What would you suggest ?

[conyoviejo]

I'll choose the fence.

It's better than offence ..

[Rick_Muller]

This situation reminds me of what I read on a daily basis on a social media group I am in because of my Ulcerative Colitis. In this country, my treatment is provided for me by the wonderful NHS, however in the US, if you don’t have wealth and the right medical insurance, you can’t afford your treatment - and that’s for US citizens...! Yes, they’ll get something, but not the right treatment for their disease.

I’d like to think that as a society we are better than those who don’t want to treat him, and I don’t care how many people are upset by this man getting treatment - it is the right thing to do.

[tim_noone]

This situation reminds me of what I read on a daily basis on a social media group I am in because of my Ulcerative Colitis. In this country, my treatment is provided for me by the wonderful NHS, however in the US, if you don’t have wealth and the right medical insurance, you can’t afford your treatment - and that’s for US citizens...! Yes, they’ll get something, but not the right treatment for their disease.

I’d like to think that as a society we are better than those who don’t want to treat him, and I don’t care how many people are upset by this man getting treatment - it is the right thing to do.

Hes only Human after all!

[AlargeClaret]

What about the British nationals that don’t pay for the NHS, where are they in the queue?

Well if they reside here legally they get the same as the rest of us and would naturally be above someone who had lived here illegally . Not that the Brit is a better or worse person than the illegal but you have to draw the line somewhere

[Test User]

Full story here .....

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... -treatment

The man concerned, a foreign national who has overstayed his Visa, issued 9 years ago, has evaded the authorities but finds himself now with a terminal illness, as he is deemed ineligible due to his illegal status. His initial treatment from the NHS was provided free, but he is now being asked for £16k initially to pay for palliative care to which he is not entitled on a free basis ...

What are your thoughts ?

Treat him. We're not monsters. He's dying ffs. It's not like he's going to be a burden for long, and he's probably contributed to the NHS this whole time anyway through various taxes.

[Cleveleys_claret]

Do whatever needs doing to save a persons life. The quango's and such have been the biggest drain on the NHS. We are spoonfed stuff like this to hate the person and not the system

[Cleveleys_claret]

Although if he doesnt have a visa or shouldnt be here then he should be given one and made to pay it back. The responsibility should not always be the taxpayers burden.

Reading more into it...who doesnt see their wife for 9 years and then moan that her and his 2 kids arent given visas to come see him

Bit of a non story I would guess if you actually delved properly into it

[yorkyclaret]

Does a doctor have authority to tell (not advise) anyone they can't travel?

[houseboy]

I find it bizarre that people are actually putting a cost on a human life. He's DYING. He deserves to be given the care he needs whether he is English, Pakistani or Javan. He's a bloody human being who is going to die pretty soon. Human beings are on this planet for a very short period of time after which we know not, so the death of anyone should be treated with compassion and not treated as a financial statistic. Life is precious and arguing over a few thousand pounds is trivial and insensitive. We are a rich nation - whatever the government may claim, and we can afford this.

[Test User]

See?

Like the replies people get when they show sympathy for refugees ("Go and let a few live in your house then")

I'm happy not to be a ****, and let my taxes fund this blokes treatment.

Like today, hundreds of people getting distressed (quite rightly btw) over this plane in the channel.....but not a cheep when a refugee boat overturns in the Med.

Believe it or not when a refugee boat overturns there are some people who think they shouldn't be rescued.

[houseboy]

It's not nastiness, per se, it's a different emphasis between those of us who take personal responsibility, ensuring requirements are met, looking after our own and doing the right thing and those who expect the state to look after us whatever the situation, like certain MP's and Union Leaders who still live in state subsidised accomodation, on very generous salaries, despite being well able to move in to their own homes ...

Ah yes, like the Royal Family you mean. Good point.

[houseboy]

Believe it or not when a refugee boat overturns there are some people who think they shouldn't be rescued.

And that is wholly wrong. The problem seems to be that there are different kinds of refugees getting different forms of sympathy, and normally deservedly so. There are refugees in the true sense of the word, the ones whose lives and the lives of their familys are actually in danger should they stay where they are and only the most hardened hearts would deny them access. There are the ones who are not in any danger but simply come here for a better life, they receive less sympathy and that is probably understandable. Then there are the financial refugees who come here because they fear the loss of their money and priviledges at home and they receive the least sympathy, again probably rightly so. But the problem is that when a boat or indeed any other form of transport faces a disaster they are all united by that one defining factor - they are human beings and as such are deserving of help at that time. What happens to them after they are rescued is another matter because yes we do have to have some controls and some won't get in, or shouldn't, but no-one in this world deserves to be left to die without aid or help, that would be simply cruel and totally wrong.

[taffy]

But surely if this man, dying or not, has not been paying his contribution to the state then he has been denying somebody else of treatment that his contribution could have funded, there are far too many people not prepared to pay their taxes, if everyone paid then the NHS would not be in the sorry state it is and the state could fund any treatment necessary.

[houseboy]

But surely if this man, dying or not, has not been paying his contribution to the state then he has been denying somebody else of treatment that his contribution could have funded, there are far too many people not prepared to pay their taxes, if everyone paid then the NHS would not be in the sorry state it is and the state could fund any treatment necessary.

But it's not men like this not paying that costs the NHS, it's wealthy individuals and companies that deprive the nation of possibly billions when they don't pay out of sheer greed. And we don't know that this guy hasn't been paying anyway. Even if he hasn't he should be treated, he is a human being not some animal that should be treated as worthless. There is an old saying about knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Life has more value than money.

[JTClaret]

Have to agree with the no money, no treatment.
If he was entitled to be here I wouldn't even question it, but he's not.
Has to be treated the way I would if I was in a different country under the same circumstances.

All good and well saying people don't mind their contributions being used - but often those that say this are the ones that say those that earn more should pay more, they are the ones who complain not enough money is spent on the NHS and services etc. and who say those working in those services should be paid more - I don't want to sound like a nasty piece of work, which I sure these comments do, but you're contribution much be much higher than mine if that's the way you feel.

[Chobulous]

Give him the treatment it is the only humane thing to do.