Guest matelotchick

Will I get through the medical?

    Recommended Posts

    Guest matelotchick

    Hi all - this is my very first experience on this forum so please be gentle with me!

     

    My husband and I are in the middle of applying for a permanent visa (119 RSM?) as he has been offered a job in Adelaide. I have trying not to get too excited as I am really worried about whether I will get through the medical.

     

    I am 44 and have had a kidney transplant for the last 25 years. I am on a number of meds (anti-rejection and blood pressure) and, although all my results are good and I have good renal function, realistically I will need further care in the future (although who knows what's in the store for any of us really .....)

     

    The medical panel is booked for next month and in the meantime I am going to see my consultant and get him to write a letter explaining my history, current situation and prognosis.

     

    I would really really welcome and advice fron anyone who has been through something similar. I so want to embrace this experience and live it to the full but I daren't start to dream quite yet ...

     

    :unsure:

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Hi, i dont want to build your hopes up and i know they are different medical issues, but my work mates wife has got heart problems and they went for there medical earlier on this year, and it didnt make any difference to their visa application, all the doctor asked her was for her medicals prescription details.

    My friends wife always thought it would hinder the application but it didnt, please quote if im wrong, but i was to believe that as long as you can be self sufficient or maybe have private med cover you should be ok.

    Good luck with it all

    Gary

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest Dazzlin

    Hi,

     

    I had an aortic aneurysm which resulted in me having part of my aorta replaced three years ago and I got a shiny mechanical heart valve thrown in for good measure. Consequently I'm now on Warfarin for life, which involves regular INR tests (finger-prick sample) and annual scans. I couldn't imagine how I would get through the medical but they didn't bat an eyelid, and we received out visa grant notification about 10 days after the medical without any further questions or referrals.

     

    Everyone's circumstances are different but, personally, I think they are more concerned with transmittables, such as HIV and TB.

     

    Hope it works out for you.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest Django

    All they are worried about (re medical) is are you going to be a drain on the system. If you are on prescription drugs, which you pay for, the answer is simply .....no. If they turn you down for this reason I would be very surprised.

     

     

    Pete

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Hi,

     

    ......... I got a shiny mechanical heart valve thrown in for good measure. Consequently I'm now on Warfarin for life, which involves regular INR tests (finger-prick sample) and annual scans.

     

    Snap............I have one of them to but not for the same reason mine just decided it was getting too tired to keep opening and closing. I bet your wife loves you ticking away!!

     

    My wife has now got used to it but when at work and with people that don't know you can have some real fun!!

     

    Anyway, good luck with getting over in Q1 we are hoping to go July 2012 just need to sell the house ASAP and I'll be able relax.

     

    Mis.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Hello Matelotchick

     

    I got up specially early this morning because I'm a lawyer and I've got some files to wade through today if it kills me! Deadlines are looming etc. However, one mug of coffee will not do for me - I need a whole bucket of the stuff before I am minded to move, especially on a Saturday morning in the UK, where I am.

     

    I'm not a migration agent. I just help with some of the queries on some of the forums and I'm interested in the subject of the Health requirements for migration to Australia. I live in the UK, where I am a lawyer, so it follows that I know a lot about the legal side of the Health requirement but very little about the medical side of the problems that cause the legal issues to arise.

     

    In March-May 2008, I helped a British couple who had run into problems with the visa meds for the wife. She was about 42 at the time. She had had a kidney transplant in 2000 but her body had rejected the new organ quite quickly. Apparently it had not been a very good tissue match but her docttors had hoped that it might do. It didn't do, so she ended up back on dialysis until a second transplant. I can't remember which year the second transplant was done but I'm pretty sure that the second one was in one of 2002, 2003 or 2004. It definitely wasn't later than that because she had another baby in 2006. The little girl is deaf but apart from that, she is fine,

     

    The lady has been taking a drug called Tacrolimus (aka Prograf) which you might have come across?

     

    Her visa meds went wrong, initially, but eventually her husband and I straightened the whole thing out and the visas were granted. This was between March & May 2008.

     

    I think what went wrong started with the NHS in the UK. The staff in the specialist renal unit had been asked to ask the lady's kidney consultant to produce a medical report in time for the family's consultation with the Panel Doctor. The admin staff failed to action the request. I suspect that that single omission caused a "domino effect" and everything else then went wrong at every stage after that.

     

    There was never an actual a problem with the lady's actual medical condition and prognosis. It all came down to the fact that one clerical blunder led to another all the way down the line, followed by DIAC trying to behave with their usual bloody-minded intransigence.

     

    The upshot of that was that DIAC ended up facing the business end of a large legal gun! The way that DIAC went about the whole thing was undoubtedly unlawful, so the lady's husband had every intention of suing the Minister for Immigration unless it was sorted out. DIAC then suggested an acceptable compromise solution, so it was all OK in the end. Threatening to get seriously heavy with them - amd meaning it - does tend to concentrate their minds!

     

    However, that was over 3 years ago. Since then, DIAC have made very substantial improvements to the ways in which they process visa meds, therefore similar problems should not happen again. This being so, plus you understand that you will need a consultant's report up-front, the sorts of clerical blunders that led to the hassles with the first lady should not also happen with you.

     

    You have said that "realistically" you are likely to need further treatment in the future. What sort of treatment, and when, please? Are you likely to need another transplant within the reasonably foreseeable future? I reckon that "reasonably foreseeable" means 5 years. DIAC try to say 15 years. A Judge would probably split it down the middle and say 7.5 years.

     

    Also, which anti-rejection drug are you taking and is it expensive in the UK? (You can discover the cost by asking the nearest pharmacist - they all have copies of a special book which states the up-to-date price of the drugs that they dispense.)

     

    Cheers

     

    Gill

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest matelotchick

    Thanks very much for all the comments and advice - these forums are amazingly useful!

     

    Medical panel booked for 22nd November, renal consultant booked for 11th in order to get the information that I need from them. I will also try to find out the costs of my meds over here.

     

    As far as further treatment is concerned, there is nothing definite at all - everything is fine and continues to be so - could be another 25 years before I need anything!!

     

    Keep your fingers crossed for me and I will let you know how I get on.

     

    Cheers

    Karen xx

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest guest569

    [How could anyone drain the system ??? You have to pay for what you use and add on top of that you need medical insurances !!! Its not like in the UK with the national health supporting you all the way !

    !!

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    [How could anyone drain the system ??? You have to pay for what you use and add on top of that you need medical insurances !!! Its not like in the UK with the national health supporting you all the way !

    !!

     

    Hi PP

     

    Errrmmm. Not quite. By British standards, the PBS charge a fortune for drugs but according to the Aussie Government, the PBS prices are heavily subsidised (which, with the really expensive drugs like immuno-suppressants) they do seem to be. With things like routine blood pressure drugs, the PBS price actually involves profit to the PBS. The Govt argue that the PBS is non profit making because the notional profit is used for things like the PBS Safety Net, Health Cards for people on low incomes etc. The Govt say that it is all fair in the end - which I think it probably is.

     

    The main hassles arise with the medical screening for prospective immigrants to Australia. With this group, the Govt is on the look-out for people who will be likely to cause "signifcant cost" to the Aussie public purse. At the moment, "significant cost" is deemed to be likely expenditure of $21,000 or more during the visa applicant's first 5 years in Australia (or 3 years if the visa applicant is 75 or older.)

     

    DIAC admit that this threshold figure of $21,000 is now too low. The figure was set in 1999. DIAC want to increase it to $100,000 during the immigrant's first 5 years if the person is under 75. However DIAC have to go through a bureaucratic process of consulting other Government Departments before they can do anything else. If all the other Departments agree to $100,000, DIAC then have to seek formal approval from the Minister for Immigration. This sort of bureaucratic palaver always takes ages and in August 2011, DIAC confirmed that the threshold remains at $21,000 for the time being.

     

    This is why I think the OP should find out the price of her anti-rejection drug because these are very expensive when they are new and are Patent protected. In early 2008, I discovered the price of Tacrolimus in the UK just by asking my local pharmacist, who fished out a book and consulted it for me. The lady's husband and I then consulted the Schedule for the PBS, from which we learned the then current price in Australia.

     

    One of the issues with the lady I have described is that Tacrolimus was still very expensive in 2007/2008 because it was still protected by Patents. However the American Patent ended in April 2008 and he European Patent was due to expire in June 2009. The lady's consutant said that when the Patent protection expires, lots of companies make generic versions of the drug and competition forces the price to come down dramatically.

     

    The Chief Medcal Officer of the Commonwealth agreed that if a drug is Patent protected and very expensive as a result, the price of it should be disregarded in calculating the $21,000 for the Health requirement for migration because sooner or later, the Patent protection will expire. It is unreasonable and unfair to split hairs about this - which the CMO agreed once he got involved himself. He had not been involved from the beginning, which is one of the reasons why it had all had a chance to go wrong.

     

    However if the OP is taking a drug that is already cheap then there is no need to worry about this.

     

    The current PBS Schedule is here:

     

    http://www.pbs.gov.au/pbs/search?term=tacrolimus

     

    The OP should ise the generic name of her drug, not the brand name because the Aussie brand names are not always the same as the UK. After clicking on the first link, click the one for S100 HSD Public. That reveals that the PBS pays $98-odd for a 2 month supply of one of the Tacrolimus group of drugs (I just chose one at random) but the patient only pays about $34.20 for a 2 month supply. To do the reach properly, one needs the exact name, type and dosage of the drug.

     

    Cheers

     

    Gill

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest frogstercouk

    While my position is not the same, I'm writing to find out if your medical was granted?

     

    We (me and my OH) have applied for a 175 visa and are concerned that she will fail the medical. We are working on the approach that if we dont try we wont know, but feel that the likelyhood is low.

     

    Having lived in Aus under a 457 visa for 3 years my OH was diagnosed with Lymphoma in 2006. We came home for treatment primarily to be near family and are now looking to return to Aus. The problem is she has an underlying medical condition that the doctors in Australia started her on IVIG (intragam) and she is now dependant. The problem bieng she is only 18months in remission, and taking a drug that is not on the pbs and stated as being one of considerable cost.

     

    We are awaiting a response having completed the medicals last week, but if anyone has any advice it would be appreciated.

     

    I hope you got the result you were looking for.

     

    Regards

     

    Frog

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    While my position is not the same, I'm writing to find out if your medical was granted?

     

    We (me and my OH) have applied for a 175 visa and are concerned that she will fail the medical. We are working on the approach that if we dont try we wont know, but feel that the likelyhood is low.

     

    Having lived in Aus under a 457 visa for 3 years my OH was diagnosed with Lymphoma in 2006. We came home for treatment primarily to be near family and are now looking to return to Aus. The problem is she has an underlying medical condition that the doctors in Australia started her on IVIG (intragam) and she is now dependant. The problem bieng she is only 18months in remission, and taking a drug that is not on the pbs and stated as being one of considerable cost.

     

    We are awaiting a response having completed the medicals last week, but if anyone has any advice it would be appreciated.

     

    I hope you got the result you were looking for.

     

    Regards

     

    Frog

     

    Hello Mr Frog

     

    The situation that you describe could be a show-stopper as far as the MOC is concerned. (MOC = Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, who advises the Minister for Immigration via DIAC.) The length of the remission could be relevant, though exactly how much remission the MOC wants to see depends on the exact type of cancer involved. I've heard of Lymphoma but I''m a lawyer, not a doctor or a nurse, so "Lymphoma" is just a word that I've heard rather than a condition that I know anything about.

     

    The Panel Doctors Gateway might help a little with this:

     

    http://www.immi.gov.au/gateways/panel_doctors/

     

    Please follow the links in the menu on the left. If you fiddle with that, you get the Instructions for Panel Doctors - which I have read without really understanding a word but it does talk about cancers and remission times.

     

    That said, the scope of the Panel Doctor's job is only to report "significant findings" to the MOC. The Instructions to Panel Doctors just describe the things that the MOC considers to be "significant" and the things which are not. The legislation specifically says that the MOC is the ONLY doctor who is authorised to advise the Minister.

     

    So far, so good. What guidance do the MOC doctors get? Various attempts have been made to produce a series of documents called the Notes for Guidance of the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth.

     

    I do have a pdf copy of the "old" Guidance Note about Medical Oncology. Dated c1995, so it says on the front. It might as well be a discussion about ancient history by now, I suspect, but if you would care to see it, I could send you a copy by e-mail?

     

    The old Note about Oncology was supposed to have been replaced with a new one by no later than July 2010 according to Dr Douglas in March 2010:

     

    http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=mig/disability/hearings.htm

     

    The APH website rarely works at weekends and it is not letting me access the actual document at the moment. These new Notes are being "published" (ie hidden) on LEGENDcom:

     

    http://www.immi.gov.au/business-services/legend/

     

    A friend of mine who is a Registered Migration Agent (which I am not) told me the other week that most of the new Notes have not made it onto Legend as yet, despite Dr Douglas' enthusiasm two years ago. (DIAC commissioned 19 new Notes altogether. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians make no effort to conceal their own contempt for DIAC. The RACP have to approve the new Notes so it could be that the DIAC Suits would argue that the RACP are being obstructive, with the RACP retorting that the new Notes are rubbish, hence no approval from them.) The new Oncology Note is not yet available on LEGENDcom, I am reliably informed.

     

    There will be a heckuva row if the MOC relies on witchcraft and the visa applicant applies for Judicial Review, but DIAC's in-house legal team are surely aware of this risk, it seems to me. The Court would ask for a copy of the Guidance document relied on by the MOC. A Judge's eyebrows would disappear into his hairline if he is told that the MOC - in effect the Australian Government - has been relying on nothing except informal gossip between Dr Douglas and his MOC colleagues. The Court in Australia remains genuinely independent, whereas I am beginning to have my doubts about the Court in England & Wales.

     

    Meanwhile, Mrs Frog's drug, "IVIG (intragam)." The most recent information I can find is in the link below:

     

    http://www.transfusion.com.au/blood_products/fractionated_plasma/IVIg

     

    Is this drug expensive because it still enjoys Patent protection? The consultant haemotologist in the UK ought to know, as should the nearest pharmacist.

     

    The reason I ask is because the MOC will say that your OH "does not meet" the provisions of Public Interest Criterion 4005 if the MOC considers that treating her medical condition, and/or providing the relevant drug, is likely to involve "significant cost" for the Aussie Public Purse.

     

    "Significant cost" is deemed to be $21,000 or more, spread over your OH's first 5 years as a Permanent Resident of Australia, which is just over $4,000 per annum. This figure was decided administratively, by a collection of Suits, in 1998 and the Minister for Immi agreed to it in 1999. It has never been revised since that date and since it is a figure decided by Administrators, it cannot be altered without another administrative decision.

     

    In May 2009, DIAC told the Australian Parliament that DIAC believed that this $21,000 should be increased to $100,000. This is recorded in Hansard. Nearly 3 years later, we are still waiting. In May 2009, DIAC said they felt sure that the Minister would agree to their proposed new figure for "significant cost." However, DIAC said that they needed to hear from various [unspecified] Other Departments before they could recommend the new figure formally to the Minister. (The Minister was sitting right beside the relevant Head Honcho from DIAC during this discussion with the Senate Estimates Committee in May 2009. He knew all about the proposal.)

     

    In February 2010, the Joint Standing Committee on Migration asked DIAC how they were progressing with their proposal to increase the "significant cost" threshold? DIAC replied that they were still waiting to hear from the Other Departments. Again, this is recorded in Hansard. (Irritatingly, Aussie MPs can presumably guess which Other Departments have to be consulted but I can't! Presumably DoHA and the Treasury both have to be consulted but I don't know how many others.)

     

    In August 2011, DIAC confirmed that the threshold figure was still $21,000 and as far as I know, the world awaits further news. This part of the world (me) is becoming irritated because if they don't get a move on, the new threshold figure will be obsolete before the Minister even approves it.

     

    In the meantime, the Kidney Lady. In 2008, I got involved with helping a British couple who had applied for a sc 175 visa, like yourselves. The wife had had two kidney transplants and she was dependent on an anti-rejection drug that was called Tacrolimus in the UK and Prograf in Australia. The MOC doctor said that this drug was very expensive in Oz, so that the lady "did not meet" PIC 4005.

     

    The lady's Consultant Nephrologist in the UK went ballistic. According to him, Tacrolimus was only expensive because it was still Patent protected. However, the American Patent on it had just been busted in litigation in the USA and the European Patent was due to time-expire in June 2009 unless similar EU litigation busted it sooner than that. The consultant said that once the Patent protection ended, lots of pharma companies would make their own, generic versions of Tacrolimus and it would become no more expensive than, say, paracetamol.

     

    The lady's husband and I then investigated the price of this drug over the previous six months or so. Sure enough, the American litigation was already causing Tacrolimus to come down in price including in Australia, where it was marketed as Prograf.

     

    The Consultant prepared a special report for the MOC about this drug. Meanwhile the husband and I contacted Dr Douglas, the Chief Medical Officer [of the Commonwealth] and we sent the new report direct to Dr Douglas.

     

    Dr Douglas agreed that they cannot claim "significant cost" if the price of a drug is not going to remain high for long, so he reversed the findings of his original MOC colleague.

     

    So all was well and the visa was granted in the end.

     

    Does this information help you, though? What do you know (or what can you dscover) about Mrs Frog's drug, please?

     

    Cheers

     

    Gill

    Edited by Gollywobbler
    typos

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Can we give Gollywobbler some sort of merit award? The amount of detailed (and accurate) information she keeps providing is fantastic to so many would-be migrants.:notworthy:

     

    Jim

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Can we give Gollywobbler some sort of merit award? The amount of detailed (and accurate) information she keeps providing is fantastic to so many would-be migrants.:notworthy:

     

    Jim

     

    If there was the Oscars for those that supplied forum information she would win leading lady every year!!

     

    And Golly I must thank you for all the help and advice you have given to me over the last year - your help/advice has been so helpful and accurate. - Cheers xx:notworthy:

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Can we give Gollywobbler some sort of merit award? The amount of detailed (and accurate) information she keeps providing is fantastic to so many would-be migrants.:notworthy:

     

    Jim

     

    Jim, I was thinking the exact same thing!

     

    I think it is humbling that someone is prepared to give so much time and share such incredible knowledge for nothing more than gratitude. You are a fine example to us all, Gill.

     

    Much :wubclub: LC

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest jen&ian

    Everyone's circumstances are different but, personally, I think they are more concerned with transmittables, such as HIV and TB.

     

    Hope it works out for you. Exactly what I was about to say...good luck.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest matelotchick

    Hey Frog-my original post seems a long time now! Basically medical date was put back and I've actually had it today!!

     

    The actual exam etc went fine but now it's just a matter of waiting for the outcome. I will let you know when I hear anything, let's hope for good news for both of us. Plus I echo everything that anyone has said about Gill aka Gollywobbler - much respect!

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest frogstercouk

    Gill,

     

    Thanks for your response. From my research into all of this (albeit after our application) I had found one peice of information on the internet that differed with your note above. While I am not saying that I am correct, and I realise that everything on the internet needs to proven to be true, I thought you might be interested in a news letter I found from ISCAH. If you google "iscah newsletter 19 december 2011" hopefully you will find a pdf document (ref 168) that suggests the significant cost threashold has recently been increased to $35,000. I thought you might be interested in this.

     

    We will wait and see what is said from the Medical before we get too emotional aobut it all. Our strategy is hope for the best at the moment! Not ideal but the best we can do now we have the reports required from the consultants! We might be looking for some propper help in the next few weeks if things dont go our way!

     

    Regards

     

    Frog

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest matelotchick

    Hi everyone - a quick update on my circumstances. Basically the medical was postponed until March. I went, the panel doctor said that more info would be required which it was and was sent off fairly optimistically. However 2 days after the medical I was rushed to hospital with an emergency peripheral arterial aneurysm in my left femoral artery. I am home now and recovering well but this adds more complexity ino the mix! Luckily I am only on daily aspirin for blood thinning but not sure when I will be able to fly long haul, even if I get accepted.

     

    I'm now steeling myself to face the eventuality that I won't get accepted but feel I'll be letting my husband down who has been offered this amazing job and opportunity for both of us. So it's a bit of a downer at the moment but at least I'm alive and what will be will be ...

     

    I hope you all are having better luck than me at the moment xx

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Hi everyone - a quick update on my circumstances. Basically the medical was postponed until March. I went, the panel doctor said that more info would be required which it was and was sent off fairly optimistically. However 2 days after the medical I was rushed to hospital with an emergency peripheral arterial aneurysm in my left femoral artery. I am home now and recovering well but this adds more complexity ino the mix! Luckily I am only on daily aspirin for blood thinning but not sure when I will be able to fly long haul, even if I get accepted.

     

    I'm now steeling myself to face the eventuality that I won't get accepted but feel I'll be letting my husband down who has been offered this amazing job and opportunity for both of us. So it's a bit of a downer at the moment but at least I'm alive and what will be will be ...

     

    I hope you all are having better luck than me at the moment xx

     

     

    Your health is more important than your location, if it's meant to be it will happen. Best of luck.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Gill,

     

    Thanks for your response. From my research into all of this (albeit after our application) I had found one peice of information on the internet that differed with your note above. While I am not saying that I am correct, and I realise that everything on the internet needs to proven to be true, I thought you might be interested in a news letter I found from ISCAH. If you google "iscah newsletter 19 december 2011" hopefully you will find a pdf document (ref 168) that suggests the significant cost threashold has recently been increased to $35,000. I thought you might be interested in this.

     

    We will wait and see what is said from the Medical before we get too emotional aobut it all. Our strategy is hope for the best at the moment! Not ideal but the best we can do now we have the reports required from the consultants! We might be looking for some propper help in the next few weeks if things dont go our way!

     

    Regards

     

    Frog

     

    Hi Frog

     

    Thanks very much indeed for your information about ISCAH and the new meds threshold cost of $35,000. In August 2011, Tony Coates from ISCAH commented that DIAC had recently told him that the threshold was still $21,000 AUD. Stephen O'Neill from ISCAH and Tony Coates have always stayed close to the developments on this issue so I am certain that their 2011 Newsletter (which I have now read, thanks) is accurate about this.

     

    $35,000 is still way below the $100,000 that DIAC were recommending 3 years ago (I have read the relevant Hansard about that) but it is a vast improvement on $21,000 - which, nowadays, is substantially less than the per capita average cost for an Aussie.

     

    Reading ISCAH's Newsletter (link below for anyone who wants to read it themselves) I suspect that what has happened is that the Government is not ready to make a formal Response to the JSCM's Enabling Australia Report but at least the Government has decided that the old formula for calculating the Immigration Health threshold should be re-calculated acccording to its old principles of "Per Capita Cost For An Aussie plus 20% Extra for a Prospective Immigrant."

     

    So - not the sweeping change that I am still hoping to see sometime but a very definite improvement, all the same. It is a very sensible compromise solution pending more debate about the Enabling Australia recommendations, in my view.

     

    http://www.iscah.com/Iscahnewsletter162.pdf

     

    Thanks again for telling me about it and I'm very sorry that I didn't notice your reply sooner.

     

    Cheers

     

    Gill

    Edited by Gollywobbler
    typos

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Hi everyone - a quick update on my circumstances. Basically the medical was postponed until March. I went, the panel doctor said that more info would be required which it was and was sent off fairly optimistically. However 2 days after the medical I was rushed to hospital with an emergency peripheral arterial aneurysm in my left femoral artery. I am home now and recovering well but this adds more complexity ino the mix! Luckily I am only on daily aspirin for blood thinning but not sure when I will be able to fly long haul, even if I get accepted.

     

    I'm now steeling myself to face the eventuality that I won't get accepted but feel I'll be letting my husband down who has been offered this amazing job and opportunity for both of us. So it's a bit of a downer at the moment but at least I'm alive and what will be will be ...

     

    I hope you all are having better luck than me at the moment xx

     

    Hi matelotchick

     

    I'm terribly sorry to read about what happened to you recently. Are you feeling OK now?

     

    Like the previous poster who replied to you today, personally I am convinced that NO visa is worth it if it means being seriously ill in another country without one's family and long-standing friends nearby to offer moral support. Also, Australia is not Nirvana. It is merely a large island that hasn't quite managed to sink or float away as yet. (I'm not a geologist but I did some digging about this on the Internet a couple of years ago. Antarctica is said to be stuffed with precious minerals, buried under 40 miles of ice or something. Australia is similarly stuffed with precious minerals so I wondered whether Australia was part of Antarctica originally? Apparently it was. I can't remember whether Australia split off and moved North 10 million years or 20 mio years ago but apparently it was definitely a part of the Antarctic continent originally. That explains my own curiosity about the mineral deposits, plainly.)

     

    Obviously, I know nothing about your recent aneurysm but Aspirin is not expensive and your recent problem could be nothing more than "one of those things" that is never likely to recur in your own case. I am persuaded that Dr Douglas (the CMO) is a very good doctor. He does make a huge effort to keep abreast of new medical developments etc. He knows about what is likely to cause problems in future and what isn't. He might be quite relaxed about your aneurysm, so I think it is far too soon to despair.

     

    Also, if the eventual outcome is not good, you will NOT have let Hubby hown, honey. That idea is nonsense. Do you think he really wants to have to cope with a sick wife thousands of miles away from your home, where he would probably be the only other adult around to support you but there would be nobody to support him as well? I don't think he would want that, hon.

     

    Hugs

     

    Gill

    xxx

    Edited by Gollywobbler
    typos

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest matelotchick

    Aw thanks Gill - you are completely right I know and thank you so much for your support (I am a little misty eyed at the moment).

     

    At the moment my main focus is on recovering and then we can think about where our future lies - here or in Oz. I know we will have a good life where ever we end up, the most important think is to stay healthy!

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest frogstercouk

    Just a quick note to say we have informally been notified by our CO that my OH has failed her medical!! Totally gutted, and cannot do anything until we get the formal letter (natural justice letter) which outlines the reasons and our options. Quite annoyed that it took 2 months from the referred date to get a decision out of MOC.

     

    Dont know where to turn at the moment, as it feels our world has just collapsed. She is still fit and healthy (had the 2 year all clear last week) so I realise its not a complete disaster, just feels like one!

     

    Frogster

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Just a quick note to say we have informally been notified by our CO that my OH has failed her medical!! Totally gutted, and cannot do anything until we get the formal letter (natural justice letter) which outlines the reasons and our options. Quite annoyed that it took 2 months from the referred date to get a decision out of MOC.

     

    Dont know where to turn at the moment, as it feels our world has just collapsed. She is still fit and healthy (had the 2 year all clear last week) so I realise its not a complete disaster, just feels like one!

     

    Frogster

     

    Hi Frogster

     

    I am so sorry to read your disheartening news.

     

    However, please do not despair. If this had happened to me, there are several things I would do, as follows:-

     

    1. Contact a really top-notch Aussie legal beagle (the best ones for this particular problem are all based on Australian soil.)

     

    2. Get the lawyer to say whether or not it is likely that you could take advantage of a strategy called the State Health Waiver.

     

    3. Explore (probably with advice from your wife's consultant doctor or at least advice from her GP) whether or not it would be worthwhile to get copies of two of the new volumes of the the Notes for Guidance of the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth. There is a specific new Note about Oncology and another one which provides General Guidance for the MOC.

     

    These medico-legal documents DO exist because, not infrequently, issues concerning the Health requirement for migration end up being litigated through the courts in Australia. DIAC & the Minister for Immigration would be dead meat, legally, unless they could point to the relevant Guidance Notes for the MOC. The Law is not some sort of game of cat'n'mouse and the Aussie Govt is much better about transparency than the British Government is, in my observation.

     

    I will send you a Private Message and in the meantime, please do not despair.

     

    Cheers

     

    Gill

     

     

     

     

     

    .

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now