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?

How is this child here illegally? She was born here. Where is she an ordinary resident of? A country she has never been to or a country she actually lives in?

Like I said, hiding behind 'rules' to excuse their inhumanity. Instead of fighting to get the rules changed to protect all children living in our communities.

'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! '

You mean people like me and Trazzle. At least have the balls to say it!

This person is here illegally because children cannot apply for visa status here in their own right, they are dependents of the parent(s).

This is not about denying it is about payment.

But keep spraffing and calling people hypocrites, entitled, benefits scroungers and whatever but not having the bollocks to just name names.

PB, lol I could care less what you or your ilk think. Like I said, the attitudes on this thread are disgusting.

And there are plenty of people here who have clearly said they have fully used NHS for their children, but want to deny the same access to this child.

Shame on everyone who doesn't see this child as precious and worthy of our resources as every other child in our community.

I am leaving this thread. The shameless will continue to justify the unjustifiable.

Glad to hear you do care what I think of you. In that case I think you owe hec an apology. Plus these benefit scroungers you keep passive aggressively talking about.

No one said deny or even calling for the removal that should have happened several years ago. People are saying to pay for treatment.

But on you go, then. Call people who have already been told that if their child's cancer comes back, tough shit!, raise the money or they die, because there isn't the money for it, shameful, awful people, hypocrites, benefits scroungers, etc.

And then don't have the bollocks to name names.

"Shame on everyone who doesn't see this child as precious and worthy of our resources as every other child in our community."

Why is it immoral to draw the line at legal status but acceptable to draw it at "community" (however you define it)?

How can we draw a line that deems any child unworthy of our resources?

Or any adult for that matter?

If we're going for full on emotional blackmail and insisting we can't turn people away, then how is a country's border any more moral a line than legal immigration status?

We discriminate on the basis of legal residency. That's no more or less moral than drawing a line at the border, or at place of birth, or at adulthood.

Not everyone is or can be entitled to free NHS care.

The argument that it is immoral to limit coverage is really a cover for arguing that there should be no NHS.

My point since my very first post is that there were other avenues open to her parents. Avenues that they should have followed. If they had, started fundraising in Nov 12 when they had the first notice that her care could not be provided free of charge then they would almost certainly had had the money by now, and their child would have already have had her operation.

Instead they ignored the request for information and 3 months later engaged the services of an ambulance chasing solicitor. NOT to speed up their leave to remain so she could be treated, but to sue the PCT for not treating her.

Even if the parents win their case, it's going to take longer than a month - which according to them is all she has left before she is paralysed.

Whereas Sams parents have already raised £4k of their seemingly impossible total - in just 2 days. Because they put Sam first. I applaud their actions and will promote this cause amongst my friends as much as I can, just as Expat does every time she posts about another poor child on her FB page.

I have been googling systematically all day for any note of a justgiving or charity page for Sakina without any joy. What will it take for her parents to DO something?

I don't want this child to suffer, but until her parents set their priorities my hands are tied.

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

Hilarious. So I state specifically that children of illegal immigrant criminals in the UK should be entitled to emergency healthcare, which means I'm er... against emergency healthcare for children of illegal immigrant criminals.

You've willfully misrepresented everyone who disagrees with you on this thread to the extent that you come across as some Millie Tant plant by UKBA. But you've got form for this. You started another thread in which you claimed that Kate Middleton was personally and solely responsible for the death of that suicidal nurse. If anyone expressed even the slightest disagreement you went into a hysterical rant that they were peasant forelock-tuggers who wanted to suck Prince Philip's cock. Which was very amusing - but your cowardly trolling of people who've lost children to cancer in this thread is disgusting.

And if you're an Economist by profession, I'm Gwynneth Paltrow.

"Shame on everyone who doesn't see this child as precious and worthy of our resources as every other child in our community."

She is not part of the UK community as she is here illegally. Every child is precious, but it is a matter of resouces. Surely it makes sense to treat children with life threatening conditions.

If the parents wanted to they could have raised the money to have her treated either in the UK or their own country with a just giving page. They could have approach charities.

To Gwyneth, No trolling on my part, I didn't know anyone's circumstances when I wrote on this thread. I am just not that interested in other posters. (although I am very sorry for anyone who has lost a child)

But you on the other hand, seem to be trying to make personal attacks to discredit me. (a common approach when someone lacks a coherent argument)

Btw, maybe you should brush up on your comprehension skills, we are talking about necessary non-emergency care to children living in our country. Providing emergency care to anyone is a given and not under discussion.

Really tired, the child was born in UK and lives in UK and is thus currently part of our community, whether you like it or not.

So much for the flounce.

I know, it was a pretty short flounce

But now I must go to bed. Gotta take the dogs for a looong beach walk early tomorrow.

"But you on the other hand, seem to be trying to make personal attacks to discredit me. (a common approach when someone lacks a coherent argument)"

Ha! After what you did to Hecate's post I don't know how you have the nerve! At least you have agreed that you lack a coherent argument.
And btw the phrase is "couldn't care less". Just thought I'd mention, with you being so clever and us being so fick n all)

"the child was born in UK and lives in UK and is thus currently part of our community, whether you like it or not."

You are defining "community" as including everyone who is born here and who lives here.

Really's definition of community as including everyone who lives here officially and who is part of the system of contribution to social insurance is equally valid.

And really, nobody needed to bother discrediting you. You have't been remotely convincing on this thread. Even for someone who is basically on the fence.

Unfortunately your crass insinuations that everyone who disagrees with you is a benefit scrounger has focused attention on your rubbish arguments instead of on the strong arguments in support of treating this girl made by others.

I don'need to convince anybody.

Either you believe all children are innocent and equal or you exclude groups for whatever justification you want.

There are 120,000 or so children born to illegal immigrants and over half were born and growing up in UK, according to an Oxford study.

Obviously you are comfortable with this group of children living amongst us being discriminated against, based on the immigration status of their parents.

You can come up with any excuses you like, but you are justifying the unjustifiable. But obviously you feel comfortable with that, and feel no shame about it.

nailak "I get the feeling this is just theory to most of you." About immigration? About waiting for a decision whether you can stay or not? About your rights while you are here? No. I don't know about the entire family being made to leave but I know at least about your life being on hold while you wait for the government to make decisions about whether you can be a family in the UK and about restrictions placed upon someone. I married a Kenyan. We fought for ten years for him to be given right to remain. (I've written about it on here previously, it was a bloody farce) He's been subject to immigration control and he had 'no recourse to public funds' for a period of time too.

We came so close to him being put on a plane. If they had made him leave, we'd have had to go with him, or he'd have gone back alone and we'd been apart while he appealed from there.

Our lives were on hold for many years. Would he be allowed to stay or would we all have to abandon our lives here and go to Kenya.

As someone else asked, why draw the lines of physical country boundaries? Why does your definition of community not extend further? You're just as heartless as you accuse the rest of us of being, but you choose to define community differently.

What's going on on this thread - a lot of posts?

Aah bit of argie bargie.

Quick scan - looks like flatbread has a good strong argument here.

Good argument?yes if you consider belligerent name calling and spectacular inability to grasp health economics good
Your comments are the asinine equivalent of c'mon now,Whits aw the fighting about

"c'mon now,Whits aw the fighting about"

:o

Ha ha! Yes, that's exactly it.

I can assure you nailak this isn't theory,this is one of the many challenging and distressing decisions health and social care staff make on a v regular basis
With finite resources,increasing demands,govt squeeze on budgets this is not a social science essay it's front line
To manage the finite resources There needs to be an eligibility or management of resources and this is such an example

If people are moved,do feel they can contribute then fundraising is an option
Numerous examples of other parents with health need who raise funds to proceed with op

The problem of this goes back to the legitimacy of money being taken in taxes from us. The 'deal' for this country's citizens is we hand over some of our money we've earned to the government as National Insurance so that we or anyone else can access various benefits, including health care. We might realise that for a lot of us, we will pay more in over our life times than we will ever take out, but the 'social contract' is ok, because we see ourselves as part of a community, a tribe, albeit a big one. We see all members of it as being in our 'tribe' so it's ok to give up our money to help them.

The problem comes when you don't clearly define the community, if you start letting the money go 'outside' it stops seeming fair to those paying in for something they aren't getting.

Sadly, the line will have to be drawn somewhere - and I think illegal immigrants while not being part of the community are clearly outside that group even if they are physically in this country.

Flatbread - I don't see that your argument holds about children being innocent - of course all babies are, but why is this little girl born in the UK but not part of the community any more innocent and deserving than if she'd been born in her parents' home country? Either we have a duty to treat everyone free of charge to them or we only have a duty to treat those who are part of our 'tribe/community/society' - only the children of those who are in the group, not the children of the whole world.

How you define who is and who isn't in the group might be wrong, but the rules are quite clear, she's not - being born here doesn't get you in - that might be wrong, but that is a different issue to once you know someone isn't in the community, should they get the treatment anyway.

I think that the fact that she was born here and sustained the injury here is relevant.

If someone travels here or is brought here with an existing condition and receives treatment because they are a child this would genuinely open the floodgates and, however deserving the child was, would not be sustainable.

However children with health problems which arise in the country are a different matter. They are not able to access healthcare in their country of nationality because they are here. This is not due to a decision of their own. Our system is keeping them in limbo and for the duration of that limbo they have a moral right to be treated with equality to the children they live amongst.

This child is a victim of her parent's actions and the UK's policies. The policies could be reviewed.

There will always be someone with cancer for whom there is a glimmer of hope through treatment which is not available on the NHS. It is simplistic to say that this treatment should always have priority over that of those whose conditions are not life threatening. It is also unreasonable to suppose that treatment for other sick children is what must be cut in order for the needs of children of illegal immigrant families to be met.

I agree that something else wouldn't be funded if these children became entitled to NHS treatment but there are many difficult decisions like this made every day in the NHS. Perhaps this is one which could be revisited.

Most relevant and impacting is parental illegal status,child born here to illegals she's not uk citizen
Eligibility to non emergency care based upon eligibility.she's ineligible or routine op
Can't willfully overlook it because you disagree or pick and chose what you deem relevant

Jolly sensible, Goldmandra. The child is effectively stateless for NHS purposes.