寻求庇护者与获得医疗保健的权利

Dallal E. Stevens
{"title":"寻求庇护者与获得医疗保健的权利","authors":"Dallal E. Stevens","doi":"10.53386/nilq.v61i4.460","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"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 - 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 has 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 multi-disciplinary 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.","PeriodicalId":81320,"journal":{"name":"Georgetown immigration law journal","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2010-08-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"6","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Asylum Seekers and the Right to Access Health Care\",\"authors\":\"Dallal E. Stevens\",\"doi\":\"10.53386/nilq.v61i4.460\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"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 - 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 has 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 multi-disciplinary 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.\",\"PeriodicalId\":81320,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Georgetown immigration law journal\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2010-08-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"6\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Georgetown immigration law journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v61i4.460\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Georgetown immigration law journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.53386/nilq.v61i4.460","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

摘要

近年来,寻求庇护者获得保健服务的问题给政府、法院和医学界提出了严重的问题。谁有权在联合王国接受医疗是一个政治、人道主义和人权问题。对政府来说————常常面临公众对寻求庇护者和移徙者的敌意,害怕前往联合王国的健康旅游或"拉动因素",并面临日益严重的财政紧张————治疗往往被视为一种让步,而不是一种权利。对法院来说,任何给予非国民待遇的决定,特别是那些无权留下的决定,都被视为具有远远超出个人需要的政治影响。相比之下,医疗行业更倾向于关注病人,而不考虑移民身份,并且对双重角色感到不舒服。政府目前正在评估平衡应该在哪里,因为它正在考虑对外国国民获得国民保健服务审查咨询文件的回应。在这个及时的时刻,本文对寻求庇护者获得医疗保健的问题提供了一种多学科的方法,不仅审查法律立场,而且审查政府政策,其对个人的影响,重要的是,审查赞成或反对治疗的伦理和哲学论点。有人认为,只有通过这种全面的分析,才能在这一关键的社会权利日益占上风的时候采取适当的立法办法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Asylum Seekers and the Right to Access Health Care
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 - 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 has 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 multi-disciplinary 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.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信