Heartless Home Office decision

[ApocalypseSlough]

A Nigerian man with the right to work and live in London has had his brother's visa to visit and donate bone marrow refused, even though the sick man's employer has guaranteed his stay/ will pay for flights.
Details here
Apparently it's been picked up by the Standard and Mirror, please comment to show your support. I'll post links (unless the consensus is that he shouldn't come in which case I won't!)!

The NHS has no responsibility to British nationals.

This sick man lives in the UK and has the same right to NHS treatment as yiur relative.

This is not about treating "everyone in the whole world", just "everyone in the UK".

We don't ration treatment for residents based on where they were born.

Because that would be racist.

Iflyaway, it is not racist to want Britain to be self governing. Pot calling the kettle ...

It is racist to want a man to die of leukaemia rather than let his poor African brother into the country for a month.

the nhs supports British residents not British nationals. You move to Spain and you're not eligible.

This man lives and works here. I don't resent him being treated here.

His employer has agreed to take responsibility for his brother - that is a big thing to do given their position.

What is the proposal - only British nationals can use the nhs? Where does that leave foreigners living here legitimately?

Health tourism I do have a problem with but this is not an example of that.

Hypothetical argument: what if the Nigerian man was a high earner paying loads of taxes versus someone who had been on benefits all their life but was a UK national? Who would it be 'fairer' to treat? (I don't think like this...but I am just saying this). The point is that even IF this Nigerian man could pay for private treatment in the UK given that he can't travel he couldn't have it because his donor can't travel. So it's not how he gets his treatment that is in contention but the visa status of his donor.

"This is not a British national and we do not have a moral responsibility to treat everyone in the world."

This is however a British resident, fully entitled to use NHS services in the same footing as all other British residents, and has no bearing on treating the rest of the world or any non-residents whatsoever.

We don't ration treatment for residents based on where they were born.

Try living in Wales and being refused a treatment that is allowed a few miles away in England!

Here is the petition again.

This is a no brainer for anyone who cares about another human life. Forget their colour and country and treat them as you would anyone else.

Mathsmum, would you object to this Nigerian coming to the UK if the person due to receive the transplant was British?

so rather than the brother coming to the UK you would rather the patient be taken to Nigeria?
And this seems logical to you? To send a dying man on the plane for hours with medical equipment and staff from the hospital? You think this is the cheaper, rational option?

Until you give every penny you have to starving children in Syria then its hypocritical to say I am suggesting letting someone die.

No, that logic doesn't hold. You are advocating in this case that it is better to let a specific individual die rather than allow his sibling a temporary visa into the country because of some fear that a short-term tourist visa will allow him rights under the ECHR. Or because he's from a poor country. Or because the British resident doesn't deserve treatment in the first place on account of being a foreigner from a poor country.

There's a difference between where you're born and where you live, by the way - we don't deny anyone treatment in any NHS Trust because they were born in Wales, or England, or Nigeria. However different Trusts have different spending priorities, rightly or wrongly.

And this seems logical to you? To send a dying man on the plane for hours with medical equipment and staff from the hospital? You think this is the cheaper, rational option?

And that's ignoring the protacted recovery process from a bone marrow transplant.

I have only recently signed up to MN thinking it was a forum for free speech. Seems some people would rather it wasn't.

I have made a simple point. Living in Wales some of my relatives have not had access to life saving treatment available to others who live 5 miles away.

I do not believe the UK should provide free (non emergency) treatment to non nationals at the expense of people who have lived here all their lives. Obviously some disagree and I would suggest they have never had life saving treatment refused because it cost to much.

I accept you disagree and when we leave the EU I would suggest you send ALL your money to foreign governments.

I have only recently signed up to MN thinking it was a forum for free speech. Seems some people would rather it wasn't.

That's not quite how freedom of speech works, even if it were a protected right in Britain. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from criticism of whatever you have chosen to say. You said something that others disagreed with, they said so, and they said why. See how it works?

I do not believe the UK should provide free (non emergency) treatment to non nationals at the expense of people who have lived here all their lives. Obviously some disagree and I would suggest they have never had life saving treatment refused because it cost to much.

First, you would suggest wrong.

Second, if you were to stop taking NI contributions and taxes from immigrants you would find even more services refused; overall immigrants pay more in and use the NHS (and other public services) less.

Third, if that's the way we're playing it, could I have eleven years' worth of NI contributions back please? Thanks.

Actually I lied there. I have not had life saving treatment refused, obviously. Someone very dear to me has.

Why if he had been in the country for 43 years?
What if he had paid tax and ni for 26 years?
Or does it still not matter because he wasn't born here? And regardless of how much he had paid into the system he should get nothing back?

And then, by mathsmum's rule of thumb, I who have lived in Mexico for over thirty years, but am a British national, rather than a Mexican national, should get on a plane and fly back to the UK when I get cancer, because first it would be wrong of Mexico to spend any money on my health and secondly as a British national I should be entitled to treatment?

The fact is I have had free healthcare here as I am sure many British nationals have had all around the world and secondly I have to pay for healthcare in Britain as I am not a resident.

Mathsmum, how have you been prevented from exercising free speech on this thread? Your problem is that you seem to object to those who disagree with you exercising their right to free speech.

Why should the right to access treatment be restricted to those who have lived here all their lives? That would mean that most members of the armed forces and their families would be excluded because they have lived abroad for long stretches. Do I have to be excluded, despite being British, because my parents were careless enough to be living abroad when I was born?

"Have you ever had a relative die because they couldn't have a drug on the NHS that they couldn't afford? I have."

This isn't a question of affordability and rationing though. Is it. The treatment is available, and will be provided to this man because he is a British resident fully entitled to use the service.

The only reason that it's a question of bringing over a non-resident person to be donor is because family are tested for bone marrow matches before going out to the register (better matches, often, and faster/cheaper than running the whole register and retesting possibles).

Of course if it is wrong to bring in a family member who happens to be overseas, then the treatment may well still go ahead but with another donor (and I hope for this man it damned well does, if one can still be found). But that just makes it more expensive (longer time looking, more time in hospital whilst looking, same treatment at the end of it but possibly more complex to treat if the patient continues to decline whilst waiting).

So if you want more money for certain treatments, the way to get it is not by cutting bone marrow transplants to British residents

And this visa issue is appalling and inhumane.

The NHS is, and has been since it was set up, based on residency in UK.

Some people do want to dismantle the NHS as we know it, but not usually as overtly as this.

I'm signing the petition. I'm not local, but I may write to my MP anyway.

This is outrageous. The Home Office clearly shares mathsmum's view. Difference is, she can at least claim ignorance.

Can I just add that this man is receiving chemo at an NHS hospital, the cost of bone marrow transplant is probably less to the NHS.

This isn't unusual sadly.

I know of Nigerian's who have been refused visas for close family member's (e.g. A child, sibling or parent) funeral, for example. In one case I know the person who died was a very long standing member of a church and local community (when I say long standing I mean about 40 years.). The vicar of the church and others wrote letters to confirm the funeral was genuine, to offer to escort a family member from and back to the airport. The relative provided proof of their well-established job and life in Nigeria that they wished to return to. The funeral was delayed while the local MP got involved. The family member didn't get the visa and had to miss a parent's funeral.

Immigration rules take into account the country someone is coming from and if that country is deemed high risk for immigration issues then the individual merits of a case are ignored. Most countries focus far more on the merits, or lack of, individual cases.

"Isaac had this to say and the situation,“I was so happy when I found out that my brother was a match. But when his application was rejected it was a bigger shock than getting told I had leukaemia in the first place....It is incredibly frustrating to know that the solution that could save my life is only six hours away by plane"

The bits the article quotes from the rejection letter show they simply overlooked that the £1500 was being paid by Dulwich College who were also ready to stand as a wider guarantor of his return.