This article is from the source 'bbc' and was first published or seen on . It will not be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/wales/7189137.stm

The article has changed 3 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Cancer woman's removal 'barbaric' 'No U-turn' in cancer woman row
(about 5 hours later)
A medical journal has described the decision to remove a terminally-ill Ghanaian woman from the UK whose visa had expired as "atrocious barbarism". The UK government has said it will not reconsider its decision to remove a terminally ill African woman, whose visa had expired.
The Lancet has also called on doctors' leaders to voice their opposition to Ama Sumani's treatment. Ama Sumani, 39, who has cancer, was sent back to Ghana from Cardiff last week but cannot afford kidney dialysis treatment to prolong her life.
But the Border and Immigration Agency said it had examined the case of Ms Sumani, who cannot afford the kidney dialysis in Ghana, with "great care". The Lancet medical journal had called the decision "atrocious barbarism".
A committee of MPs will later question the agency's chief executive. But the head of the Border and Immigration Agency told MPs it did not stand out from other difficult cases.
Lin Homer, the agency's chief executive, told the Home Affairs Select Committee: "I think it is difficult to see the circumstances in which this case stands out from the many very difficult cases we consider."
During questioning by MPs, Ms Homer said the decision was backed up by previous rulings in the domestic courts, the House of Lords and the European Court in Strasbourg.
She argued that it was not cruel or inhumane treatment because many countries did not have the same high quality of medical care as the UK.
Ms Homer also denied that ministers has personally considered the case.
She added that she felt "deep personal sympathy" for claimaints in "challenging circumstances".
HAVE YOUR SAY Why should the British public be expected to pay for someone who technically should not be here. The Lancet needs to be reminded that it is the national health service not the international health service. DM, Portsmouth Was the decision right?
"We see many cases where the medical prognosis for an individual would be far less good in the home country."
But committee member Gwyn Prosser said: "Many people would believe that this case is exceptional. If it's not exceptional, good God, what is?"
Ms Sumani, a 39-year-old widow and mother-of-two, had been receiving dialysis at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff for more than a year after cancer damaged her kidneys.Ms Sumani, a 39-year-old widow and mother-of-two, had been receiving dialysis at the University Hospital of Wales, Cardiff for more than a year after cancer damaged her kidneys.
She came to the UK five years ago to become a student but began working in contravention of her of visa regulations. Her visa has since expired.She came to the UK five years ago to become a student but began working in contravention of her of visa regulations. Her visa has since expired.
She developed malignant myeloma, a cancer affecting the bone marrow, while living in Cardiff. Ms Sumani developed malignant myeloma, a cancer affecting the bone marrow, while living in Cardiff.
She was taken from the hospital by immigration officers on 9 January and was accompanied to Accra, Ghana's capital. She was taken from hospital by immigration officers on 9 January and accompanied to Accra, Ghana's capital.
We understand her health is deterioration, that is not a proper use of immigration powers in my view Keith Vaz, chair Home Affairs Select Committee Since then Ms Sumani has been trying to get onto a dialysis machine but she said the main hospital in Accra had asked for the equivalent of about $6,000 (£3,060) to cover her sessions for the next three months.
Since then Ms Sumani has been trying to get onto a dialysis machine but without success. The Lancet earlier called on doctors' leaders to voice their opposition to Ms Sumani's treatment.
She said the main hospital in Accra had asked for the equivalent of about $6,000 (£3,060) to cover her kidney dialysis sessions for the next three months.
The Lancet's editorial piece reads: "The UK has committed an atrocious barbarism.
"It is time for doctors' leaders to say so - forcefully and uncompromisingly."
The journal added that to "stop treating patients in the knowledge that they are being sent home to die is an unacceptable breach of the duties of any health professional."
The Lancet has also published a petition signed by 276 doctors calling on the government to reject proposed regulations that would abolish the right of failed asylum seekers to seek medical help in Britain through the National Health Service (NHS).
"Ministerial discretion"
Meanwhile, the Home Affairs Select Committee will be questioning the Border and Immigration Agency chief executive Lin Homer about their handling of Ms Sunami's removal in Westminster later.
Speaking on BBC Radio Wales, Keith Vaz, chair of the committee said: "We know that there have to be rules governing immigration, we also know those who break rules have to be returned, but there is also a question of ministerial discretion.
The UK government says access to treatment is a matter for GhanaThe UK government says access to treatment is a matter for Ghana
"This is a compassionate government that needs to act on occasion in a compassionate way, while being extremely tough and ensuring the rules are upheld. The journal's editorial piece reads: "The UK has committed an atrocious barbarism.
"It is time for doctors' leaders to say so - forcefully and uncompromisingly."
It also published a petition signed by 276 doctors calling on the government to reject proposed regulations that would abolish the right of failed asylum seekers to seek medical help in Britain through the National Health Service (NHS).
Ahead of the Commons home affairs committee session, its chair Keith Vaz told BBC Radio Wales: "We know that there have to be rules governing immigration, we also know those who break rules have to be returned, but there is also a question of ministerial discretion.
"This is a compassionate government that needs to act on occasion in a compassionate way, while being extremely tough and ensuring the rules are upheld."
"We understand her health is deteriorating, that is not a proper use of immigration powers in my view."We understand her health is deteriorating, that is not a proper use of immigration powers in my view.
"It is far better to remove someone that is able bodied than someone who is very sick and receiving treatment.""It is far better to remove someone that is able bodied than someone who is very sick and receiving treatment."
A spokesman for the Border and Immigration Agency said: ""We examine with great care each individual case before removal and we assess fitness to travel and whether the necessary medical treatment is available in the country to which we are returning.
"The UK cannot offer healthcare to individuals with no legal right to remain in the UK solely because they would not be able to access a similar standard of treatment in their country of origin - this has been upheld in law."