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?

V interesting post, expat

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 !

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

'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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

'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.

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.

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

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)

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

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.

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 ((()))

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.

Thank you.

I completely agree with you.

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.