Home Politics & Debate
If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options

health checks for immigrants

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3121783.stm

The UK is "building up a frightening level of hidden illness" and compulsory screening is essential to prevent them being brought into the country, said shadow health secretary Liam Fox.

It would also stop people coming to Britain simply for free health care, draining the resources of the NHS, he said.

-
I think this could be useful if done properly. I mean the government has a duty to stop the spread of viruses.
I don't think there is any reason not give Asylum seekers at least a proper health check. But would this work? Is it "unnecessary, extremist, unethical and unworkable". Would the government have the bottle to do it even it they thought it was a good idea?

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Of course immigrants should be tested before they come into this country, we don't want the spread of disease happening in this country because of some other person from a different country far away, if they want to enter here then they should have to meet the right health conditions, whatever way you look at it life here is FAR better than life in their home country.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Exactly shogun, it's common sense, more common sense views please :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    perhaps everyone should be healthchecked at 16/18/and every 10 years

    think of those STDs people don't know they have

    I also wonder what sort of resource implication health checking immigrants would have.

    what about someone who has been gang raped who has fled for there life and finds they are HIV +ve.

    what about young girls fleeing the sex trade who may well have any number of STDs.

    are you saying we should deny help and should send them back to be tourtured/raped/abused/forced into slave labour.


    edited having just read the article

    Immigrants would have to pay for the tests and asylum seekers would be detained until it was clear the tests had been met, it said. - and how is someone who has fled their home and owns the clothes they stand in going to pay?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It's not about just denying help, it's about having some kind of control.
    are you saying that it is better not to know if there are immigrants entering the country with diseases?
    It's better for the individual as well to know what they have.
    I'm pretty sure that young girls wouldn't be deported like that.
    I'm not sure about them having to pay for it though, you have a point their.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I know what you mean,, but the whole thing stands out as a way of saying NO WE DONT WANT YOU

    in my opinion it is right that people know what their health status is, but e.g. going for HIV testing has the potential to be an absolutly awful experience, esp. on top of someone who has jsut arrived and all that stress.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    What would you do with people who fail the check?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Good point.

    Before anyone says "send them back home" they should think why an asylum seeker leaves their country in the first place.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Interesting piece here:
    asylum seekers would be detained until it was clear the tests had been met

    Q. How would they meet the tests, if they had originally failed?

    A. Treatment

    Q. Who would provide such treatment?

    A. Doctors

    Q. Who would pay for such the treatment?

    A. NHS?


    Back to square one really. Unless the suggestion is that they are billed, which bearing in mind why they come here would be a pretty fucking stupid idea. No surprise that the Tories have come up with it then :)

    Unworkable and not thought out soudbites, as usual, when will politicians actually sort out the real problem and not look for scapegoats?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Apart from the issue of who pays, it makes sense. Though when immigrants start working it could be taken PAYE from their wages- they make students do it, why not immigrants?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Yeah right on - and while they are at it they should stop giving cancer treatment to people who smoke and helping people with allergies who have been stupid enough to eat the thing they are allergic to!!:rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    Unworkable and not thought out soudbites, as usual, when will politicians actually sort out the real problem and not look for scapegoats?

    But the real problem is immigrants bringing in illnesses that weve eradicated. TB, especially, was weradicate din the UK, so much so immunisations were stopped by Blairs government, but TB has made a comeback with the increase of immigrants. I dont think thats a case of scapegoating, but saying theyre evil for it is obviously ridiculous.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by byny
    Yeah right on - and while they are at it they should stop giving cancer treatment to people who smoke and helping people with allergies who have been stupid enough to eat the thing they are allergic to!!:rolleyes:

    ?

    I dont think that theyre proposing banning ill people from egtting health, more a system of quarantine until it is established that they are healthy. I think its perfectly reasonable, to be honest- why should my life be put at risk from TB just because its a hardship for an asylum seeker to be detained in quarantine for a fortnight. After all, if they were really treated that badly at home, theyd be grateful of any help they get.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why then did the Tory party have to bring in the 'draining of the NHS' argument then...its more than that - its fear..and its another subtle way to get it into peoples minds that 'immigrants' bring disease and filth, one more reason for people to be scared of them.

    There are plenty of things that drain the NHS and many of them start with the legal population of this country.

    Assylum seekers would be able to pay toward the national health if they were allowed to work!
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Some good points made, my immediate thought is it would only work if everyone coming into the country was screened. Now this would have to include all U.S servicemen stationed here, foreign embassy staff and business people and any Brits that travelled abroad for whatever reason.

    The SARS epidemic showed that people were catching and spreading the virus worldwide just from going on holiday.

    I saw a drama last year on BBC1 which showed a killer virus which entered this country from someone on a business trip.

    We will need pretty big camps for this to be effective and I'm sure the Tories have taken this into consideration as opposed to merely running a scare story against immigrants :o
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Kermit
    But the real problem is immigrants bringing in illnesses that weve eradicated. TB, especially, was weradicate din the UK

    50% of all TB cases in this country are from immigrants - i.e. 50% aren't. Of that 50%, some of those immigrants have been in the country more than five years. So they didn't bring it in with them.

    The real problem here is immunisation - at least with TB it is.

    It's a reactionary, scapegoat, fear mongering policy which the Tories are well known for. Remember "single mothers" anyone?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by Man Of Kent
    The real problem here is immunisation - at least with TB it is.

    That and the fact that TB is so infuriatingly persistent; once you've got it, it's remarkably hard to get rid of.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    50% of all TB cases in this country are from immigrants - i.e. 50% aren't. Of that 50%, some of those immigrants have been in the country more than five years. So they didn't bring it in with them.

    So some of those immigrants have been in the country less than five years and they did bring it in with them. Govt. probably won't break down the figures to say exactly what the picture is as they don't want to stigmatise immigrants.


    It's certainly the casae that HIV sufferers are coming here from particularly Africa and as our Govt. has gallantly made it an ussue of Human Rights, the NHS is obliged to treat them adding to its burdens

    Nothing wrong with the Tories making thse points, who else will, after all?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    So who would treat the people who are screened?

    Apart from the NHS that is, or are we going to send people back to the country they left?

    The "burden" to the NHS isn't financial, it's time and this recommendation won't change that.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Apart from the NHS that is, or are we going to send people back to the country they left?

    Yes, unless the National Health Service is to become an Interational Health Service, besides the availibility of treatment would become a pull to the world's sick people
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by solo
    Yes, unless the National Health Service is to become an Interational Health Service, besides the availibility of treatment would become a pull to the world's sick people

    It already is, and always has been, a service accessible to all. We refuse no-one.

    It's no coincidence that A&E is often referred to as Anything and Everything, or Anyone and Everyone.

    We always have taken "care" over every person to walk (or vbe carried) through our doors. It's just a current trend to use the NHS as a weapon to beat the immigrants with.

    Going back to your 50% comment:
    "So some of those immigrants have been in the country less than five years and they did bring it in with them."

    That isn't necessarily true. It certainly isn't safe to suggest that anyone of those sufferers who came into the country less than five years ago brought TB with them.

    Look at the stat. If 50% of all TB cases are from naturalised Brits then where did they get it?

    TB is prevalent in the UK, it never went away but was controlled by immunisation. The problem, in so far as immigrants are concerned, is that they come from countries where no such immunisation controls existed and so they are more suceptible to the disease. I'm not ruling out that some will have come into the country whilst infected (or at least carrying the disease), but to suggest that the TB cases would disappear without immigration is incorrect.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It certainly isn't safe to suggest that anyone of those sufferers who came into the country less than five years ago brought TB with them.

    There's surely a stong likelihood that some came here from the 3rd wporld with TB?

    Legal Immigrants come to work, it's not unreasonable to enquire as to their health before or on arrival.

    As for Asylum, availibility of HIV in their home country shouldn't be a factor. Harsh, but we have to proritise our efforts on our people
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Originally posted by solo
    There's surely a stong likelihood that some came here from the 3rd wporld with TB?

    Yep and it's a strong likelihood that some caught it once here, but we don't carry out routine screening of the entire UK population.

    Yes, I believe that we should screen people for such diseases, but not to find an excuse not to admit them, as the Tories seem to be suggesting, but to treat them. And yes, I mean on the NHS.
    As for Asylum, availibility of HIV in their home country shouldn't be a factor. Harsh, but we have to proritise our efforts on our people

    They are humans, we are humans. How are asylum seekers not "our people"?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    They are humans, we are humans. How are asylum seekers not "our people"?

    Yes, they are humans of course. they are not UK citizens, they have come here, uninvited, possibly with benefits like the NHS in mind. There are potentially millions who could come here and ask for assistance, 100, 000+ are already coming pa,I don't think asylum seekers are "our people" but people who have to be processed and probably deported with no obligation fromthe UK.

    As for the Asyum system, it needs radical overhauling in the light of mass transport and social disruption for developed countries like UK
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Have you not considered that perhaps those who have caught it in the UK have caught it from those who have brought it in from the Third World? After all, it is notoriously contagious and it *was* eradicated in this country before widescale immigration from Africa and Eastern Europe. Screening immigrants, who do statistically have a higher chance of contracting it that another group- the remaining 50% will not be one control group- would be a good thing, as much as anything to give them the treatment they need.

    But if Blair hadnt abandoned the immunisation programme because hes a fucking cheapskate then we wouldnt have a TB problem anyway- all naturalised UK citizens would be protected from this disease.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    My problem with the immigration system is that we are under no obligation to accept asylum seekers under the Geneva Convention. An asylum seeker from Albania would pass through Greece, Austria, germany, Holland, Belgium and France- all are in the EU, all are contracting parties to the ECHR. They are safe countries, and asylum seekers are supposed to claim refuge in the first safe country they come to- not the one who is most welcoming to them with benefits packages.

    I do not blame them for coming here instead of France, btu they should be put on the first boat back to Calais and told to adhere to the Geneva Convention. If we cant even afford to pay our pensioners decent money how can we afford asylum seekers who pay no regard to asylum legislation?
Sign In or Register to comment.