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?

It doesn't matter what they want, it matters as to what the law is and how it is designed to, hopefully, do what is best for the majority of the nation's citizens. You either have border controls and visas, or you don't. Abusing that law by illeglly being in the country should result in removal, for everyone who is not here legally. Or why bother having it at all, because everyone is an exception, a special case, etc.?

Well clearly it is not in the best interests of the majority to have illegal immigrants who don't contribute to the state but want free NHS treatment and probably education too.

Yes I think you are right Astley.

Sounds like a BNP forum, rather than mumsnet

Flatbread you really don't seem to have read other peoples posts otherwise you would not have made such an ignorant statement.

It's about LEGAL STATUS not the fact that they are immigrants or have brown skin and another religion.

Myself like the majority of people on here have no problem with legal immigrants getting free healthcare even if they have not contributed much to the state.

Myself like the majority of people on here would be very willing to donate to a fund to help the child.

Well clearly it is not in the best interests of the majority to have illegal immigrants who don't contribute to the state but want free NHS treatment and probably education too.

What majority is this?

I think that should read
"Well clearly it is not in the best interests of the majority of UK citizens to have illegal immigrants who don't contribute to the state but want free NHS treatment and probably education too."

We should be honest as a nation and admit that we are the beneficiaries of a great imbalance. The rules which prevent illegal immigrants from accessing NHS funds are in place to make sure that we remain in the 'haves' and can justify turning away the 'have nots'.

I don't give away all or even most of my family income to people in real poverty in developing countries but at least I admit that this is because I am selfish and I was lucky to be born in the 'haves'. I do what I can without plunging my family into the relative poverty they could be in whilst living in the UK but I'm not prepared to go further than that. I am ashamed to admit that is in the interests of my family because I care more for them than for other people's children.

To limit our country's NHS resources is in the interests of keeping those resources available to a small minority and to hell with those who can't access it. Our money, our rules.

It is how our country works. We all benefit from it. We should at least admit that this is the case and be prepared to face up to the inequality without hiding behind rules which we set up to protect our own lifestyles. We should also have the courage and decency to look again at situations where the rules may be more stringent than necessary even when that means we may need to spread our wealth a little further.

As for those who think the solution is for a particular ethnic minority community to pay or for those who can afford it to get a warm fuzzy feeling by handing over a bit of cash to help the cute baby..... I am lost for words

Goldmandra 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

But our system isn't keeping them in limbo. It was the parents OWN failure to follow the system. Their failure to comply with the rules that see's them in this situation now. Changing the system wont help if people refuse to follow the system. The family didn't bother to apply for leave to remain until they had already been turned down for treatment.

As for those who think the solution is for a particular ethnic minority community to pay or for those who can afford it to get a warm fuzzy feeling by handing over a bit of cash to help the cute baby..... I am lost for words

I don't see why. It is a very simple, compassionate and fair solution to a situation caused through no fault of the NHS.

The thing about the NHS that means I will support it is that it is by far the cheapest way to provide healthcare to UK residents. Because no-one is creaming profits off or trying to undermine other parts of it (in theory at least). IIRC the USA spends more per capita (overall) on medicare that only covers some of its citizens than we do on the NHS. This is not to say that the NHS is perfectly efficient or can't improve, but that its actually pretty good at offering value for money.

The NHS will lose this argument for its existence if it provides "charitable" medical care to people who aren't part of the UK resident "community" that funds it. If a family tries to avoid applying for leave to remain and thus aren't part of the system then they have effectively made themselves non-resident legally in spite of living here.

Goldmantra

I am one of the people who raise money to help children get treatment that the NHS will not fund - and I assure you I do so not to get a warm fuzzy feeling, but having gone through the the total horror of seeing my child die through lack of NHS money I WILL NOT sit back and see other parents go through the same thing without doing what I can to help. I found your comment totally fucking offensive.

Also during my fund raising activities I have come across numerous incidences where people who share the same nationality or ethnic group are the driving force behind the fund raising, I have seen it with the Chinese Community, and the Polish Community amongst others.

Our system is allowing that child to be kept in limbo. She is not the one making the decision to stay.

I am not saying that the parents are in the right. I am saying that while our system is allowing her to be here we have a duty to treat her with equality.

This absolutely should not be solved by people making voluntary donations to the causes they find more attractive. Nor should it be solved by identifying a random section of the community who should be obliged to stump up the cash.

This is about the rights of a child to be treated with equality. While she is here and the authorities are aware and not removing her I believe she has a moral right to equality with other children in her community. We are that community.

Mrsdavid I don't recall whether you said that you believe that the best way to solve this problem is for people to make voluntary donations, thereby making the decision of whether the child is treated into a popularity contest. If not, I am sorry you are offended but I don't understand why.

Lots of people raise funds to get treatment for a child when the NHS has decided that the treatment is not available to anyone from within their resources.

Discrimination against a child because of her immigrant status is a very different issue. The treatment is available to others but not that particular child.

Gold: do you support dawn raids for illegal overstayers and ejecting them from the country with no warning then? Because that's the only "system" which would ensure that parents can't choose to leave their children in limbo.

There is a precedent problem in allowing families to use an ill child as a ticket for residency, unless you want children to be born purely to get people permanent residency.

As for "we should pay to treat her because she's in our country" that has the hazard of encouraging health tourism, which has obvious financial problems and encourages people to travel here when it would be medically better for them to not do so.

Gold: do you support dawn raids for illegal overstayers and ejecting them from the country with no warning then? Because that's the only "system" which would ensure that parents can't choose to leave their children in limbo.

I haven't said that they should be removed from the state of limbo at all costs. I simply feel that while they are in limbo the children should have equality.

There is a precedent problem in allowing families to use an ill child as a ticket for residency, unless you want children to be born purely to get people permanent residency.

How would they engineer an ill child?

As for "we should pay to treat her because she's in our country" that has the hazard of encouraging health tourism, which has obvious financial problems and encourages people to travel here when it would be medically better for them to not do so.

I have already said that sadly this couldn't apply to any child who was brought here with an existing condition purely because it would encourage health tourism. This child was born here and sustained the injury here. It is not health tourism.

While she is here and the authorities are aware and not removing her I believe she has a moral right to equality with other children in her community

Morally you may be right. But this isn't a moral issue. A service as huge as the NHS cannot be run on morals, or take morals into account. It has to be run as a business for the benefit of the many rather than the few.

While she is here and the authorities are aware Except the authorities weren't aware, not until last month. She was being treated with physio, received a lot of NHS funded care that she was NOT entitled to, right up to the point that the operation was mooted. It was only when the Trust asked at that point for confirmation of her status that the fact she was 'illegal' came to light. Again this is the fault of the parents.

If she were to be treated now, then a dangerous precedent is set - "Leave everything to the last minute, then when you are found out, threaten the NHS with a lawsuit, and you'll get what you want"

That is why I believe that this case should be resolved by charitable funding and not by the NHS.

This child was born here and sustained the injury here. It is not health tourism I'm not convinced. The family have had 3 children 'on the NHS' since 2009 - since they have been 'illegal'. If they wanted to be a part of this country, a part of the UK 'Community' with all the benefits that it brings then they should have applied for LTR back then. Not applying until this year after a consultation with an Ambulance Chaser makes them the very definition of health tourists - they didn't bother until they were asked to pay.

Gold

I have said on several posts that one of the ways to get this child the treatment is for people to fund raise. And if you can't understand why I and the 1000s of people who fund raise would be offended to be told they are only doing it for a warm fuzzy feeling then you are being rather ignorant IMO.

And you keep talking about Limbo when you have been told time and time again that these parents are not in limbo through the fault of the UK system but by their own decision.

A service as huge as the NHS cannot be run on morals, or take morals into account.

I would hope that when any decision made or reviewed within the NHS a moral code is applied.

Gold, so you think that anyone who is in the UK illegally (and if working, doing so on the black market) has the right to NHS treatment and if they are questioned should be able to start long legal cases and receive treatment in the meantime? Because there's an obvious problem there.

One of the problems with living in a country illegally is inability to use public services. As parents we have a duty to check that healthcare will be provided for our children, by living somewhere legally and outside the UK by ensuring that they are insured. One could argue that not doing this is neglect and that SS should investigate.

I actually think that the NHS should be run morally, but those morals should put first their responsibility to the legal UK residents. Otherwise what's to say that the NHS shouldn't minimise suffering in the world by sending all their resources to the developing world where they could do the most good?

It is clear that the duty of the NHS is to provide healthcare to UK residents by providing their treatment, and whilst we are having to limit that (see parents' stories above) we certainly shouldn't be expanding the scope of who it cares for as well.

Goldmantra what is your point? We are in the UK asking about our country, of course we are talking about the best interests of the majority of British Citizens

And yes it is 'our money our rules'. You think many people willingly pay into a system that doesn't benefit themselves? You don't want to give your money away, but you want to force everyone else to accept their taxes being spent in a way that doesn't benefit them? The family is like a mini state. The priority for parents are their children, the priority for the state it its OWN citizens.

I no more think most parents would sacrifice the education of their children to educate illegal immigrants than I think citizens should go without medical help to fund those who have knowingly avoided contributing anything to the state.

Gold -When a child is refused treatment on the NHS due to cost, treatment which is often available in other countries and is offered to the citizens of those countries - is a moral code being applied? no its not, however according to you it's not discrimination if that drug is withheld from everyone who needs it.

You seem to ignore the fact that the NHS pays for drugs that keeps one set of children alive and refuses to pay for drugs that will keep other children alive because the treatment is dearer or has limited effectiveness (according to guidelines in place) it surely does not matter if the illness is different, dead is dead at the end of the day.

Those urging a 'moral' approach need to remember something I've now posted at least twice. Resources are finite. That's not something I'm making up, it's how it is. So in order to treat a person without entitlement, which person with entitlement are we going to fail to treat? How is that scenario 'moral'?

These parents should have applied for leave to remain before this child was even born. They should have approached the NHS for the necessary care as legitimate residents or they should have returned to their country of origin. Overstaying and then attempting to claim NHS entitlement anyway is not reasonable. Do you think they paid their maternity costs? I suspect not.

Just don't get how this could be our responsibility? They have citizenship of another country, they do not pay tax or NI so they have been keeping all the money they have without any contribution to society, and it has been enough to have 3 children. So I see that they have the option to either return to their country and ask for help there or pay for it themselves.

Can you imagine if the NHS pays for this? Then 2 months down the line after the floodgates have opened it comes out there is a new cancer drug but it's too expensive so people will either self fund or die. Do you think we'll all be saying then 'but it was only one child'?! It may start with one, but it will never end with one.

We do have the right to protect our own interests. It might not give the warm, fuzzy endings some people want, but it is what would make the majority if UK citizens happy.

Nhs and social care have finite resources and manage demands in excess of finance
To negate this demanding task staff apply protocols,clinical reasoning and yes consider finances
This impacts upon patients,caters and families.there is eligibility for all welfare benefit and service in order to manage finite finance and huge demand

There is existing precedents to fundraise for health,many people do this
There's precedent for Charities fundraising for communities scotcare
There's no reason people can't donate for the op if they wish to. There is no need for a wee face it's a legitimate suggestion given nhs funding is not available

also what about our own citizens who have been denied life saving cancer treatment because they live in the wrong postcode even though they have paid N.I. for Donkey's years. Where is the morality in that.

The dad was selfish in his actions, coming here illegally and pretending to be something he was not (maybe not the wife) having 3 kids etc and not making any financial contribution. Now they need our help and may have to finance it themselves and the game is up.

Exactly. I will never agree to anything that could cost the health or even life or someone who is actually a citizen of this country.

Funding non essential treatment of illegal immigrants will do that. What I want to know if whether the NHS will be making the effort to recoup the money they have already spent on potentially 3 births and physio etc.