Come on folks, there must be something we can do about this! Could we find doctors who are prepared to defy the government and carry out an operation against the wishes of their bosses? Or maybe raise funds for treatment?

Andy

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Forwarded articles:

DORCAS FLED the war-ravaged Democratic Republic of Congo—but she may die at the hands of Labour’s brutual new policy of denying healthcare to asylum seekers.

She fled to Britain in 2003 after friends told her that her husband had been killed and she would be next if she did not leave. She does not know where her three children are.

Her asylum application was turned down last October.

Her health has deteriorated. She started to suffer stomach aches and heavy periods, with severe blood loss. A hospital consultant carried out a scan which revealed a large growth which Dorcas needs a hysterectomy to remove.

This is designated as non-essential surgery. The government’s new rules, introduced in April this year, force overseas visitors and failed asylum seekers to pay for non-emergency treatment in NHS hospitals.

Two days before her planned operation the hospital said they could not operate because she was not an asylum seeker but a tourist.

The only treatment she can afford is paracetamol, and then only when friends give her money. She is destitute and sleeping on a friend’s floor.

She was recently given a £700 bill for a one-day stay in hospital in May. Her lawyer, Mufassil Islam, believes it is only a matter of time before the government seeks to deport Dorcas.

Mufassil says, “I believe that if she had to take a flight home she would be putting her life at risk. She is an emergency health case, and I have reason to believe she will die without this operation.

“There is no treatment for her in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and even if there was it would be well out of her reach. She has no money and no one to support her.”

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One such example is the plight of failed a asylum-seeker, Dorcas, who fled the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo in fear for her life, following the murder of her husband.

Dorcas arrived in the UK in 2003 and applied for asylum, but her claim was turned down in October and her right to appeal was also rejected. In the meantime her health deteriorated rapidly. Doctors uncovered a large lump in her abdomen that was causing her to bleed profusely and recommended a hysterectomy, but under new rules introduced in April Dorcas is classed as an “overstayer” or “tourist” and must pay for any non-emergency treatment in National Health Service hospitals. The rules will also apply to General Practitoner services from next month.

The hospital informed Dorcas that despite her continuing pain, she was not a medical emergency as they had been able to stem the bleeding and she received a £700 bill for tests that had been carried out to identify her problem. Without any means of subsistence Dorcas was neither able to pay the bill, nor fund the operation she requires. The Home Office has said it intends to proceed with her removal. If the forced journey does not kill her, then her return to the DCR almost certainly will.

The imposition of such harsh conditions against those seeking asylum—including forcible deportation and detention—combined with ever-tougher border controls that have made it virtually impossible for refugees to enter the country legally, has led to a significant drop in the numbers of asylum applications. The Home Office’s rejection of Ghafor’s latest appeal came at the same time that it released data showing that the number of new asylum applications had fallen by 13 percent in the second quarter of 2004. True to form, the government celebrated the figures as a “success” story.