Baby denied treatment by NHS because family have overstayed

[wonderstuff]

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?

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:

Blu where would my DS potentially get treatment and expat 's friend's DD get their treatment then, eh?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

"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?

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?

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.

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

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

But I don't much care about their motivations

'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 ?!

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.

'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.