- Andrew J Pollard (andrew.pollard@paediatrics.oxford.ac.uk), senior lecturer in paediatric infectious diseases1,
- Julian Savulescu, director2
- 1 Department of Paediatrics, University of Oxford, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DU
- 2 Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford OX1 1PT
- Correspondence to: A J Pollard
Introduction
A pregnant woman from Africa who has been in the United Kingdom for six months is found to be HIV positive on antenatal screening performed by her general practitioner. Testing by an HIV physician shows that she has a high viral load. The physician plans to start antiretroviral therapy to reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to the fetus. In the meantime, the woman attends the hospital antenatal clinic and is asked to prove her eligibility for treatment. She is unable to provide her passport and is then denied access to the consultant. The woman defaults from further follow up by HIV or obstetric services.
The issues
Although fictional, this case reflects cases that have occurred recently. Do doctors who discover a pregnant woman is infected with HIV have a duty to provide antiretroviral treatment, without seeking to determine her right to reside in the United Kingdom, when intentionally denying therapy would allow as many as one in three babies to be born with HIV?
More generally, what are the rights to free NHS treatment of overseas visitors and people of indeterminate residential status? This is the subject of a current Department of Health consultation,1 which proposes further restricting access of “overseas visitors” to NHS care. We argue that, far from restricting care, we should provide access to free NHS care for overseas visitors and people of uncertain residential status.
Background considerations
Asylum situation
In 2002, there were 84 130 applications for asylum in the United Kingdom, but only 10% of requests were granted.2 3 Asylum seekers come to the United Kingdom to escape adverse economic, cultural, or social circumstances or because of …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27