Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

Baby denied treatment by NHS because family have overstayed

520 replies

wonderstuff · 14/03/2013 22:12

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?

OP posts:
SolomanDaisy · 16/03/2013 19:56

An underbelly supported by 15% of the electorate. And I said effectively tied in through work, rather than actually. I would probably support NHS treatment for the children of illegal immigrants, but I can't agree with any analysis that holds up either the Dutch healthcare system or their attitude to immigrants as ideals for us ignorant Brits to follow.

scottishmummy · 16/03/2013 19:56

my posts adds more than a Hmmhumphy wee face
It clarifies the functional impact,won't result I'm mobility loss or paralysis
Operation Is classified as non emergency treatment,and child not entitled to non emergency op which her family contest

flatbread · 16/03/2013 20:01

So whatCat? If she has parents that have broken an immigration law, the child should be discriminated and denied public healthcare?

What about mums on welfare their whole life? Thats a scam as well. Let's pass a rule that we deny their children care as well.

And thieves and others that take from our society? Yup, pass rules to deny their children rights to healthcare and education as well.

Only a select group of children from 'worthy' parents should have access to our public funds.

Hmm
mumarchy · 16/03/2013 20:02

This is about the child getting treatment for her condition. If the parents are really serious about it, Sanika can get treated at Dhaka Medical college hospital, Bangladesh. But I guess they are more keen on staying in the UK.

dikkertjedap · 16/03/2013 20:04

Dallas I am really glad that already so much has been raised in just two days. That is brilliant. I hope the little girl with Erb's palsy will also manage to get the money she needs.

SPBInDisguise · 16/03/2013 20:06

Bollocks flatbread you are making up shite and attributing it to posters on this thread. Where has anyone said parents on benefits shouldn't be entitled to have their children treated? In fact you were arguing that we (the great unwashed) were saying the opposite further down. You really haven't got a clue

scottishmummy · 16/03/2013 20:08

Dikker what does your Hmmhumphy face add to thread?
Are you want to discuss the presentation of erb palsy?
Perhaps the Hmmface is you disagree with the prognosis?

dikkertjedap · 16/03/2013 20:09

SolomanDaisy, an underbelly supported by 10.1 %, clearly, 10.1 % too many but at least fewer than before, they were one of the biggest losers together with GroenLinks.

LtEveDallas · 16/03/2013 20:10

Well dikker maybe she will, but that will depend on the parents won't it?

Did you donate by the way? I mean, that's a 16 year old child that will DIE without treatment. Sad Sad Sad

SolomanDaisy · 16/03/2013 20:18

I think the previous 15% is more relevant to a discussion which is effectively whether people are repulsed by his views on immigration. I don't think they stopped voting for him because they were worried about medical care for illegal immigrants, do you? Which indicates that this discussion could take place in the UK or in the Netherlands. There seem to be people from quite a few nationalities/residencies posting.

LtEve, I thought proton beam therapy was a bit more controversial and less certain than die/not die arguments? Not that I know much about it, so what I heard might well be out of date/wrong.

LtEveDallas · 16/03/2013 20:24

No you are right Solomon, and I suppose that it part of the reason why the PCT cannot fund it (as well as the fact that he is now 16 and the rules consider that he is now an adult Confused). The treatment he wants may not cure him, but his family are clutching at straws and willing to do anything to give their child a chance. If you scroll back up Expat did explain it a lot better than I could.

dikkertjedap · 16/03/2013 20:32

The UK will get its own proton beam treatment, this will not help this boy but I therefore do expect that the NHS will fund his treatment as they clearly accept that there is a benefit otherwise they wouldn't get their own centre.

However, if they don't then yes, I will make a contribution, but I will equally make a contribution to the little girl.

Dallas - if there is a fundraising link for the little girl would you make a contribution?

LtEveDallas · 16/03/2013 20:33

Yes.

LtEveDallas · 16/03/2013 20:39

Oh and the Proton Beam Treatment coming in to London won't get here until 2017 - he could be dead by then.

I have donated because the sooner he gets the treatment the more likely it is to help and because his family have said quite categorically that if the PCT does fund his treatment the money they have raised will be given to other sufferers/for research.

They aren't blaming the NHS.

flatbread · 16/03/2013 20:45

LtEve, what on earth has one thing got to do with another?

In the link you provided, the child was provided free treatment as a child and not discriminated against.

There are NICE protocols on treatments available to everyone based on Evidence Based Medicine guidelines. And when a treatment becomes available, it is provided without discrimination. (well, except that based on clinical efficacy)

What is the comparision?

The issue under discussion is denying public care to a child born and living in our society, while that treatment is freely provided to other children here. It is about discriminating against groups of children living in our communities, based on the actions of their parents.

It is not about making a donation, it is about enshrining the right of the child. She is not a charity case. She is an individual who has broken no laws and should get every access to treatment that other children in her community get.

LtEveDallas · 16/03/2013 20:48

Oh, so that's a no then?

Well done.

SPBInDisguise · 16/03/2013 20:52

So flatbread what you are saying is that he deserves to die? Bloody hellis that he de

expatinscotland · 16/03/2013 21:02

'LtEve, what on earth has one thing got to do with another?'

The same thing that your assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is a workshy lazy scrounger or criminal has to do with the case in question.

flatbread · 16/03/2013 21:05

No, I think it is great that his family is fund-raising to provide him care that is not covered by NHS for anyone.

But the issue here is about a child being discriminated with regard to public provision of goods.

I donate here www.choa.org/Support-Childrens/Give-to-Childrens

But that doesn't mean Medicaid doesn't have an equal duty of care towards all children, without discrimination.

I still don't get how this is relevant to this thread. I can point to many Fund-raising pages for health treatments (and there are so many in the US), but how does it relate to this case? It is about the human rights of the child. To be treated equally to other children in her community.

nailak · 16/03/2013 21:09

I get the feeling this is just theory to most of you. I have a friend, her husband has been waiting for 7 years to get a decision on his immigration status. In that time he met my friend, who is on student visa and got married, had a dd who is 3 now. How long can peoples live in limbo for? If this girl came would you deny her treatment? They have all now been given right to remain in last month.

flatbread · 16/03/2013 21:09

I didn't call anyone a criminal. I said arguing that a child should be denied care because her parents may be 'gaming' the system is equivalent to saying a child should be denied care because their parent is a criminal. Or on benefits and thus gaming the system.

Many of you obviously lack the mental skills to see that these are similarly ridiculous arguments to make. A child living in society should not be discriminated based on the sins of her parents.

Sheesh, some of you are really thick!

AThingInYourLife · 16/03/2013 21:11

People should not be denied treatment as a punishment for breaking the law.

The child is not being punished for anything.

Her ineligibility is no more a punishment than the ineligibility of emigrants who move out of the UK.

The NHS provides treatment for people ordinarily resident in the UK.

The child is not ordinarily resident here.

If she is eligible for treatment then other members of our society who have made thrmselves ineligible by moving abroad temporarily will also have a case to make.

The rules on eligibility are not there to punish. They are there to restrict.

We discriminate on the basis of legal residency.

How do you establish that someone is an illegal immigrant and also that they are a part of our society?

Allowing non-residents free NHS treatment obviously creates massive problems in terms of affordability.

flatbread · 16/03/2013 21:12

And oh yes, the are some people who have inhaled all the benefits they can get and used the NHS system to the fullest, and are banging on how this child should not get care. Talk about entitlement!

SPBInDisguise · 16/03/2013 21:13

Hey but at least we can readand interpret words.

SPBInDisguise · 16/03/2013 21:14

Who? Because once again I believe you to be talkig tosh. Name names and we'll discuss it. Else understand that people are seeing right though your crappy smug superior and based on twisting words arguments