IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v30y2022i4p658-679..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Inequality by design: The politics behind forced migrants’ access to healthcare

Author

Listed:
  • Mechthild Roos

Abstract

When a system comes under strain, the persons most likely to suffer from the repercussions are those at and beyond its margins, as the age-old rule ‘Help yourself before helping others’ typically guides crisis management within the system. Similar behavioural patterns on the side of policy-makers have left a distinct mark on the healthcare rights of forced migrants in the context and aftermath of the so-called ‘migration crisis’ of 2015–2016, as this article demonstrates. Following the crisis, this group of persons, who are traditionally situated at the margins of society already, have been pushed further outside social and healthcare systems through increasingly restrictive incorporation policies across Europe. By analysing recent legislative reforms in four countries (Germany, Italy, Sweden, and the UK) which stood out in various ways during the crisis, this article sheds light on the increasing politicisation and polarisation of the intersection of incorporation and healthcare. It shows that the crisis induced similar responses of legal adaptation in countries with fundamentally different healthcare and incorporation systems, and analyses the dynamics behind such processes of change. The article thereby contributes to a better understanding of healthcare legislation as a reflection of political opposition to or acceptance (if not fuelling) of societal inequalities.

Suggested Citation

  • Mechthild Roos, 2022. "Inequality by design: The politics behind forced migrants’ access to healthcare," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(4), pages 658-679.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:4:p:658-679.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwac043
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:4:p:658-679.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.