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?

Hec, sorry but that is how your post read. It was not "my child has this and we got treatment from NHS, damn right this child should have the same access as my son"

No, it was a back-pedalling...I feel sorry, but we cannot help, it is not so major...

Yeah right.

Hec I've already c&p your entire post. But om guessing all this will be completely ignored. Don't hold your breath for an apology, but you and everyone else who can read and interpret the written word knows you didn't say that

Screw you. Was it fuck that.

SolomanDaisy, yes, 18+ will only receive emergency treatment. The reasoning is that children should not become victim of the wrongdoings of their parents.

But no, there are no built in inequalities as far as I am aware. The cost of the basic health insurance is determined by central government.

People are free to choose their 'basisverzekering' or extend to a more elaborate form of insurance. There are plenty of basic policies where you can deliver in hospital, but many Dutch women prefer to have a home birth (very popular here) and only if necessary to be referred to hospital, which is usually very close, as there are a lot of hospitals. So, if a woman does want to have the option to deliver in hospital even if there is no medical need then she simply needs to take out 'basisverzekering' with a provider who covers that, this will not cost more as the price is set by government.

scottishmummy If Erb's palsy is really not that serious, why bother treating it at all?

Bollocks. Complete pile of wank. Read. What. Is. Written.

Cannot believe I am denying decency and fairness with someone who twists someone else's words out of all context to portray them as a hard birch, and then when it's pointed out to them by two people, continues to labour the point. Oh the fucking irony.

Debating, not denying.

nooka - yes, the Dutch system is one of the most expensive systems in the Western world. Cannot find a link right now, but it was one of the international organisations who published a table recently. However, it does produce generally very good patient reported outcomes (although there are also plenty of mistakes).

However, I am still not understanding why the UK cannot treat the children of illegal immigrants if the Dutch are perfectly able to do so without bankrupting their healthcare system. To me this suggests it is not about money or not just about money.

Not sure which poster, but the poster who considers me a racist, please explain why?

No one is saying that Erb's Pasy is not serious, SPB has given a very good description of what her son has gone through and the limitations he continues to suffer. But it is not unreasonable to challenge the media view that this little girl will be immanently paralyzed by giving us some more insight into the condition.

The Dutch system may be good, but it is a lot more expensive that the UK one, and right now the government is doing its best to cut the NHS to the bone, not expand it.

dikkertjedap the cost of treating children like this little girl will presumably have been built into Dutch costs. I doubt very much it will be a huge cost driver, we'd need a lot more data on immigration trends for a start. But the fact is that all public healthcare systems include rationing of one sort or another, and this affects costs.

Do not erroneously paraphrase me,I did not say erb palsy is not serious
I listed how it presents,that it will not limit her mobility

Nooka, I know the US health system is very inefficient. I have been an economic adviser to health insurers there.

I have seen the UK figures on cost of treatment, and in the US we used to hold these as an example of how a national insurer is more cost-effective than private competing ones.

But really, the UK has plenty of inefficiencies as well. We should have economies of scale, and yet NHS wastes £2Billion a year or more on inefficiencies in procurement, staffing and care protocols, based on national accounting reports.

At a guess I'd say the generalisations about. The British

Nooka I was pasting hecs post. It's her son was trying to set record straight as she was accused of some nasty crap

The Dutch have many fewer illegal immigrants to treat, as they are automatically deported upon discovery. Holland is far far stricter than the UK on this.

People get up-in-arms protesting the paltry cost to treat this child. But cannot be bothered to protest NHS inefficiencies and poor management practices which could save billions.

Suggests this is not really about 'saving' the NHS. But is more about justifying discrimination and possibly racism and a 'us vs. them' nasty attitude towards children in our community.

Of course there are built in inequalities. A Dutch friend with only basic insurance got only 9 sessions of pregnancy physio. Many people are effectively tied to an insurer because of the work-based policies, which effectively restricts their birth choices. There is also the inequality that the insurance costs the same no matter how much you earn, thus costing a higher percentage of a low earner's salary. And I'm not sure Geert Wilders agrees with you on all Dutch people wanting to give health care to children of illegal immigrants.

It's not wholly the cost,it's the principle the precedent if eligibility criteria changed
If you consider the cost paltry, donate what you can afford towards her op

Yes, flatbread, sadly that is my feeling as well reading this thread ...

It is all about justifying the unjustifiable ...

SolomanDaisy I am sure Geert Wilders doesn't agree, some people challenged the Dutch policy in Court and luckily enough they lost.

The Dutch decided to enshrine the rights of illegal children in Law. Unfortunately this was necessary because there were some Dutch providers still refusing children access to healthcare, hence the Law has now made this punishable with a custodial sentence. It is sad that this had to happen, but good that it is enshrined in Law now.

Geert Wilders represents the nasty underbelly of Dutch society.

However, nobody I know is tied to their health insurer through work, because if that is the case then the employer would be acting illegally.

It's not a paltry cost if changing the rules opens the floodgates. She's not being 'punished'. if she's in danger, the police are there, if she's being abused social services will help, if she needs emergency medical care, the NHS will deliver it regardless of her parent's status and criminality. But she's not entitled to the full range of public services that comes with being a British citizen or legal immigrant.

I volunteered in a welfare advice service for years and saw quite a few Bangladeshi families like this. Dad comes over on a visa to work in the family restaurant trade, claiming to be a skilled chef. Drops out of sight with the aid of the family, appears several years later with wife and several children in tow. Applies to regularise his status on compassionate grounds, citing the kids, frequently successfully. It's a really well known scam.

Frankly this is one of the myriad of difficult decision in health that staff face daily
It's really hard,has impact on human level but I agree with the decision
This is reality of finite resources, huge demands on nhs and social care

Dikker, Flatbread. Here is the story I alluded to earlier about the young man who will DIE without treatment the NHS cannot fund. Sam John doesn't want to die. He is from the same area as Sakina and his treatment is likely to cost £100k rather than £10k.

LINK

His website is HERE

In 2 days they have already raised £4000. I've just logged on and donated a tenner - will you?

scottishmummy Sat 16-Mar-13 18:50:51
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

So what did you want to say? Does this post add anything to the debate?