Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
    • RCGP e-Portfolio
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
Advertisement
British Journal of General Practice

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • RESOURCES
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • BJGP Life
    • eLetters
    • Librarian information
    • Alerts
    • Resilience
    • Video
    • Audio
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Life & Times

Returning our Ebola medals: our opposition to the hostile environment within the NHS

Harriet Burn
British Journal of General Practice 2018; 68 (677): 580. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp18X700013
Harriet Burn
Exeter GP training programme. Email:
Roles: GPST3
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • For correspondence: harrietburn@nhs.net
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

Recently I joined a group of 20 health professionals in returning our Ebola medals to the government. We had been proud to receive these as recognition of our work in the recent West African Ebola epidemic, but felt unable to keep them in light of the current hostile environment within the NHS.

After working in Sierra Leone in 2015, I started my GP training in the South West. I was fortunate to participate in the Global Health Programme and spend part of my ST3 year working in Vial refugee camp on Chios Island, Greece. While providing basic health care to immigrants there, I was unaware that, back home, the government was implementing new regulations that meant the same group of people would be denied treatment in the NHS. This, in practice, has meant that some of society’s most vulnerable members have been denied life-saving health care.

TURNING HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS INTO BORDER GUARDS

The October 2017 amendments to the ‘NHS charges to overseas visitors regulation’ demand upfront ID checks and charging of 150% for secondary care, before treatment, to anyone who cannot prove their immigration status.1 Like many people, this harmful policy only came to my attention when the story of Albert Thompson, of the Windrush generation, first came to light. He was wrongly told that he could not continue to receive treatment for his prostate cancer unless he paid £54 000 upfront.2

This surprised me. It was not in keeping with the NHS that I knew. When I started to learn more about the policy, I heard about pregnant women not accessing antenatal care because of it costing approximately £6700 or more if there are complications.3 Staggeringly, I also discovered that these regulations extend to termination of pregnancy, cancer treatment, paediatric care, community mental health, palliative care, and NHS-commissioned charities. The right to health for vulnerable people living within the UK, many of whom have been through the asylum process, had simply been removed. It felt like the NHS’s founding principles, my personal morals, and the GMC’s Duties of a Doctor to‘make the care of your patient your first concern’ and‘never discriminate unfairly against patients’ 4 had been eroded. Doctors were now expected to racially profile their patients, implement border control, and deny care to people in need.

THIS POLICY WILL LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT CARE

Worryingly, this inhumane policy also puts the public’s health at risk as we know that denying health care to any patient group is unhealthy for the general population. Although there are exemptions, for infectious diseases this is unworkable. People often do not know they have an infection until they are seen by a healthcare professional, or, if they do, may now not feel safe to access health care or know that their illness is exempt from charging. This could have obvious ramifications.

The charging regulations may well end up costing more to implement than the stated justification for this policy, as deliberate health tourism, by the government’s own calculations, costs 0.07% of the NHS’s budget.5 Plus, there will be further hidden costs: missed opportunities for preventive care, early diagnosis, and simple interventions will lead to an increase in more expensive emergency care. Despite there being no impact assessment, the government has stated plans to extend charges to primary and emergency care, although the details of this are not known yet.6

HANDING BACK THE MEDALS

On 24 August 2018, I was proud to join 20 health professionals and return our Ebola medals to the government in opposition to this regressive and harmful policy. It was a difficult decision as the awards mean a lot to us, yet, collectively, we no longer felt able to accept them from a government that has weaponised health care while risking public health with little evidence of cost benefit. A new health policy should be held to the same standards as a new medicine: if found unsafe it should be stopped or changed.

This policy has caused much harm and the wider hostile environment in the Home Office has recently wrongly detained and deported its own citizens (the Windrush scandal), thereby proving itself to be unsafe.

We handed in our medals to demand an immediate suspension of NHS charging regulations until a public health impact assessment is carried out, particularly focusing on vulnerable groups.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2018

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Legislation.gov.uk
    (2017) The National Health Service (charges to overseas visitors) (amendment) regulations. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2017/756 (accessed 15 Oct 2018).
  2. 2.↵
    (Apr 24, 2018) BBC News, Windrush: Albert Thompson gets date for cancer treatment. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-43883198 (accessed 19 Oct 2018).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Doctors of the World UK
    (2017) Deterrence, delay and distress: the impact of charging in NHS hospitals on migrants in vulnerable circumstances. https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/publications#Research-Reports https://www.doctorsoftheworld.org.uk/Handlers/Download.ashx?IDMF=2a7fc733-ceef-4417-9783-d69b016ff74f (accessed 15 Oct 2018).
  4. 4.↵
    1. General Medical Council.
    (2018) The duties of a doctor registered with the General Medical Council. https://www.gmc-uk.org/ethical-guidance/ethical-guidance-for-doctors/good-medical-practice/duties-of-a-doctor (accessed 16 Oct 2018).
  5. 5.↵
    1. GOV.UK
    (2013) Independent report. Overseas visitors and migrant use of the NHS: extent and costs. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/overseas-visitors-and-migrant-use-of-the-nhs-extent-and-costs (accessed 15 Oct 2018).
  6. 6.↵
    1. Department of Health.
    (2015) Making a fair contribution. A consultation on the extension of charging overseas visitors and migrants using the NHS in England. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/483870/NHS_charging_acc.pdf (accessed 19 Oct 2018).
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 68 (677)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 68, Issue 677
December 2018
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Returning our Ebola medals: our opposition to the hostile environment within the NHS
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Returning our Ebola medals: our opposition to the hostile environment within the NHS
Harriet Burn
British Journal of General Practice 2018; 68 (677): 580. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X700013

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Returning our Ebola medals: our opposition to the hostile environment within the NHS
Harriet Burn
British Journal of General Practice 2018; 68 (677): 580. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X700013
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • INTRODUCTION
    • TURNING HEALTHCARE PROFESSIONALS INTO BORDER GUARDS
    • THIS POLICY WILL LEAD TO AN INCREASE IN EMERGENCY DEPARTMENT CARE
    • HANDING BACK THE MEDALS
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Tolerating a difference of opinion
  • COVID-19 vaccine availability: what are the side effects?
  • Each of our patients is unique: the limits of biomedical entities
Show more Life & Times

Related Articles

Cited By...

Advertisement

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers
  • RCGP e-Portfolio

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7679
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2021 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242