scholarly journals Asylum seekers and the right to access health care

2020 ◽  
Vol 61 (4) ◽  
pp. 363-390
Author(s):  
Dallal Stevens

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.

2008 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 315-335 ◽  
Author(s):  
John Harrington

This paper develops a rhetorical critique of recent cases on migration and access to health care in Britain. It argues that the national territory, once a taken-for-granted starting point for reasoning in medical law, has lost its common-sense status as a result of neoliberal globalisation. This is evident in recent decisions involving on the one hand HIV-positive asylum seekers coming to the UK and on the other hand British ‘health tourists’ seeking funding for treatment elsewhere in the European Union. Courts are aware that many of these cases are likely to call forth the sympathy of audiences for the individual concerned, further undermining their privileging of the national scale. In curbing this ‘politics of pity’ they adopt a range of persuasive strategies.


2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 22-45
Author(s):  
Salma El-Gamal ◽  
Johanna Hanefeld

Purpose The influx of refugees and asylum-seekers over the past decade into the European Union creates challenges to the health systems of receiving countries in the preparedness and requisite adjustments to policy addressing the new needs of the migrant population. This study aims to examine and compare policies for access to health care and the related health outcomes for refugees and asylum-seekers settling both in the UK and Germany as host countries. Design/methodology/approach The paper conducted a scoping review of academic databases and grey literature for studies within the period 2010-2017, seeking to identify evidence from current policies and service provision for refugees and asylum-seekers in Germany and the UK, distilling the best practice and clarifying gaps in knowledge, to determine implications for policy. Findings Analysis reveals that legal entitlements for refugees and asylum-seekers allow access to primary and secondary health care free of charge in the UK versus a more restrictive policy of access limited to acute and emergency care during the first 15 months of resettlements in Germany. In both countries, many factors hinder the access of this group to normal health care from legal status, procedural hurdles and lingual and cultural barriers. Refugees and asylum-seeker populations were reported with poor general health condition, lower rates of utilization of health services and noticeable reliance on non-governmental organizations. Originality/value This paper helps to fulfill the need for an extensive research required to help decision makers in host countries to adjust health systems towards reducing health disparities and inequalities among refugees and asylum-seekers.


Author(s):  
Joia Mukherjee ◽  
Paul Farmer

What has called so many young people to the field of global health is the passion to be a force for change, to work on the positive side of globalization, and to be part of a movement for human rights. This passion stems from the knowledge that the world is not OK. Impoverished people are suffering and dying from treatable diseases, while the wealthy live well into their 80s and 90s. These disparities exist between and within countries. COVID-19 has further demonstrated the need for global equity and our mutual interdependence. Yet the road to health equity is long. People living in countries and communities marred by slavery, colonialism, resource extraction, and neoliberal market policies have markedly less access to health care than the wealthy. Developing equitable health systems requires understanding the history and political economy of communities and countries and working to adequately resource health delivery. Equitable health care also requires strong advocacy for the right to health. In fact, the current era in global health was sparked by advocacy—the activist movement for AIDS treatment access, for the universality of the right to health and to a share of scientific advancement. The same advocacy is needed now as vaccines and treatments are developed for COVID-19. This book centers global health in principles of equity and social justice and positions global health as a field to fulfill the universal right to health.


The Lancet ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 386 (9988) ◽  
pp. 25
Author(s):  
Nora Gottlieb ◽  
Habtom Ghebrezghiabher ◽  
Tsega Gebreyesus

2006 ◽  
Vol 12 (5) ◽  
pp. 262-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Emma Knowles ◽  
James Munro ◽  
Alicia O'Cathain ◽  
Jon Nicholl

2004 ◽  
Vol 28 (6) ◽  
pp. 218-221 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heinrich Kunze ◽  
Thomas Becker ◽  
Stefan Priebe

The German mental health care system differs significantly from the system in the UK. There is no central organisation with overall responsibility as in the National Health Service (NHS), and the government is not entitled to prescribe details of policy or set specific targets. It can only determine the legal framework, define general goals and, with difficulties, influence the spending level. Responsibilities for mental health care, as for other fields of health care, are shared between federal authorities, the 16 states (Lander), local authorities, and semi-statutory organisations, which govern out-patient health care provided by psychiatrists in office-based practices. Virtually every citizen is health-insured and there is free access to health care for those who have no insurance coverage, in which case social services usually cover the costs. Social services also directly fund various services in the community. The fragmented system can be difficult to comprehend. However, many of the challenges are similar to those in other countries, and policy makers and practitioners elsewhere might be interested to know some of the lessons learnt in the German system.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document