While I have sympathy with Hall's comments it is difficult to see how much further it is possible to take policy in this area. The BMA is a democratic membership organisation, and a trade union and professional organisation. It is not a campaigning human rights organisation. The momentum behind its human rights work has come from the democratic work of its members. If the government decides that it wishes to withdraw eligibility for free primary health care for failed asylum seekers, then, should they chose to do so, it is for the BMA's members, working through its regional and committee structures, to develop targeted policy. As a member of the secretariat of the BMA's ethics department I have been involved in numerous meetings with BMA members and senior government figures, trying to ensure that any legislation in this area retains a minimum of humane flexibility. I have done this in quiet pursuit of established BMA policy.
On a broader point, working with a small secretariat the ethics committee has striven for many years to draw attention to the importance of human rights in both the provision of health care and in the underlying determinants of health. This has been in addition to its core work in medical ethics. The BMA has achieved some success in this area. I would call on Hall, as a committed human rights activist, to try to support us for the work that we have been able to achieve, rather than to criticise us for what we have been unable to deliver.
Competing interests: JCS is a senior ethics adviser at the BMA. He is the department's lead on health and human rights and a coauthor of The Right to Health: a Toolkit for Health Professionals.