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?

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"

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

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.

"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.

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?

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?

Nhs is like the police and social services. It is a public service.

Bupa and tesco are private companies.

There is no comparison.

It demonstrates very poor reasoning and logic to think that a public service has the same responsibilities, or lack thereof, as a private, for-profit company.

If this wasn't about a baby, no-one would give a shit. of course what I said was horrible - it was meant to be. When people are having a rational discussion, it is nothing but emotional blackmail to post something as ridiculous as "Shame on you" and a plethora of tiny sad faces.

NO-ONE on this thread wants this child to suffer. NO-ONE on this thread has said anything so ridiculous or rotten.

The NHS does NOT have the money to help this little girl. They have made that quite clear. The parents now have a decision to make - fund raise using the publicity they have already received and have their child treated, or put all their effort into a compensation claim...by which time it will probably be too late forna full recovery if the experts are to be believed.

Children are DYING because the NHS cannot fund their LIFE SAVING treatments. This child is not dying.

Parents up an down the country are tying themselves in knots, fundraising, setting up focus and awareness groups, putting their lives on hold to take their children to other countries for life saving treatment not funded by the NHS, joining the Anthony Nolan Bone Marrow Register, begging their friends to sign up, begging for money, for time, for a miracle - and my God, when the worst happens they are STILL fund raising for research into the disease that killed their child - Now THAT is worthy of a sad face.

In the same edn of the Huff Post there is another story of a 16 year old boy whose parents are fund raising for treatment for his aggressive and almost certainly FATAL brain tumor - the same PCT has had to turn down his treatment. His parents are fund raising to send him to America for treatment, rather than suing the PCT.

This child needs help, yes, but not from the NHS. There are other avenues open to her parents, just like there are other avenues open for ALL parents. Why should this child be treated any differently?

None of those organisations have within their remit providing services to people for whom payment is not forthcoming.

Thanks for the comments on my reasoning and logic. I happen to believe it's the other way round. Also still want to know who these benefit scroungers are you mention but given I'v asked a few times and you've failed to respond i'll not hold my breath.

I am sorry Dikkerjedap is is NOT discrimination and your comments about the British borders on very very serious racism IMO.

If this thread had been on other countries websites, other countries who themselves ration healthcare for illegal immigrants you would be getting the same type of replies and that is a fact.

You have said that you hadn't read most of the posts, perhaps you should have done, you would have read the post from someone who's child had the same condition who with great dignity told us all how the condition affects the child and debunked a lot of what had been described.

You would have read posts from people whose child had died (including mine) due to NHS cuts and other posters who's children are suffering also due to lack of NHS funding.

You would have seen post after post (including mine) from people who have said they would be willing donate money to help the child and people who are trained in immigration law explaining the parents position and what they SHOULD have done to get help for their own child well before the situation was urgent.

But no you read a few posts and decide to post the type of tirade which, if posted by a British Person against another Nationality would have been removed for racist content.

So, why is it that the Dutch healthcare system can treat all children staying in the Netherlands without regard to their status? Why does it not bankrupt or undermine the Dutch system?

The Dutch system does not fund a number of treatments. However, I am very pleased to report that there is no national outcry in the Netherlands (like on this thread), saying that because Jan (born and bred Dutch) cannot have treatment for X as it is not funded by the Dutch healthcare system, Omar, whose parents are illegal, should not get treatment available to Jan and all other kids who stay legally in the Netherlands.

Yes, I find the behaviour by a large number of posters on this thread immoral and inhumane. And, yes, that makes me feel and yes, I do think people should feel shame about this, but clearly if people behave in an immoral and inhumane way they may not be capable of feeling shame .

Actually, I am British and I think Dikker is absolutely correct in her observation

The term 'Hitler's willing executioners' sprung to my mind when reading this thread...

I think it is time for reflection if this is what we have come down to, as a society. Squabbling to deny a sick child living in our society, a treatment protocol that is routinely provided to other children in our country

Including the poster who said it is no big deal if this child loses functioning of one arm (but clearly she thought it was a big enough deal to get the same treatment for her child from our public funds)

X posted with Dikker

If you're talking about hecate then you're starting to misrepresent what she said. For the record she said:

" 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 thatthe parents could afford it."

Hope that helps jog your memory

clearly if people behave in an immoral and inhumane way they may not be capable of feeling shame

What's immoral is turning up in the UK on a 1 year work visa in 2008 and dropping off the radar in 2009 as an illegal overstayer, either working in the black economy and/or scamming benefits for the next four years, and popping out three kids in that time that you are fully aware have no right to citizenship. Then even when you are told that your child is entitled to NHS emergency treatment for free and quality of life treatment as a private patient, fail to respond to the hospital's offer and pop up a few months later with your compensation lawyer.

"Health Tourism" is a huge drain on the NHS - there's an entire DoH unit devoted to tracking down foreign and illegal immigrant scammers who've sneaked past the checks to try and recover their treatment costs, which run into the millions. I feel sorry for the child, and as many have said, she's entitled to treatment which I'm sure people would be willing to pay for. But the family are taking the piss and changing the eligibility rules would just encourage others.

Dikkertjedap, the Dutch system would refuse treatment to an uninsured adult illegal immigrant though. The 'total' cover applies only to children, so a line has been drawn there about what the system is not prepared to cover. The system also has built in inequalities of its own, for example some insurance companies do not cover non-emergency hospital birth for those with only basic cover, while every woman in the UK is entitled to a choice. The lines over who gets the finite resources have just been drawn differently.

some clinical point to clarify
Erb's palsy is caused by damage to the brachial plexus. This is mostly limited to the 5th and 6th cervical nerves. Without the op child will have reduced function of arm,impaired strength,impaired sensation, impaired reduced range of movement..the impact will be localized to arm,and hand function it will not affect any other part of body,she wont be paralysed or immobilised

We don't think children are responsible for the sins of their parents.

There is no moral justification for discriminating against a group of children living in our society and denying them public services provided to all other children

Adults are responsible for their actions. Children cannot be punished for the actions of their parents.

This is the most basic moral stance and justification for a welfare state.

And if we think it is morally ok for a child to be discriminated against because of her parents, well, let's add to the list then, why stop at illegal immigration? Let's deny care to children whose parents are not productive members of society, those on benefits, those convicted of crime etc.

The Dutch healthcare system is also significantly more expensive than the NHS. I doubt that is particularly to do with whether or not they provide treatment to children who would not be eligible in the UK, but it is not a very helpful comparison. The comparison to the USA's take on citizenship through birth isn't very useful either. Both are too different, and in any case only a very small part of the picture. In the US this child might be a citizen, but she'd not be getting non emergency treatment. Perhaps in Holland her parents would not have been able to enter or to overstay for four years.

Just for flatbread who thinks that the NHS is incredibly inefficient here is a report to read: www.commonwealthfund.org/~/media/Files/Publications/Fund%20Report/2010/Jun/1400_Davis_Mirror_Mirror_on_the_wall_2010.pdf showing as most comparable reports do that the NHS is (was) one of the most cost efficient systems in the world.

Clearly this is a very sad situation, but immigrants do not have the same rights as citizens in most counties (I am one myself and it is a stressful fact). It is discriminatory, but personally I don't think immoral.

did I
FUCK
Say it was no big deal.

You fucking cut and paste where I said it was no big fucking deal.

go on. Cut and paste where I said it was no big deal.

Nooka, from the national audit office:

A National Audit Office (NAO) report published today said that NHS hospitals in England could save around £500m a year if they improve the way they buy everyday supplies.

NHS hospitals in England spend around £4.6bn each year on a huge range of supplies and the study looked at how hospitals purchased 66,000 products, from nurses? uniforms and bandages to paper clips. The conclusion is that the NHS as a whole spends almost half a billion pounds more of taxpayer money than it needs to. And that would make a big dent in the savings ministers say the NHS must make. Purchasing inefficiencies and small orders were the key culprits with price variations for the same items of between 10-50%!

The report also identified that in 61 trusts, 21 different types of A4 paper were purchased along with 652 different types of surgical and examination gloves.

The chair of the Commons? Public Accounts Committee, Margaret Hodge MP, said ?The range of similar products that trusts buy is sometimes so wide as to appear ridiculous: how can it be, for instance, that while one trust does its work with just 13 different types of surgical glove, another requires 177??

I corrected this idea that the child will be 'slowly paralysed'. Because that isn't true.

I explained what erbs palsy actually IS.

And I said in my first post
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.

And in my second
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.

And I am posting this separately because it will likely get deleted.

How fucking DARE you use - LIE - about the content of my posts to make them fit your agenda.

You are either as thick as fucking PIGSHIT and don't understand the written word or so damned determined to push your pile of shit that you don't care what people actually say.

flatbread I'm not disputing that there may well be ways for the NHS to save money. I'd say this was true of most organisations. I've never worked anywhere where there wasn't waste or inefficiencies of some sort. However in international comparisons the NHS has previously done very well on cost efficiency. This is likely to decrease with the changes being put through at the moment, because in general fragmentation leads to inefficiency (and the costs of reorganization are vast).

Certainly it is well known that US style privately managed systems are very inefficient (double the cost for poorer outcomes in the report I linked to).