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

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

"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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

Shoot you?

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.

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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

You don't read all the posts?

Mortal sin! Burn in hell! :o

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.

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 !