Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ

Britain has imposed secret immigration restrictions on people with HIV
while maintaining that its borders are officially open to them. Medical
inspectors in ports have been instructed to give immigration officials an
estimate of the cost of treating any incoming foreigner who has or ‘is suspected
of having’ HIV or AIDS. Their reports must not explicitly mention the virus
or the disease, but could be used to deny immigrants entry.

The instructions are spelt out in a letter obtained by New Å®ÉúСÊÓƵ
from the Chief Medical Officer to port medical inspectors. They come at
a time when intense public attention has been focused on the immigration
restrictions on AIDS in the US. Although 48 countries worldwide have some
kind of border restrictions on HIV-positive people, Britain has never been
one of them and it boycotted last year’s AIDS conference in San Francisco
because of the US policy.

The letter stresses that ‘the diagnosis of AIDS or HIV (infection) should
not in itself be considered justification for a recommendation on public
health grounds to withhold leave to enter the UK’. But it continues: ‘However,
if the Medical Inspector considers that an entrant who is subject to Immigration
Control is likely during his stay . . . to require medical treatment for
AIDS or for illness associated with HIV infection . . . he/she should provide
an estimate of the cost of such treatment in order to enable the Immigration
Service to decide whether the passenger has the means to meet these costs.’
At present, visitors who intend to stay less than six months must pay for
most types of medical treatment, including all aspects of AIDS treatment
except an initial test and counselling. European Community nationals and
some others are covered by their countries’ reciprocal arrangements with
Britain. Longer-term immigrants have been eligible for free medical treatment
because they are ‘ordinarily resident’ in the country. It is unclear from
the letter exactly which classes of immigrants are to be covered by the
new instructions, but they appear to affect any incoming foreigner.

Anne Owers, of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants in London,
said: ‘I am deeply suspicious that this is actually going to encourage refusal
of admission for people who would otherwise qualify for free treatment.’
Implicit in this instruction is the need for the port doctor to perform
an HIV test on the passenger, even though there is no legal right to refuse
entry on the basis of HIV infection. ‘It seems as if we are getting a secret
system of HIV testing,’ said Owers. ‘If this were to be applied as it stands
it would be illegal.’ The letter warns medical officers against naming HIV
or AIDS in their reports to immigration officers. This suggests that some
form of code will have to be used. ‘That will be obvious either to the officer
or to the passenger. Both are unacceptable,’ said Owers.