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:
NorthernLurker · 15/03/2013 20:06

With regard to the 'ordinarily resident' issue - you can only be resident if you have a legal right to be here. When I deal with overseas visitors, there are two questions to be asked - on what basis are you here and how long will you be staying. I had a heart-breaking conversation the other week with somebody who wanted a relative to visit. Said relative has a British passport but would just be visiting and the treatment they need, whilst life prolonging, is not deemed 'emergency' care - because it's a predictable need. I had to tell them they would have to pay. Very decent and reasonable person that was who accepted that and is making other plans. I don't enjoy that kind of conversation, it sucks.

flatbread · 15/03/2013 20:08

Blu,

Not to you at all.

To the righteous ones on this thread, who gave happily used NHS money, I.e., our tax payer generosity for their own children, but begrudge it to another child born here, just like their own.

And who advocate that we should have a welfare state when it comes to their own needs because of, you know, the 'innocent children', but point to the US and other countries to justify denying care to others.

scottishmummy · 15/03/2013 20:09

Blu read link you posted,the parents illegal.not lawfully settled.this affects child eligibility
^Anyone who is deemed to be ordinarily resident in the UK is entitled to free NHS hospital treatment in England. ?Ordinarily resident? is a common law concept interpreted by the House of Lords in 1982 as someone who is living lawfully in the United Kingdom

Trazzletoes · 15/03/2013 20:10

flatbread am I a "righteous one"?

If so, please reconcile my last post with your statement there.

Blu · 15/03/2013 20:10

Scottishmummy - but citizenship is not central to eligibility for NHS treatment. Being 'ordinarily resident' is. Her citizenship isn't the issue: "Anyone who is deemed to be ordinarily resident in the UK is entitled to free NHS hospital treatment in England. ?Ordinarily resident? is a common law concept interpreted by the House of Lords in 1982 as someone who is living lawfully in the United Kingdom voluntarily and for settled purposes as part of the regular order of their life for the time being, with an identifiable purpose for their residence here which has a sufficient degree of continuity to be properly described as settled"

Clearly her parents are not here lawfully. I am asking / discussing whether it is possible for a child to be here 'unlawfully' since she herself has not done anything unlawful. Except be born to unlawful parents. But she is surely 'ordinarily resident', albeit because of the unlawful actions of her parents. But if I were a lawyer for the child (and i am not a lawyer at all, of course) migt I be able to argue that she is eligible because she is ordinarily resident and has not, herself, dne anything unlawful.

Blu · 15/03/2013 20:12

sm - x-posted Smile

LOL at Tethersend.

Trazzletoes · 15/03/2013 20:13

Blu as an immigration lawyer myself... No she can't.

NorthernLurker · 15/03/2013 20:13

I suspect if the child were of an age where she could live here alone - 16 upwards - then there might be a case to be made for her being resident even though her parents aren't. That isn't the case though. She is utterly dependant on her parents so I think it's hard to resist the arguement that their situation is her situation.

SPBInDisguise · 15/03/2013 20:15

Yes, soup is right. This would be the end of the welfare state.

JaquelineHyde · 15/03/2013 20:16

Wow this thread makes me feel all warm and fuzzy...Grown women squabbling over whether or not a sick child should recieve free healthcare.

It's so lovely when I see the true spirit on MN in action Hmm

scottishmummy · 15/03/2013 20:17

Blu reread your own link carefully,the parental status as illegal impacts on child
Irrespective of being born here,as illegals they were not ordinarily resident,nor was child

expatinscotland · 15/03/2013 20:20

'I am asking / discussing whether it is possible for a child to be here 'unlawfully' since she herself has not done anything unlawful. Except be born to unlawful parents. But she is surely 'ordinarily resident', albeit because of the unlawful actions of her parents. But if I were a lawyer for the child (and i am not a lawyer at all, of course) migt I be able to argue that she is eligible because she is ordinarily resident and has not, herself, dne anything unlawful.'

What Trazzle said because children who are the children of immigrants are not here in their own right but as dependents of their parents.

scottishmummy · 15/03/2013 20:20

You know what Jacqueline,this part of the moral dilemma clinicans face in nhs
Get allHmmhumphy as yiu wish,but nhs is finite funding these discussions happen
Maybe put your hands over ears and pretend it doesn't happen,or mn are bad uns for discussing it

expatinscotland · 15/03/2013 20:22

I'm still trying to figure out who all these work-shy scroungers are on this thread . . .

Trazzletoes · 15/03/2013 20:29

I'm still waiting for flatbread to comment on the validity of my views Grin

mymatemax · 15/03/2013 20:29

The original visa is likely to state no access to public funds etc, if they had applied for continuing leave to remain the terms of the original visa can continue (including any RTW etc).
So they either were never entitled to NHS treatment/public funds etc or if there were no such restrictions ont he original visa they have not applied to have it renewed before the original expiry or the orignal terms would stand.

So either way the parents were completely aware of their lack of entitlement.
Maybe the local Nuffield can help, they are no more obligated to treat the baby than the local NHS

expatinscotland · 15/03/2013 20:31

Hopefully she will be okay, Trazzle. Her type of tumour has a high recurrence rate and this treatment is the best way to give her the best chance of long-term survival, as chemo is not shown to be effective on it and she is still too young for radiotherapy (she was only 2.5 when the tumour was discovered).

JaquelineHyde · 15/03/2013 20:32

Discuss it all you want scottishmummy it will never, ever make me feel good to hear other people justifying reasons not to treat a sick child.

I won't ever pretend it's not happening (a really hard thing to do when I volunteer with some of the most vulnerable people in society just like this family) I will just continue raising awareness and money to help people in these situation.

Feel free to try and patronise me all you want with your wise words about moral dilemmas and funding and I will feel free to judge and Hmm as much as I like.

So please go back to your squabbling and let the warm fuzziness of getting one over a stranger on the internet make it all better.

scottishmummy · 15/03/2013 20:32

Right to clarify,nhs have statutory duty to provude emergency care,but not non routine
Bupa as private company have no obligation to provide any care,emergency or routine

scottishmummy · 15/03/2013 20:33

Keep saying lalala Jacqueline to anything you don't want to read or think about
If you're so aghast donate some money,start a just giving page

Blu · 15/03/2013 20:34

I don't think any one individual would be happy to see any child anywhere not get all the help possible.

I want Trazzletoes' DS to have everything possible, I wanted Expat's dd to have all the magic possible whether within or without the budget.

But as grown-ups someone has to make a policy and a law, and then for things to be fair it has to be upheld.

My questions are around getting clarity of what eligibility actually means.

If that family turn up outside my house hungry, I would feed them. But I can't ask a democratically run structure which belongs to everyone to act in any way except within democratically decided policy.

JaquelineHyde · 15/03/2013 20:37

Sorry scottish did you read my post...You know the bit about volunteering with people like this family and already rasing money and awareness for people like them.

Wow if I didn't know any better I would suspect you don't read anyone elses posts and just keep posting pointless comments to try and make sure you win every argument...Oh hang on a minute... Hmm

scottishmummy · 15/03/2013 20:37

There is clarity on this blu,parents illegal.this impacts on child eligibility to non emergency care
Child isn't ordinarily resident as at time birth parents were illegal
It's a v challenging situation,but there is clear case guidance and application of protocols

scottishmummy · 15/03/2013 20:39

Yes your I read your indignant ire,and you can fundraise for this case if so aghast
Yes you volunteer, I get that.doesn't mean you can't additionally fundraise for this case

ReallyTired · 15/03/2013 20:43

JaquelineHyde The world population is 7 Billion. We cannot provide free healthcare to everyone on the planet.

Watch Comic relief to hear of tragic stories of babies dying in Africa. Maybe comic relief should fund this girl's operation.