Beneath contempt: Home Office deports dying woman
Terminally ill cancer patient Ama Sumani was dragged from her bed in a Cardiff hospital this Wednesday, and put on a plane back to her homeland of Ghana. The reason was that, while she was in hospital, her student visa had expired. The Home Office stated that no sick person is deported from Britain unless they (the Home Office) are satisfied that suitable health care “is available” in the country they are being sent to. Unfortunately, the Home Office does not distinguish between the words ”available” and “affordable”: now back in Ghana, Ama cannot afford the £2,000 that she must pay upfront in order to receive treatment. Thanks to Britain’s oh-so-humane immigration laws, she now awaits a slow and painful death.
This story has, so far received remarkably little publicity. Nothing (as far as I’ve noticed) in the Graun or the Indie. Nor from the usually vigilant National Coalition of Anti Deportation Campaigns. The BBC has given it good coverage, as has (astonishingly) the Daily Mail.
I am not aware of any campaign or appeal in support of Ama: if anyone has any information, please let me know and we’ll publicise it. Otherwise, all we can do is feel useless sorrow for Ama…and burning fury and hatred against the Home Office and Gordon Brown’s government, with their macho posturing on immigration.
Mustafa said,
January 11, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Well what do we have here? Let’s turn the UK into an international Sanatorium.
On these imbecilic principles the National Health Service would collapse in a moment.
twp77 said,
January 11, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Take your anti-immigrant crap elsewhere “Mustafa”
voltairespriest said,
January 12, 2008 at 8:15 am
Mustafa,
Would you be the same guy who’s defending Shelby “Welfare is the new slavery” Steele over at the Drink Soaked Trots? I’m guessing yes.
Jules said,
January 12, 2008 at 10:18 am
VP – Rather funny that Will and Hak were lecturing you about your comments policy given some of the opinions elicited by that post:
http://drinksoakedtrotsforwar.com/2008/01/08/an-embarrassing-obsession/
Neo fash, immigrant haters and other bigots (all Hitchens/Shelby groupies of course) – welcome over at the trots!
voltaires_priest said,
January 12, 2008 at 11:02 am
Jules – well yes indeed, quite so!
With regards to that specific thread, anyone who tells me Shelby Steele is a progressive (or rather, not a conservative) is a moron. End of.
Jules said,
January 12, 2008 at 11:38 am
That Hitchens article is such a fucking joke: “this nation’s obsession with Obama’s race is an embarrassment – therefore I’m going to write an article entirely focusing on er Obama’s race. He not black – he’s got a white mom etc”. You might think that progressives would be more interested in Obama’s policies and their impact on the working class, but there you go.
The morons in the comments box are worse than that. John from Cincinnati is almost certainly a white, angry, middle class gun totin’ hick with a belt buckle with his name written upside down so he can look down and go “oh shit that’s my name”:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=F2WCc-yFDbs
Government immigration policy “beneath contempt” « Honorary Proletarian said,
January 12, 2008 at 2:34 pm
[...] immigration policy “beneath contempt” | Jan 12th 2008 See this post from Jim Denham over on Shiraz Socialist: as much attention as possible needs to be drawn to this [...]
Dan said,
January 12, 2008 at 2:41 pm
I don’t want to pay for someone to receive treatment on the NHS through my taxes when that person is not legally entitled to be in this Country. Does that make me a bad person?
With regard to Jules comment at 1238 – brilliant! Slags off The Hitch’s article for obsessing about racial politics and in the same breath assumes this guy John is a “hick”, because he *may* be White, Angry and Middle class.
As usual with *progressive politics* – the white middle classes aren’t allowed to be angry, ‘cos then they’re racist. What a load of nonsense.
Dan said,
January 12, 2008 at 2:49 pm
Also, it is worth noting that the British Taxpayer offered to pay the first three months worth of care received in Ghana, an offer that was rejected by the Ghanian Authorities – and that she was accompanied on the trip by three British officials – despite your rather hysterical claim of her being “…dragged from her bed and put on a plane…”
It is her own Country’s system at fault here, not ours.
Jules said,
January 12, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Fucking hell, you’re one tight arsed little prick aswell as well as stingy little twat totally lacking any kind of human compassion. You like a frigntened little rabbit of a man Dan. Shameful.
modernity said,
January 12, 2008 at 3:55 pm
irrespective of the paperwork, visas, etc Ms. Sumani should have received for an extensive care in Britain as a basic element a human compassion
turfing terminally ill cancer patients out of the country simply because the paperwork isn’t correct or has expired is indefensible, and that applies to anyone in the world and any country in the world
so for those incapable of empathising with Ms. Sumani’s case then let them put themselves in a similar position, imagine hypothetically that they were in America, became terminally ill and their “visa” ran out, only to be carted out of the country against their will? how would they feel?
Dan said,
January 12, 2008 at 4:19 pm
You’re keeping good company these days here at Shiraz Socialist.
As usual with the Left, any voice of dissent (and I’ve been reading this blog since the beginning ‘cos for the most part, I agree) is stamped on with personal invective and bile.
I’m just putting another point, my point, without personal attacks, engaging on what I saw as the flaw in the argument re Hitchen’s column.
Whilst modesty forbids me to detail such, I can assure you that I am far from “tight-arsed” or “tight”. I am neither frightened nor a rabbit – though curiously that’s my “chinese year”
Training, as I am, to be a Psychologist, I know a great deal about shame – and perhaps even more about those who so high-handedly bandy the term around; I can assure you that I am far from ashamed.
I feel deep sorrow in my heart for this lady, but I also see everyday people of this country of whatever flavour who are desperately in need of more than the sticking-plasters worth of healthcare the NHS provides; particularly in my own specialism (we are still in the dark ages of containment of depersonalization.)
Who is more deserving? In a way I am thankful that it is not me who decides.
Jules, frankly, you’d be a disgrace to any cause you championed behaving like that.
Jules said,
January 12, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Repugnant arsehole. Your existance is not only a waste of British tax payers* money but also a waste of oxygen. Again in case you missed it the first time – fuck you and fuck off.
* who aren’t some fucking homogenous grouping as the daily mail/you appear to think. I pay taxes and I don’t think people should be sent to their deaths because their work visas have expired.
Dan said,
January 12, 2008 at 8:14 pm
More of the same, I see. Blah blah blah, I’m so self-righteous yack yack yack. I’ve heard it all before.
You condemn me for wanting to send people to their deaths, and then want me dead also, so much for the sanctity of life. Bizarre.
BTW I read the Guardian and always have, never touched the Mail in my life. As I said before, we don’t all have to subscribe to your way of thinking; and you don’t occupy the moral high ground with all the views you have either, even though you would love to think so it seems.
Jules said,
January 12, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Dan – a pompous little pillock who thinks he occupies the moral high ground because he operates within the parameters of bourgeois manners. I don’t sing from that hymn sheet I’m afraid, doesn’t interest me.
Further:
1. Dan has no understanding of irony
2. Dan is a self-indulgent twat who compares being on the receiving end of a rough polemic to being sent to die a slow and agonising death with no medical support. He thinks the latter is a best opinion available for Ama Sumani and people who disagree are “self-righteous”.
Again, what more can I say than “what a fucking prick”.
voltaires_priest said,
January 12, 2008 at 10:29 pm
As it happens Dan, Jules is someone who generally doesn’t agree with what Jim or I say. However he has the right to put his views here, just as you do. In this case though, I too think it’s mean-spirited to argue that someone’s nationality should determine whether they are denied medical treatment that they need when in the UK.
Furthermore, if you want to see some “personal invective” being directed at a “dissenter”, then take a look at Mustafa and John’s replies to me on the thread which we’re discussing at the Trots. Or is that different somehow?
Dan said,
January 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Invective is invective; no matter who it’s directed against. I would not presume to think it’s different for anyone – nor am I wanting any special favours here, just to be clear.
On one small point, it’s not my argument that someone’s nationality should determine whether they are entitled to treatment, but whether they have a legal right to be in the UK – this lady does not and therefore needs to make arrangements to have care needs met elsewhere.
I don’t think the NHS is responsible to provide end-of-life care to people in this situation – as I said before, I honestly believe that it’s not our system at fault here.
Terrible things happen to human beings, it’s the nature of the condition; all we can really do is take appropriate measures to mitigate any unforeseen problems (and yes, I would include dying in that).
twp77 said,
January 14, 2008 at 4:19 pm
Hi Dan,
I have a serious question for you here. I am “legally entitled” to be in the UK currently and am a resident. But the logic of your argument leads to people opposing treatment for me if I were to need very expensive medical care because while you say that your reason for opposing this is because she is not here “legally” in reality your argument is an economic one. You claim that the care is too great an expense to the NHS.
Now my question is where do you draw the line? First it is clear that this women came here to study, not to die and not with receiving medical care in mind. It is also the case that most people don’t make special trips to the UK to have medical care performed but are here by virtue of another reason – whether that be asylum or schooling (which they pay for I might add – and the foreign student fees are no joke!).
In the event that I suddenly experience a life threatening disease, I do think the UK government and its health system has a duty of care for me – regardless of the circumstances – I live here and so did this young woman.
Ama petition « Shiraz Socialist said,
January 17, 2008 at 2:03 am
[...] 17, 2008 at 2:03 am (Human rights, Jim D, africa, campaigns) Ama Sumani’s case, at last, seems to be getting some [...]
Care for Ama Sumani - terminally ill woman deported « Honorary Proletarian said,
January 17, 2008 at 12:15 pm
[...] for Ama Sumani – terminally ill woman deported | Jan 17th 2008 Read this and then sign this petition. [...]
tim f said,
January 20, 2008 at 1:51 am
Dan, by saying that the deportation shouldn’t be opposed because the woman had no legal right to live here, you seem to be suggesting that the legal framework is fair. Is that a reasonable summary of your views?
I think the legal framework we have in this country concerning immigration and asylum is racist. I think it’s skewed so that as many people as possible can be prevented from arriving, and harrassed and deported when they have arrived. Thus whether someone is entitled to be in this country has no bearing on whether they should receive medical treatment on the NHS. Whether someone is in this country is the only thing that has any bearing.
Most doctors I know agree and say they feel it is their duty to treat the patient in front of them, regardless of their legal entitlements.
Jules said,
March 20, 2008 at 6:41 pm
Sad news:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7305963.stm