that children need to have full access, not just in case of life saving treatment, but any treatment necessary from a medical perspective.

I have no problem with paying a higher, than otherwise may have been, health insurance premium, if this was triggering it. I think it has to do with wanting to act in a moral way. I would like to see a child, any child for that matter, in a humane way. What is happening to this child is morally wrong in my experience. Not just the actions of the parents, but also those of the NHS. This makes me sad.

Mrsdavidcaruso Sat 16-Mar-13 15:09:17

LtEve - thats on of the best posts on this thread

dikkertjedap Sat 16-Mar-13 15:10:24

sorry, my typing is definitely not up to scratch, should say children from illegal immigrants ...

The NHS has a legal duty to establish entitlement. That's been done in this case and the result means that the hospital cannot proceed without funding.

The same applies to all treatment for eligible people too. A certain level of service is agreed for each year. If the soon to be abolished PCTs deny to fund a particular surgery or drug and the hospital does it anyway then it's a black hole in their finances.

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 16:30:36

I think there are two different issues regarding rationing health care, within our society (I am not talking of people living in sub-Saharan Africa, but people within our communities)

One is about what level of treatment should be covered. This is decided by NICE and it applies to all. If we won't provide controversial/expensive drugs to A, we won't provide them to B or anyone else. This is not discriminatory, it is applicable to everyone. Btw, this is done everywhere, even in private insurance, and is based on cost-effectiveness clinical metrics and evidence

The second type of rationing is about discrimination. It says that X members living in our communities will get healthcare coverage, but not Y. And therein we go down a slippery slope. In 1981, a sick child like this baby girl, would have been treated by NHS, but not now. In the near future, we might pass a law saying that people who are on benefits can only get limited access to care, or only for the first two children, because, you know, resources are not unlimited. And the after, we will further restrict it to people who pay in only getting any access to care, because we lost all compassion for others and judge them unworthy and parasites.

The minute you give up the moral argument that all the vulnerable living within our communities should be cared for, you start by eroding benefits for everyone. Whether you realise it or not, your pointing fingers at this child will one day mean that people will find probably find you unworthy of care and your children a drain on our system. And then pass a rule to that effect

For a welfare state to be sustained, we have to protect the rights of the most vulnerable, not exclude them. Because once we exclude some people within our society, anyone else can be excluded too, based on the political hot-button of the day.

That is why it is better to ration care for everyone. Have everyone pay a bit for care, if need be, rather than be greedy and just want all the possible freebies for only some groups. Because there is no moral justification for that.

dikkertjedap Sat 16-Mar-13 16:53:21

Agree with what flatbread just posted.

Nobody is denying that resources are limited. They are, everywhere. It is how you decide on access to these scarce resources and whether you choose to do so in a discriminatory or non-discriminatory way.

In the Netherlands, this girl would be treated. It simply is irrelevant whether she is illegal or not, because all children who would need this specific treatment would get it. Also, like all other children in the Netherlands, she would have access to the immunisation program, regular check ups, etc., in addition, the education system until she is 18 and the judicial system for assistance if necessary.

This doesn't mean that the Dutch healthcare system pays for every possible treatment for every possible disease. Like NICE in the UK, it is centrally decided which treatments get funded and which don't. But, these decisions then apply to all children in the Netherlands, whatever their status is.

If parents nevertheless want access to a treatment not covered by Dutch health insurance, they would need to find a provider (almost certainly abroad) and pay themselves possibly selling their house (has happened) or fundraising etc. The Dutch insurance system also enables people to take out higher level insurance (more expensive than basic insurance), but this insurance will just cover extras like physiotherapy in more circumstances, dental care, own private room in hospital, etc. It will still not cover any treatments not approved by the central body. So there is no big difference between people who take out the basic level of insurance or the top level of insurance.

Although the Dutch system is very expensive, I am pleased we have it and not have these in my view inhumane outcomes like in the UK. I find it truly shocking that people on this thread genuinely think that some children in Britain are deserving care and other children also living in Britain are not deserving this through no fault of their own. This is pure discrimination.

Shame on you. sad sad sad

LtEveDallas Sat 16-Mar-13 17:08:42

If you are going to go down that route dikker, emotional rather rational, how about "shame on her parents that don't care enough about their daughter to raise the funds themselves by any means possible" sad sad sad

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 17:38:16

Yes, kick her parents when they are down. To say they don't care about their daughter hits a new low on this thread. Demonise them to justify your own selfish and petty way of thinking
angry sad sad

flatbread Sat 16-Mar-13 17:42:38

And Dikker is not being emotional, she is making a rational argument for a moral principle backed up by a real world example of how it works.

You on the other hand are coming up with excuses to defend the indefensible.

Goldmandra Sat 16-Mar-13 17:46:24

"shame on her parents that don't care enough about their daughter to raise the funds themselves by any means possible"

Shame on her parents for more than that but it doesn't change the fact that this isn't her parents. this baby is a person in her own right. She hasn't made the choices of her parents or the choice made by the authorities to allow her to stay here.

Should she also be denied the care of social services if her parents chose to abuse her and didn't have the funds to pay for a foster carer?

Should the police be called to rescue her if she was abducted or should her community fundraise to pay for that too.

This is about the rights of a child, not her parents.

mumarchy Sat 16-Mar-13 17:58:17

Bangladesh might be a poor country but isnt exactly a basket case. It has good medical facilities. If Sanika's parents are so concerned about her health then why dont they go back as soon as possible. Is it because if they leave the UK, they will forfeit the right to come back?

dikkertjedap Sat 16-Mar-13 18:02:38

I am not emotional but don't like one group of children in the UK being discriminated against. I agree with flatbread when you start rationing on a clearly discriminatory basis you are on a slippery slope. In my view this is simply immoral.

To say it would break the NHS is emotional and irrational. There is no reason to believe that that is the case. The Dutch healthcare system manages and is regarded as superior to the NHS by many (shorter waiting times, better patient reported outcomes, etc.).

This thread is really an eye opener for me and brings in the open the very bad things about British society. The 'we and them' culture. It seems some groups of people can do no wrong, it is never their fault, but innocent children are left to their devices, no sympathy, a cold, heartless, inhumane side of British society.

And then suggesting that the girl's parents feel entitled. Look at the things you have yourself. I bet they don't. Look at the chances you have/have had, I bet they don't. Or suggest that it is not such a big deal for this girl to loose (totally avoidable BTW) loss of one arm. I showed some of my Dutch friends this thread, they are simply shocked.

I have always found whilst teaching in the UK that the education system was poor in how it taught history and that is what I detect in the arguments here. These are the views prevalent in German society at the start and during the Second World War, the outcome was not good.

However, I am also very very glad that there are other posters who do firmly believe that this girl should get the treatments she needs, even if the family cannot fund it. So there is hope for British society after all. But really, this thread is not pretty reading.

Oh fgs. Suggesting the NHS should apply its own eligibility criteria appropriately is not Nazism.
And most/all people on this thread want that little girl treated. They just don't see why the NHS - an organisation with no obligation to do so, a bit like bupa or Tesco or rbs - should do so.

Should bupa treat this girl free of charge?