Is it coincidence that you happen to have two interesting but not surprisingly related articles in the January 2006 issue of The Back Pages — Vernon and Feldman1 on health care of asylum seekers and Jennifer Marsden2 on a comparison of health care provided on either side of the Atlantic?
Both papers touch on the same theme of the response and duty of government. The primary responsibility of a government is to protect its citizens and care for them.
Marsden acknowledges a capitalist system that fails to provide a safety net in health care for the many millions of Americans who are, therefore, effectively disenfranchised in the health system of that country.
Vernon and Feldman describe the plight of failed asylum seekers vis-à-vis medical care in the UK. While this is a matter of concern, one needs to look at it from the perspective of the duty of government to care for all its citizens, that is, those who have a right of abode in the UK.
One of the problems facing the authorities is the difficulty of establishing the bona fides of asylum seekers and so distinguishing them from those who seek to enter and stay in the country for other than genuine humanitarian reasons. While there is, no doubt, an overwhelming obligation on the part of any government to provide succour to those in need, the definition of ‘need’ is now a matter not only of debate but also of concern. The large numbers of people entering the country illegally and who disappear should concern us all. Additionally, it cannot be right for the UK to provide comprehensive health care for people who have failed the tests of asylum.
If the authorities claim that channels for appeal have been exhausted and that there is no right to reside in the UK, then it is imperative that the person concerned is speedily, but humanely, returned to his/her land of residence or port of embarkation to the UK. Until such time that this happens such a person should be able to access all the facilities of the NHS as a citizen of the UK is entitled to. It should not be left for the NHS to implement the law.
This would help, at least partially, to address the increasing disquiet felt and expressed by patients of the difficulties of obtaining their own treatments.
- © British Journal of General Practice, 2006.
