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:
scottishmummy · 17/03/2013 09:56

No.this is about the eligibility and clinical condition is non urgent
Child is eligible for emergency treatments irrespective of citizenship

AThingInYourLife · 17/03/2013 10:36

"Our system is keeping them in limbo"

Is it?

They are free to leave at any time, are they not?

The limbo is self-chosen in an attempt to secure free treatment.

I'm not sure that works as an argument.

DontmindifIdo · 17/03/2013 11:41

I agree with AThing - they've chanced their hand, overstaying, having a DC here, building a life in the UK when they knew they had no right too. It's backfired spectaularly, but they still have choices, they just aren't entitled to free healthcare, they still can access healthcare, they would have to raise the funds (they've not tried although they've officially known for months they aren't entitled to free treatment and probably understood longer than that), they haven't tried to return to Bangladesh to access treatment, they are still risking their DD's health on a chance they can get away with it.

DontmindifIdo · 17/03/2013 11:41

Although I wonder if they've gone public not because they are angry at the NHS, but because they are hoping someone will come forward and offer to pay...

Xenia · 17/03/2013 11:51

The NHS is not a free resource for the world. As said above emergency treatment is available anyway as we are incredibly generous in our provision here and the family could pay to have treatment here or they could return to Bangladesh.

alemci · 17/03/2013 12:00

or surely they have people in their own community in GB who could help or do you think they are waiting to see if the NHS will fund it.

expatinscotland · 17/03/2013 12:02

If you are British and married to a Kenyan, how is it that you did not return to Kenya to apply for his spousal visa if your marriage was after 2004, or he goes to Kenya to apply for fiance visa, which would allow you two to marry in the UK and then his subsequent application for spousal visa without having to return to his country of origin? Before this, he would have been allowed to marry on any legal visa and then transfer to a spousal visa without returning to country of origin. Never heard of that taking years and years.

Asylum applications can take years, but they are allowed to use the NHS.

Illegal immigrants are not.

scottishmummy · 17/03/2013 12:05

If every adult from Bangladeshi community in uk gave £1 they'd raise the funds
They can go to to bangladesh for treatment,but won't be able to return to uk,being known to ukba as illegal

Animation · 17/03/2013 12:15

Ooh well can't argue with that! - not when expatinscotland and scottishmummy are on the same page! Wink

Blimey!!

ImTooHecsyForYourParty · 17/03/2013 12:19

Are you talking to me, expat?

I was just replying to the poster who said that she thought we had no experience of immigration, that it was all 'theoretical', to say that actually no, I do have experience and to explain what that was.

We married in 1998. He came here in 1991, was in the middle of appeals etc when we met, we were married about 10 years before he got his leave to remain. It was a total mess from start to finish. It was an extremely complicated one. Including them losing his bloody file at one point! Hmm

And I only outlined it as I say, to say that no, it's not simply theoretical, some of us do have some experience. Because it felt like the poster was saying we have no clue what it's like. Which isn't true.

As to why he didn't leave and apply from the other side, we just followed the advice we were given by the organisation we had asked to help us.

It certainly did take years and years. I have no reason to lie about it. It was a bloody crappy time.

expatinscotland · 17/03/2013 13:09

Ah, I see, Hecs.

expatinscotland · 17/03/2013 13:10

This family are free to leave, however, despite the fact they should have been removed long ago.

expatinscotland · 17/03/2013 13:11

Or they can pay up.

flatbread · 17/03/2013 13:26

What happens if the girl's parents suddenly die?

Do we send her to Bangladesh? What if the government there refuses to grant her citizenship because she wasn't born there? Does she become stateless?

What about children of illegal immigrants born in UK who have parents from different countries. What is their nationality?

It is an absurd system, with no protection for the rights of the child as an individual.

The common-sense and humane answer is that if a child is born and resides in our country, they should be given a legal right to live here and have the same protection as other children living here.

But then ofcourse you get the frothers about how Asia and Africa will suddenly be deserted as everyone flocks here and NHS will topple over.

While the reality in other countries that take care of the children of illegal immigrants are doing fine, with no disastrous outcomes. But why let facts get in the way of fear-mongering and prejudice

aimum · 17/03/2013 13:36

Flatbread, her parents knew all this before they entered the country. I have lived in other countries where you have to obtain visas and medicase cards to access basic emergency health care. As a parent I made sure we had the right visas and I made sure we had health insurance to cover us for other things. Thats part of being a responsible parent.

I knew that my being welcome in these countries was dependent on my having a visa and I wouldn't have dreamed of over-staying. The girls parents knew what they were doing.

My initial reaction is that the girl should be treated but when you look at the bigger picture it doesn't make sense. It sets a precedent for other people to come here to access medical care that would otherwise cost them lots of money in their own country. I don't just mean 3rd world countries but even countries such as America and Australia. We (i.e. the UK) just can't afford to perform surgeries ont he whole world. The parents need to take the girl back to Bangladesh and get the treatment done, or find a way to fund it themselves.

DontmindifIdo · 17/03/2013 13:36

flatbread - the child will be put into state care unless other family come forward. Under those circumstances, she probably would have the op.

illegal immigrants born in the UK who have parents from different countries would have a claim to duel nationality of both of those countries.

I don't think at all that a child born here and residing her should get automatic right to citizenship, there's been enough case of woman in late stages of pregnancy, and even labour despirately trying to get into the US so their DCs have US citizenship (often the results to the woman's health are not good) to make me think it's a very bad idea to give a loop hole like this. How many men who want their DCs to be born british will force their wives to travel past a point when it's safe to do so if you brought in that rule?

scottishmummy · 17/03/2013 13:43

If hypothetically parents die,hope they not.this would initiate sw assessment
Child would be assessed by sw, any appropriate family or other suitable adults identified,assessed as suitability to be carers
The statutory duty is to assess this would be undertaken. From assessment there would've plan and referral to c&f team

NorthernLurker · 17/03/2013 13:45

If you give right of residency to every child born here then you would also be giving right of residence to their parents and older siblings because the child cannot live here alone. So what you would do is create an incentive for people to have children here - whatever their personal circumstances. That would be a really stupid policy unless you wanted to encourage mass immigration.

I want to respond to nailak too. This certainly isn't a theoretical question for me. I come in to contact with this question on a fairly regular basis at work.

AThingInYourLife · 17/03/2013 13:46

"The common-sense and humane answer is that if a child is born and resides in our country, they should be given a legal right to live here and have the same protection as other children living here."

That would be automatic citizenship if you are born here.

You call that common sense, but only one country in the world offers that now, AFAIK.

Ireland used to but no longer does.

Granting citizenship to everyone born in a country is very much the exception.

Astley · 17/03/2013 13:49

I still think if you really cared about your child becoming disabled you'd go back to Bangladesh and get treatment there. You wouldn't stay here and risk it, fighting through the courts to get away with your illegal behaviour.

AThingInYourLife · 17/03/2013 13:53

Thought experiment:

What if a British-born citizen emigrated with her parents to another country and then found out she needed surgery?

She would not be entitled to free NHS care.

But it was not her fault her parents chose to leave the UK.

Would it be punishing her for her parents' decision to refuse to treat her for free?

I say no.

I think the eligibility rules as they stand are fair.

Immigrants are covered. Emigrants are not.

It's not racist or xenophobic in whom it applies to.

flatbread · 17/03/2013 14:02

There are a number of countries that confer citizenship by birth, but it is true the number is diminishing. Britain stopped it in 1983. Before that, I wonder if there was an explosion of people coming in illegally and resources stretched? Did NHS topple? (I don't know, I was to young to read the newspapers)

Isn't it more prudent to tighten border controls and visa, rather than leave children who are here in a limbo? Once they are born or living here, after 10 years they get the right to residence anyway (I think) so what is the point in denying them care in their early years...?

I think it is important to distinguish the rights of the child for their parents. After all, children are not possessions...

It is not necessarily granting these children citizenship, but allowing them a chance to live and succeed like other children when they are here. Not discriminating against them for something they have no control over.

expatinscotland · 17/03/2013 16:12

It is not denying. It is expecting payment. This applies, as pointed out, to British people who chose to leave the country. They are not automatically eligible to use the NHS again except in emergencies.

expatinscotland · 17/03/2013 16:13

'Isn't it more prudent to tighten border controls and visa,'

Yes, by removing all illegal immigrants immediately. That means the entire family would be sent back to Bangladesh immediately.

Astley · 17/03/2013 19:35

Tbh Expat, I think that is what the majority of British people actually would want.