UNIVERSAL AIDS TREATMENT SHOULD INCLUDE THOSE LIVING IN THE UK!
October 23rd, 2007This post was written by Leeds. You can read more posts by: Leeds or more posts in Campaign News
Whilst we campaign for universal AIDS treatment, it is important to remember that it is not just those overseas who are unable to access or afford ARV medications. Although our government has agreed to support and fund global treatment for all, it does not fulfil this pledge in its own country. There are many living in Britain who are prevented from accessing treatment due to their immigration status. It seems wrong to campaign at a universal level whilst not also acting locally to ensure that all those who need ARV medications receive them.
However, it is necessary to consider how best to run a campaign and what benefits, if any, a direct campaign, for refused asylum seekers and undocumented migrants in the UK to get free access to AIDS treatment would bring?
A few reasons for not starting a campaign come to mind:
Asylum seekers, regardless of their immigration status and their reasons for being here, carry much bad press and stigma. A public campaign demanding they receive free AIDS drugs could worsen this load, unless it is done in a very sensitive manor. This requires much research and experience of how to lobby for such issues.
There are many public health issues relating to provision of ARVs to those who may not reside in the UK long term. If treatment regimes are not continued there is a risk of the emergence of resistance. Could a country deport a person on treatment in the UK to a country where they can not access or receive the medicines? This means treatment raises many legal and ethical questions which must be thought through before an effective campaign can be launched. Would we be indirectly advocating for “health asylum”?
Asylum seekers need access to health care not just AIDS treatments, should they happen to be positive. By choosing this single issue of AIDS we could be weakening or drawing attention form current campaigns pushing for free health care for all in the UK. Perhaps, it would be wiser to support organisations working in this area, with more resources and more knowledge of the area. A large combined voice is normally more effective than single groups with related ideas
These are just a few thoughts that crossed my mind when thinking about how and whether we should campaign for failed or undocumented migrants living within the UK to get free ARV treatment, should they need it. It may seem fairly negative as I have raised questions and considered problems rather than just acknowledging the need for this underrepresented group of people to get treatment.
From a moral perspective, there are no reasons why everyone should not be able to be treated with ARV treatment, to prevent illness and death, within the UK. We have the resources and government pledge for universal access by 2010, so it is just a matter of political will. Perhaps, it is our role to advocate change in the current policy.
I feel we should definitely be acting but am cautious that a rushed and poorly researched campaign could cause more harm than good. Perhaps, for the mean time, we should support other groups working in this area whilst we continue our research.
Please post your ideas and thoughts on this topic so we can debate the issues and hopefully find a clear logical path to pursue.
Also please consider supporting an urgent and vital petition to ensure undocumented immigrants in the UK can access primary health care. Further information and details are posted below.
Access to Health Care for Vulnerable Migrants
It seems likely that in December the government will announce that a large group of vulnerable UK residents will lose their right to most NHS primary care services. We are concerned this could prevent vulnerable people including pregnant women and children, from accessing vital treatment.
This must be challenged.
The links and statements below relate to the fact that the government is currently reviewing the rules surrounding access to healthcare for refused asylum seekers - it looks likely that access to primary care will be denied leaving this vulnerable group of people without any access to health.
Have a look at the facebook group (defend primary healthcare) and sign the petition if you agree that enforcing these rules would be denying vulnerable people from the right to the highest attainable standard of health. Also have a look at the medact document, it’s not very long and explains the situation well. (There are points relating to HIV and case examples)
You can offer your support to the campaign in the ways listed below.
You can sign the statement on line at http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/access/
Send an email to the Secretary of State for Health expressing your concern at the proposed changes. Please write the email in a way that makes clear your own concerns on this matter but it would help if mention was made of the need for a full health impact assessment before further changes in regulation http://voiceyourviews.net/eactivist/vyv.v?v=2121:861:14332:
Download and print out the statement sign it and return as indicated http://www.medact.org/ref_entitlement_page.php
Take a look at the briefing paper explaining the proposed changes and their potential impact on the Medact website
http://www.medact.org/ref_entitlement_page.php
November 1st, 2007 at 7:14 pm
I have exactly the same feelings. Do you have any links to organisations that specialise in treatment for immigrants? Just to add a little to you discussion above, i read the other day that illegal immigrants have access to treatment for other STI’s but not HIV/AIDS (I assume this is due to the cost), like you I have mixed feelings about this. However I know that under this same law pregnant HIV positive women are not allowed treatment that allow the transmission of the virus to the child to be prevented. I feel strongly that this is wrong, surely a baby should be given the chance to a healthy life where possible and not be a victim of circumstance.
November 11th, 2007 at 10:20 am
Yeah, it is true that HIV has not been classified as an STI under the free healthcare provided for failed asylum seekerd. They therefore can not claim treatment, though they can be tested and get associated councilling. This is to probably a lot to do with costs but also the other reasons I said above, such as health asylum which the government probably fears.(though there is no real evidence for this)
If the goverment proposed changes to block access to primary care as well goes ahead they will not be able to access this service and therefore have HIV tests to know their status. This could have unwanted public health impacts and increased costs to the NHS in the long term
Pregnant women however should recieve drugs to prevent MTCT free of charge, regardless of their immigration status because as you point out it does not just effect her.
Sorry, I am not an expert on this but there is loads of info out there. A good paper id
Yates, T., Crane, R., Burnett, A., “rights and the reality of healthcare charging in the United Kingdom.” Medicine, Conflict and Survival October 2007
Oh, forgot to say there are various groupd that offer health services to volunerable peopel, such as the homeless without addresses and often many undocumented migrants. The NHS has a health Access Team which does specifically this, and other charitie and NGOs offer support in various ways.
December 5th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
I actually brought this up with my own MP (at Parliament last Thursday) who is also an Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office and he told me he would get an official response from the government for me. I’ll post it here when it arrives. A few of us are doing a load of research into this with a view to writing an article for a student medical journal, Given that there has been little mention since 2005 in the medical student journals, we thought it was about time for an update on the debate. If anyone would like to get involved (esp. Leeds and Nottingham) e-mail me.
Chris
December 28th, 2007 at 3:22 am
With reference to the Yates paper, it appears that they have cited old versions of NHS guidelines and somewhat complicated the issue by trying to or at least covering in variable depth ALL the issues surrounding eligibility for absolutely everything in just several pages! They do however make very important points concerning EU legislation, a massive set of laws so complicated it takes law students years to understand them. In an attempt to summarise EU legislation, public authorities like the NHS have the responsibility and legal obligation of implementing Convention Rights namely Article 3, Prohibition of Torture via the Human Rights Act (1998), which states that this prohibition of torture is irrespective of the country of origin for the individual… The example of a Trust telling a patient with a GI complaint that he should wait until it is more serious (i.e. until he is eligibile for “emergency treatment”) would be a violation of Article 3, the NHS as the public authority being liable.
Our paper makes no reference to EU law because you would really need to write a book to do it justice! And then there’s UN conventions, treaties, covenants etc., it has to stop somewhere!