Failed asylum seekers face GP ban

[urbanrevolt]

So has ANYONE got ANY ideas about how practically to fight these proposals?

Reciprocity is obviously crap: as Pigeon's already said are we going to treat Zimbabweans the way Mugabe treats English and indeed anyone else there? We have common enemies- whether Mugabe there or Brown here.

Beyond all this though are the right-wingers on here really prepared to see failed asylum seekers die of easily preventable diseases because they are not of the right immigration status?
It's all part of a vicious racist hate campaign bank-rolled by the same tyoes who supported the fascists in the 1930s (i.e. the owners of the Daily Mail)- why? because they hate the working class - white or black- immigrant or other and delight in turning workers in on themselves.

 

[ymu]

The BMJ article linked above is very strong - the website is open access and anyone can comment, so it'd be worth posting there and also identifying docs posting there who seem up for rebellion (pretty sure e-mail contacts are included, but most of them are easy to track down via their place of work anyway).

Bugger! That's a Journal of Medical Ethics article - published by the BMA (I think), but not free access like the BMJ. Misread the link - sorry. I'll see if I can track down a BMJ article that's easier to access/comment on.

 

[urbanrevolt]

Excelelnt- that's the sort of thing we need!

 

[ymu]

Damn - I edited instead of quoted my previous post so now nothing makes sense.

Precis of original:
1. Direct action (assistance to get past NHS administrators/identify sympathetic doctors)
2. Ask healthcare workers for advice on how best to proceed.
3. Use the BMJ site to add comments and identify NHS workers who are ready to rebel.

As the JME article isn't accessible, here's the search results for "asylum seeker" from the BMJ (free access and comments open to anyone). I've not selected any because there's quite a lot there from different points of view.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fulltext=asylum+seekers&x=16&y=13

 

[Blagsta]

So you don't think that everyone from round the world should have access to NHS treatment?
Why not?
And who do you think should be denied treatment on the NHS?

If you're not going to debate sensibly, don't bother.

 

[Blagsta]

Have I said that the decision to refuse asylum seekers has been made by anyone in the NHS?

Yes.

"Decisions are made in the health service every second of every day about who should be a priority for care.
The people making these decisions are faced with dilemnas every day. They have to make difficult judgements every day."


you can go on my ignore list

 

[urbanrevolt]

Damn - I edited instead of quoted my previous post so now nothing makes sense.

Precis of original:
1. Direct action (assistance to get past NHS administrators/identify sympathetic doctors)
2. Ask healthcare workers for advice on how best to proceed.
3. Use the BMJ site to add comments and identify NHS workers who are ready to rebel.

As the JME article isn't accessible, here's the search results for "asylum seeker" from the BMJ (free access and comments open to anyone). I've not selected any because there's quite a lot there from different points of view.

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/search?fulltext=asylum+seekers&x=16&y=13

Well, yeah, alright- I should have quoted your original post I guess. You also - I think from memory-gave an example of direct action or at least frequent protests outside MPs constituency surgeries of they'd said they wouldn't represent asylum seekers- we could consider something similar here but hopefully get the GPs and BMA and Unison to join the protests.

 

[ymu]

Well, yeah, alright- I should have quoted your original post I guess. You also - I think from memory-gave an example of direct action or at least frequent protests outside MPs constituency surgeries of they'd said they wouldn't represent asylum seekers- we could consider something similar here but hopefully get the GPs and BMA and Unison to join the protests.

Hey - it was totally my incompetent fault! And yep - a few years back my MP announced he wouldn't see asylum seekers in his surgeries so a few of us turned up regularly to make sure people either got seen properly or had the option to have one of us accompany them if they were turned away.

It can't be quite so direct in accessing the NHS, and it's not as easy to identify the people that are getting turned away, but groups working with local refugee organisations/meeting places and local healthcare workers together could probably subvert the policy quite successfully - NHS staff spend their lives subverting nu-Labour targets anyway so they're quite skilled at cutting through the crap if they see the need.

 

[becky p]

Yes.

"Decisions are made in the health service every second of every day about who should be a priority for care.
The people making these decisions are faced with dilemnas every day. They have to make difficult judgements every day."


you can go on my ignore list

Not the same thing as saying "the decision not to treat asylum seekers, was made by somebody in the NHS"
You seem to have got two different statements confused.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Maybe countries should work on the principle of "reciprocity".

Some do.

 

[shagnasty]

ask your MP to sign the Early Day Motion below.



Here is the web address:

http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34322
<http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=34322&SESSION=891>
&SESSION=891

So far there are 37 signatures. It needs a minimum of 45 to be considered for a proper debate.....

My mp actually as signed so now i have a bit more respect for him.maybe not enough to vote for him he is afterall part of the nu labour project

 

[Pigeon]

You seem to have got two different statements confused.

tragically, the same thing appears to have happened with your arse and your elbow.

 

[ymu]

For info: I just got sent a link to this petition being circulated to UK doctors.

http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/15682.html

The undersigned are all doctors licensed to practice in the UK. Many of us are GPs.

We are disturbed by previous government decisions which have removed the right to most forms of hospital care from refused asylum seekers and visitors to the UK.

We are appalled by government plans to further restrict the rights of such people to primary care. This would impose serious health risks on them and on the general public. It would also interfere with our ability to carry out our duties as doctors.

It is not in keeping with the ethics of our profession to refuse to see any person who may be ill, particularly pregnant women with complications, sick children or men crippled by torture. No one would want such a doctor for their GP.

We call on the government to retreat from this foolish proposal, which would prevent doctors from investigating, prescribing for, or referring such patients on the NHS.

We pledge that, in the event this regulation comes into effect, we will:
a) Continue to see and examine asylum seekers and to advise them about their health needs, whatever their immigration status.
b) Document their diagnoses and required clinical care.
c) (With suitable anonymisation and consent) copy this documentation to the responsible ministers, MPs and the press.
d) Inform the public of the human costs, to harness popular disgust at what is being ordered by the government in their name.
e) Campaign to speedily reverse these ill-advised policies.

 

[_angel_]

Requiring GPs or their receptionists to act as agents of the Home Office will create extreme ethical dilemmas. Doctors should not be forced to choose between violating our professional ethics and breaking the law. Unfortunately, that is precisely the situation we will face.
Although we may be unable to stop these dangerous proposals, we can at least ensure that the consequences are widely known.

To all the people who think this nasty idea is fair, how many of you would want to be in the position of an nhs receptionist having to turn some sick person, particularly a child, away?