In recent years, the issue of access to health care by asylum seekers has raised serious questions for government, the courts and the medical profession. Who has the right to medical treatment in the United Kingdom is a political, humanitarian and human rights matter. For the government – often facing public hostility towards asylum seekers and migrants, fearful of health tourism or “pull factors” to the UK, and confronting burgeoning financial constraints – access to treatment is often regarded as a concession rather than a right. For the courts, any decision to grant treatment to non-nationals, particularly those with no right to remain, is seen as having political implications far beyond the needs of the individual. The medical profession, by contrast, prefers in the main to focus on the patient, without regard for immigration status, and is uncomfortable with a dual role. Where the balance should lie is currently being assessed by government as it considers responses to a consultation paper on Review of Access to the NHS by Foreign Nationals. At this timely point, this article offers a multidisciplinary approach to the question of access to health care by asylum seekers, by examining not only the legal position but also government policy, its impact on the individual, and, significantly, the ethical and philosophical arguments pro or contra treatment. It is contended that only through this comprehensive analysis can an appropriate legislative approach be adopted at a time when this critical social right is gaining ascendance.
Access to primary health care for asylum seekers and refugees: a qualitative study of service user experiences in the UK