Passive smoking exposure and risk of COPD in China

Abstract

Your Editorial, “Access to health care for undocumented migrants in Europe” (Dec 22, p 2070) is timely. The UK Government is imminently considering means to abolish the right of “failed” asylum seekers to primary health care through the National Health Service (NHS) in Britain. This would be dangerous and unethical. 276 doctors registered to practise in the UK have (so far) signed a petition opposing the policy. The substance of the petition appears below. “This would impose serious health risks on [undocumented migrants] and on the general public. It would also inter fere with our ability to carry out our duties as doctors. It is not in keeping with the ethics of our profession to refuse to see any person who may be ill, particularly pregnant women with com plications, sick children or men crippled by torture. No one would want such a doctor for their GP. “We call on the government to retreat from this foolish proposal, which would prevent doctors from investigating, prescribing for, or referring such patients on the NHS. “We pledge that, in the event this regulation comes into eff ect, we will: (a) continue to see and examine asylum seekers and to advise them about their health needs, whatever their immigration status; (b) document their diag noses and required clinical care; (c) with suitable anonymisation and consent, copy this documenta tion to the responsible ministers, [mem bers of parliament] and the press; (d) inform the public of the human costs, to harness popular disgust at what is being ordered by the government in their name; (e) campaign to speedily reverse these ill-advised policies.”