matac Posted January 26, 2010 Share Posted January 26, 2010 Hello I am looking forward to live in Australia but I have a medical condition that could be a problem. After a couple of interviews with local agents we meet the requirements but my medical conditions apparently makes it a big NO! I received a kidney transplant 2 years ago after kidney failure due to Focal segmental glomerulosclerosis (FSGS). I am currently very healthy but the cost of my meds is the big problem apparently. The expensiveness of my anti-rejection drugs and the fact that I am bound to suffer kidney failure and the result would make me go into dialysis in the future makes my case very difficult. I read in forums about cases alike that were refused but then accepted after the applicant doctor provided facts about the drugs patents expirations that made them less expensive http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/561096-post6.html. Looking on the web and with my meds dosage I calculated a total annual cost of my medicines of aprox $9,189 and $4,104 for generic. These prices are from the web, I guess the cost of them for the Aussie government would be less even less for the generic versions, beside this meds I only need to have a checkup once every year. Also the Venezuelan healthcare system provides this meds for me and I could have my meds supply for a year shipped to me every year. Since I don’t have to resign to my Venezuelan citizenship I believe this could help. My girlfriend is an architect and wants to do a master in Australia but needs to do an English course first because she will not get the minimum required grade for the English test. We have enough money to cover the expenses and all the proof is available for the immigration office. I would also like to do a master degree, I graduated from international business in USA, however; if me applying for the visa is a problem I can wait for my master degree. Sorry I know it is too long but I wanted to explain well our situation and see if anyone can give us good info and recommendations on this matter. Yours truly Matac Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Pom Queen Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Hi Matac I am sorry I don't have the answers to your questions, but wanted to wish you luck and say welcome to PIO. Kate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calNgary Posted January 28, 2010 Share Posted January 28, 2010 Who told you no? The reason i ask is i have a medical condition that (according to UK speciaist) will require me to have a transplant in the next 10 years. When looking into applying for the visa every agent i spoke to said they couldnt comment on medicals and only immigration can decide the outcome. It was suggested that if i was concerned to submit my medical first, albeit it would more than likely mean re-doing them due to the expirey date but at least we would know one way or another before parting with all the visa money and going through the agonising wait of the actual visa process. We decided to just go for it, glad i did as we have been here 3 and a half happy years now,, good luck with everything and i hope you can sort something Cal x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matac Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Thank you Cal; I met with a MA and she told me that the Australian government would most likely reject me due to my medical condition and the cost of my medications. But thanks to Gill (Gollywobbler) i see that at least one person with a case like me got their visa!!!! Hopefully Gill can point me in the right direction. Good to hear u are now in Australia and i wish you the best!!! MataC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matac Posted January 31, 2010 Author Share Posted January 31, 2010 Thank you Kate!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest37336 Posted January 31, 2010 Share Posted January 31, 2010 Hi matac. calngary is right in what they say. Absolutely no one can make the decision concerning your migration status, especially the meds stage, except the relevant immigration authorities and their appointed representatives. Any MA should of at the very least said this to you. It is not until the meds are done that you will know. Don't give up at this early stage, because of an inappropriate remark made by someone who should of known better. The rest of the advice calngary gives is spot on. Good luck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matac Posted February 4, 2010 Author Share Posted February 4, 2010 Thanks for the encouraging words A380. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted February 4, 2010 Share Posted February 4, 2010 Hi Matac At least one PiO member has had a kidney transplant but now has Permanent Residency in Australia. I gave you all the links I could think of in my reply to your PM. Who says that your transplant will definitely fail? Cheers Gill PS: If you want, I can PM you the details for the kidney transplant couple? The hubby isin't on PiO much now but he would get your PM and would probably give you his phone number so that you could ring him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matac Posted February 9, 2010 Author Share Posted February 9, 2010 Once again, thank you very much Gill! i would really appreciate if you PM me the details I think that would be a great help. Thank you for your help once again. Regards Mata Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rave Posted April 6, 2010 Share Posted April 6, 2010 Hi all, sorry for falling in through the back door! I am from South Africa and also starting the immigration process with the same problem being my wife had a kidney transplant last year. Gollywobbler wouild you please also pass the information you have on to me? Mata, please if you could, would you keep me in the loop with how you are progressing? Regards, Rave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Hi all, sorry for falling in through the back door! I am from South Africa and also starting the immigration process with the same problem being my wife had a kidney transplant last year. Gollywobbler wouild you please also pass the information you have on to me? Mata, please if you could, would you keep me in the loop with how you are progressing? Regards, Rave. Hi Rave Welcome to Poms in Oz. I think that the present situation is changing so much that there isn't a great deal to learn from the earlier PiO couple, as a matter of fact. I think much more can be learned from the recent information provided to the Public Inquiry. With the earlier couple, the Husband was phoning me almost every day and my memory of the details might well be better than his, since their events happned roughly two years ago. In their case the facts were as follows: His Wife had a kidney transplant in 2000. The new kidney was not a good tissue match and the anti-rejection drugs did not stifle the tissue incompatiblity enough, so the transplanted kidney failed in 2002 and the wife went back on to dialysis. By 2004, there was still no sign of a new kidney to use for a second transplant and by then it was known that a new kidney would have to be a very good tissue match or the wife's body would just reject the new kidney as well. During 2003, the husband asked whether he could donate a kidney to his wife. All the tests were done on him and by 2004 it was known that his tissue was the best match they had ever found. The consultant surgeon said that they could use one of the husband's kidneys if necessary. The surgeon was reluctant to take a healthy kidney from a healthy man whilst his wife had been on the UK transplant register for some time and the surgeon felt that a cadaver kidney might well become available. In an ideal world, he said, he wanted to use a cadaver kidney if possible so that, if the second transplant failed for any reason, a third spare kidney would still be available, inside the husband. However with no sign of a cadaver kidney, eventually the surgeon decided to do the second transplant using the husband's spare kidney. They were all set to do that but a cadaver kidney that was suitable became available at the last minute, so the cadaver kidney was used for the second transplant. After the second transplant the wife started taking an anti rejection drug called Tacrolimus. This is its generic name. Its brand name in Australia is Prograf and I can't remember what the brand name is for the British version. The wife and her new kidney responded excellently to the Tacrolimus and by 2006 she was so healthy again that she gave birth to a baby. She carried the pregnancy to full term and delivered the baby normally. The baby was healthy, a decent weight, was not bothered by the mother's Tacrolimus and the baby was fine. In 2007 the couple asked the surgeon looking after the wife whether he thought it would be possible for the couple and their children to emigrate to Australia. The surgeon said he was sure that they would be able to migrate and encouraged the visa application. The surgeon knew that the couple intended to settle near Brisbane. He said he would arrange to hand the wife over to a consultant nephrologist in Brisbane once she was ready to make the move to Australia. He told the couple that he would provide a suitable specialist's report for the wife if they gave him enough notice before their visa medicals took place. The wife was only seeing the consultant once a year because she was fine so there was no need for him to do anything except to keep an eye on the wife once a year. She was going to the nearby kidney transplant unit every 3 months, where nurses took some of her blood and had it analysed to make sure that she was OK. Everything was fine. The CO asked for the family's visa meds early in 2008 so the meds were booked. The Panel Doctor was in the same town as the specialist kidney unit. The husband phoned the kidney unit in advance of the meds and said that he wanted the consultant surgeon to prepare a report for the wife. It was agreed that the couple would visit the kidney unit on their way to visit the Panel Doctor so that they could collect the surgeon's report and give that to the Panel Doctor. On the day of the visa meds, the couple went to the kidney unit, where they found that nothing had been done about asking the consultant surgeon to produce a report. The nurses produced as much as they could produce at short notice, but all that they could provide were the scrappy nurses' notes, made at the times of the two most recent blood tests. The couple then have the nurses' notes to the Panel Doctor and explained that there had been a mix-up at the kidney unit so no report from the surgeon was available on the day of the visa meds. The Panel Doctor said that this did not matter. He would send what he had to Australia. He said that the MOC in Australia would definitely want a report from the consultant surgeon but the Panel Doctor said that the MOC would ask for a report from the surgeon. The request from the MOC would be in the form of a "shopping list" askiing specific questions for the surgeon to answer. The Panel Doctor was so sure that the shopping list would be sent that he said there was no point in bothering the surgeon at that stage. It would be better to wait for the MOC's shopping list to arrive, so that the surgeon could say whatever he wanted to say and could deal with the shopping list from the MOC at the same time. This way, the surgeon would only have to produce one specialist's report and it would be comprehensive. That made sense to everyone so the meds were sent to Sydney. Then, out of the blue, DIAC suddenly refused the whole family's visas. No specialist's report was requested by the MOC, so none had been prepared or provided. The husband was shocked. I was friendly with the husband via Poms in Oz but it was only a social friendship. He and I know a lot of the same places in the UK. I had no idea that his wife had had two kidney transplants etc. The husband phoned me during the evening that day. He had the letter from DIAC (the ASPC.) This letter always comes with a visa refusal Decision Record. The DR does not include the whole of Form 884, which has been prepared by the MOC, but the DR does say enough to let the visa applicant know why the MOC has said that someone in the family "does not meet" the Health requirement for permanent migration. The ASPC had sent the DR to the husband by e-mail and he had e-mailed it to me. According to the MOC, the wife was in a terrible state! The MOC said that she "did not meet" the health requirement because: 1. She had had a kidney transplant, which was bound to fail at some point in the future; 2. She was bound to need dialysis once the transplanted kidney failed; 3. Meanwhile the wife was dependent on a very expensive drug. For those 3 reasons the MOC decided that the wife did not meet the health requirement for migration. The ASPC had refused the visa as a result. The ASPC gave the couple no prior warning at all - they simply refused the visa and that was that. Questioning the husband, I suspected that the principles laid down in a case called Robinson v MIMIA had been breached by the MOC and therefore by the Minister for Immi. Robinson said, in effect, that the MOC must not leap to conclusions. The MOC MUST consider the type and degree of severity of the condition in the particular case. He must NOT say, "All kidney transplants always fail" and "all anti rejection drugs will always be very expensive" unless the MOC's statements are true. The MOC must confine himself to the actual facts, not to generic conclusions about a particular condition. The husband had applied for a subclass 136 visa which, for the purposes of this thread, was identical to the new sc 175 visa. What those two visas have in common is that it is not possible to appeal to the Migration Review Tribunal if the visa is refused. Because it is not possible to appeal to the MRT, it is also not possible to appeal direct to the Minister for Immigration if the MRT do not allow the appeal. In this situation, the only legal remedy is to go to the Court in Australia. However the Court cannot order DIAC to grant the visa. The Court can only say whether or not the Minister has acted lawfully in deciding to refuse the visa. There was a possibility that the husband might sue the Minister for Immi. If you are going to get involved with visa litigation in Australia, the first person you need on board is an Aussie solicitor who has experience of going to the Court in Immigration Law matters. Nigel Dobbie in Sydney would be a suitable solicitor: Dobbie and Devine Immigration Lawyers Pty Ltd Nigel is a friend of mine so I told the husband that I would phone Nigel immediately, to let him know that the husband would be phoning him next, and I would give Nigel a brief description of the facts in so far as we knew them, so that Nigel would know why the husband and I both wanted to speak with Nigel on the phone, to ask Nigel what to do next. I told Nigel that I suspected that the MOC had ignored Robinson. I was totally shocked that such a thing might be possible. Nigel said calmly that the MOC breaches the principles in Robinson about 50% of the time in the medical cases that Nigel sees in the course of a year. I was even more shocked. However Nigel explained that although the MOC breaches Robinson as often as the MOC follows it, it is very difficult to prove that the Minister has acted unlawfully in refusing the visa. The Minister, technically, is the person who refuses the visa. The Minister is required by law to accept the MOC's Opinion and the MOC cannot be sued. Only the Minister can be sued. Nigel said that the husband should consult the surgeon and get the surgeon to talk to Nigel. The surgeon was scathing the next day when he saw what the MOC had said. The consultant surgeon said: 1. She had had a kidney transplant, which was bound to fail at some point in the future; Rubbish. Medical rubbish. Kidney transplants used to fail more often than not within 10 to 15 years of the transplant but medical science has improved so much in recent years that a recent transplant is not "bound to fail," probably won't fail as a matter of fact, and he was confident that it would not fail in the case of his patient, the wife. 2. She was bound to need dialysis once the transplanted kidney failed; Rubbish. She would only need dislysis if the transplanted kidney failed. The transplanted kidney is very unlikely to fail in the wife's case, in the surgeon's opinion. And even if it should fail at any time in the future, a spare and suitable kidney is walking about inside the husband so what was the MOC fussing about? 3. Meanwhile the wife was dependent on a very expensive drug. The wife was on Tacrolimus, which was expensive early in 2008. However what happens with a drug like Tacrolimus is that one drug company develops the drug and then the company obtains patent protection for the drug, so that only the company which developed it can make the drug and distribute it. The surgeon explained that 90% of the Tacrolimus which was produced annually was being sold in the USA and in Europe. It was patented worldwide. However there had been recent litigation about the patent in the USA, with the result that by May 2008 the drug no longer had any patent protection in the USA. The European patent on it was due to time-expire in June 2009. Tacrolimus has proved to be very popular. Therefore once the patents disapeared - which they defnitely would - several drug companies would make generic versions of the drug and they would all be competing to sell it, so the price of the drug would fall dramatically before long. The actual chemical compounds in Tacrolimus are not expensive chemicals in themselves and the combination of them is not expensive to produce. The drug would cost no more than Aspirin within a couple of years. The surgeon said that the 3 "reasons" given ny the MOC could all be defeated because the MOC was talking rubbish. There was no reason why looking after the wife should cost any more than looking after a person who has not had a kidney transplant but is a devout hypochondriac - which the wife isn't. In short, looking after the wife would be no more expensive than looking after anyone else once Tacrolimus became cheap, whch would soon happen. The surgeon was absolutely furious that the MOC - "A mere GP", to quote the surgeon - had not only not bothered to consult the surgeon looking after the wife but the MOC plainly had not bothered to consult an expert Nephrologist at all. He was absolutely livid that a GP should take it upon him or herself to ignore all the medical strides that have been made with kidney transplants in recent years etc etc etc. in short, this surgeon was generally furious and wanted to tear into the MOC doctor and give the latter what for. Nigel Dobbie told the surgeon to calm down and to leave the MOC doctor alone. It would look better to the Court in Oz if the surgeon simply explained why the MOC was medically mistaken in this particular case. The surgeon obeyed Nigel and produced a report which simply explained why the surgeon is so pleased with the wife. She had been leading a perfectly normal life since recovering from the second transplant operation in 2004. She looks after 3 children, all well under 18, as well as having a full time job outside of the home and nobody who meets her casually would even know that she has a pretty dramatic medical history behind her unless she happens to tell the person about it. She was living a perfectly normal life by 2008, her blood tests were fine and revealed no problems and apart from the fact that she will need Tacrolimus for the rest of the life, there is no reason why she should have any further medical problems and no reason why she should not live to a ripe old age. Plus she has a spare kidney walking around in the husband so she even proposed to take her own kidney donor to Australia with her, just in case.... The surgeon produced his report. The next thing was to make sure that Dr Douglas read the report. Dr Douglas is DIAC's Chief Medical Officer. There is more than one way to skin the proverbial cat and cutting the red tape is someimes more valuable than following it. I knew how to contact Dr Douglas. The husband rang up and got Dr Douglas' secretary, who is a proper medical secretary so she knows all the medical jargon etc. The husband made friends with the secretary. It was agreed that the husband would e-mail the surgeon's report to the secretary. Meanwhile the secretary would obtain the original meds file for the wife. Dr Douglas was abroad on business at the time but when he came back. the secretary would get him to consider the wife's medical situation in the light of the surgeon's report. In the meantime the ASPC continued to be intransigent and difficult and refused to vacate their visa refusal, so Nigel continued to threaten to sue the Minister for Immi. Dr Douglas returned. Once he read everything, he agreed that the MOC was wrong to have said that the wife "did not meet" the Health requirement for migration when she plainly did meet it. Dr Douglas produced a new Form 884, which he signed himself, and he arranged for a copy of it to be e-mailed to the husband at the same time as it was sent to the ASPC. The husband forwarded the e-mail which he had received to Nigel Dobbie, who sent it to the ASPC. By then, we had the evidence which would ensure that the husband would win all the medical arguments in the Court. The ASPC still refused to vacate the original visa refusal but instead of remaining instransigent and difficult, they suddenly offered to settle the dispute. If the husband made a new visa application, the ASPC would process the new application within a couple of days, so a visa would be granted in less than a week if the husband agreed to this deal. Emotionally, it is always nice to "have your day in Court." That would give the husband emotional and public reassurance that he had been right to involve Nigel Dobbie and right to refuse to walk away when his visa application was refused. However what is satisfying - going to Court - is not the cheapest, quickest way to get what the husband had wanted in the first place, which was visas for himself and his family. So he bit his lip and accepted the deal. He made another visa application, it was processed immediately as promised and the visas were granted within about 48 hours. The family now have Permanent Residence in Australia and they live near Brisbane. Conclusions I know absolutely nothing about medicine. I don't know why the wife needed a kidney transplant in the first place. I have no idea what was wrong with her originally (and since I know even less about kidneys than I do about most things, it would be a waste of time to tell me the medical jargon about why anybody's kidneys might fail.) I don't know whether it is "normal and usual" for all kidney transplantees to live a normal life after the transplant nowadays. I don't know whether you, Rave, or Mata would really learn anything if the husband were to tell you what had been wrong with his wife? For all that I know, there could be 100 different reasons why people need kidney transplants? (That is, I know that you need a transplant if your kidneys should ffail but there might be 100 different reasons about why your kidneys should fail and the outcomes for the patients might be different according to what was wrong with their kidneys in the first place?) I don't know how good the kidney expertise is in Venezuela, where Mata comes from, or in South Africa where Mrs Rave is? Apparently the surgeon in the UK is a kidney transplant surgeon and he is world famous because of what he does with kidneys and knows about them. I've forgotten the man's name but I Googled him at the time. He has written a lot of learned Papers about kidneys, it seems. Personally, I would trust Nigel Dobbie to deal with the legal situation once a visa has been refused. However, personally I would give either George Lombard or the visa applicant the best chances of preventing a visa refusal in the first place: http://austimmigration.com.au/site/?q=node/1 George has a part time GP on his team. So if specialist's reports are sent to George, he can ask his lady doctor colleague to read them and she would understand what the kidney specialists are talking about. Also, I have not asked George about this so I am guessing. However my guess would be that George and his doctor friend would be able to approach a kidney specialist in Sydney and get him or her to review anything that the specialist looking after the person might say? Finally, what do you and Mata think, Rave? Both of you know vastly more about kidneys than I ever will. I will give it a few hours and then tell you which parts of the Public Inquiry documents I think both of you should read. in the meantime, the Inquiry website is below: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/index.htm The Aussie legislation treats illness, a medical condition and a condition that causes a disability all in the same breath, so issues like kidney transplants are well within the scope of the Public Inquiry. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest SO,DIZZY Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 well did they get a visa??? you havnt said.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest siamsusie Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 well did they get a visa??? you havnt said.. "He made another visa application, it was processed immediately as promised and the visas were granted within about 48 hours. The family now have Permanent Residence in Australia and they live near Brisbane." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rave Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Wow... Thanks so much Gill! At least there is way more hope for us now. I can assure you that the specialists that my wife is under, is also classed as best in the world, the kidney came from her sister which is the most compattible you can have... and best of all... she is in SUPER shape and is training hard towards competing in the next Transplant Games in the cycling events. You gave so much information, and it will take me a day or so to visit all the links you provided, but will be back soon! Regards, Deon & Marieta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rave Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Hi Gill, Had a look at all the websites you refered. Thanks again. Will consult with George Lombard when the time comes as i really do want this to succeed first time. If I understand it correctly, this Public Enquiry looks positive for us??? Have you got an idea when the report is due to come out? Regards, Deon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Hi Deon I don't know when the Public Inquiry Report will be published and sent to the Government. I shouldn't think that the Committee really wants much new evidence but I believe that the Committee has promised to hold a Public Hearing in Perth. I don't know when that will take place. There is a thread about the Public Inquiry, which is here: http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/67292-have-your-say-health-requirement.html I think there are several different proganists in the overall quarrel about the current Health requirement for migration to Oz. I think the protagonists are as follows: 1. The Minister for Immi. He believes that the current threshold figure of $21,000 AUD for a finding of "does not meet" is out of date and too low. Also the public fuss about the case of Dr Bernhard Moeller happened on the present Minister for Immi's watch and caused him a lot of public and personal embarrassment at the time because the Aussie public (unfairly) blamed the Minister personally for the fact that Dr Moeller had to endure so much in order to secure Permanent Residency in Australia. The Minister granted the family's visas himself, so he got it in the neck from the Aussie public. The Minister was always going to grant PR to Dr Moeller and his family. I don't think that this was ever in doubt. However Dr Moeller had to go through so much pain and so much expense in order for the Minister to be able to do the right thing in the end that the Aussie public told the Minister to stop yapping about the legal restrictions imposed by the current legislation and to alter the legislation instead. 2. DIAC. They believe that the Dr Moeller problem can be solved by giving DIAC the discretion to permit a Waiver of the Health requirement for all skilled visas. Such a Waiver would enable DIAC's own staff to resolve a Dr Moeller situation quickly, quietly and without an expensive and very public fuss. So DIAC's "corner" is to argue that the Health Waiver should be available for all skilled visas and as usual, DIAC are trying to get all the power into their own hands and will drag their feet about impleting anything for at least another 5 years if they get their own way. The Terms of Reference for the Public Inquiry do not touch on DIAC's solo (and private) battle but DIAC have the Minister's ear so it is too early to say what will happen about that. Having failed to monitor, revise or revisit the threshold figure of $21,000 since it was first introduced in the mid-1990s, DIAC are now trying to justify increasing the threshold to $100,000 AUD because the Minister demands that it must be increased. 3. The Inquiry Committee has been told to grapple with the recent UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD.) JSCOT is the Joint Standing Committee on Treaties. They have told the Aussie Government that Australia must come into line and accept the CRPD lock, stock & barrel and that the Immi legislation will have to be changed in order to make this possible. The Joint Standing Committee on Migration, running the migration health Inquiry, has to try to give JSCOT what they want. 4. Dr Douglas - DIAC's Chief Medical Officer - is trying to pull Australia's historical approach to the Health requirement out of the Dark Ages of medical mystique. He wants a much more open, accountable, quality-assured syetem but I don't have the feeling that DIAC are willing to spend any money on giving Dr Douglas his head - which I think he should be given. 5. The Public (including me) are the people who can give the Committee our first hand, personal experiences of going through the current process for the Health requirement for migration and of helping clients or friends to get through it. I thought that my own horror story was bad enough but some of the things that other people have described are totally harrowing. The Public want the present arrangements to be changed, without doubt, for a whole variety of different reasons. 6. The Law Institute of Victoria. They are very well organised and are led by Peter Papandros or some such name. He is an Accredited Specialist in Aussie Immi Law. He sides with the public but he is able to advise the Committee about the legal aspects of how to alter the law and the Committee are listening to him. 7. The Public Inquiry Committee, chaired by Mr Danby MP. He is now convinced that there does need to be a radical change and that now is the time to devise and implement that change. He has told the proganists in Melbourne that he realises that there does need to be change. Everyone from the Minister downwards is now preaching to the converted in telling the Committee that change is essential. Mr Danby says that although his Committee can recommend change - and that the JSC on Migration has a very strong track record of getting its own way - Mr Danby thinks that the Aussie Voter's response will be very mixed and that some of it will be hostile. He reckons that the Aussie Voter is all in favour of change and enlightenment but Mr Danby thinks that the Voter will be hostile once the Voter realises that implementing any changes will cost the Aussie Voter more money than leaving the present system to continue would cost. Mr Danby says that he does not mind attracting the hostility but he warns that he thinks there will definitely be considerable hostility. I strongly suspect that he is right. So far, the different posses of interested parties are not talking to each other. I don't think that anybody has much of a wish to talk with anyone much else. I think it will be left to Mr Danby to try to pull all the different strands together because everybody trusts him and everybody is willing to talk to him. With a different Chairman, I think the Committee could be a completely damp squib. However Mr Danby has made it easy for people to talk to him. He has done away with the protocols and formality and he has done away with strict time limits. I think that he is doing an excellent job and I think that everyone takes him seriously, trusts him and likes him. In the tiny microcosm of Poms in Oz, I think that George Lombard is also doing an excellent job. Like Mr Danby, George is willing to listen to all the different points of view - of which there are many and they do vary quite a lot. George certainly understands that the Aussie Government must be given a simple, manageable, workable formula on a plate and George is busy wrestling with trying to suggest a simple formula for change. Everybody else is pretty busy with harrumphing and criticising anybody with a different viewpoint etc but I think that is inevitable when the issues are as emotive as they are with this Health requirement for migration issues. The amount of hard, solid information which has amerged in the last few months - since everybody has been talking to Mr Danby - is quite astonishing. Much of is is not what I expected at all. I think that the fact that so much information has suddenly come into the public domain means that there will definitely be change though I don't know what the format of the changes should be. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rave Posted April 7, 2010 Share Posted April 7, 2010 Thanks Gill... seems like our path to Aus is going to be difficult! Regards, Deon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ClaireW Posted April 23, 2010 Share Posted April 23, 2010 Wow so much information on here about kidney prolems - brilliant! My husband has a kidney condition that may mean he has to have a transplant within about 5 years. We would love to emigrate to Perth but thought the fact that his kidney function is fairly low it would mean we would never get through the medical - does anybody know if you can take the medical first before paying for all the emigration fees - if so how?! Claire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest barts1972 Posted May 3, 2010 Share Posted May 3, 2010 Hello Thanks so much for all the valuable information on this thread - it is something my husband and I have been searching for for years!! Our situation is the same as others mentioned on this thread, in that my husband had a living-donor kidney transplant in 2004 and has been fine ever since. What is stopping us from proceeding with a visa application is the cost of the medicines and health insurance. Some of these queries have been answered here, but I guess what we need to be concerned with is our only visa options at the moment are temporary ones (me via a job offer, or my husband via state sponsorship). Does anyone know if the medicals are as stringent for a temporary visa and will all the same questions be asked? I understand that health insurance is compulsory for temporary visa holders, and I wonder whether the fact that my husband has a pre-existing condition would prevent us from getting health insurance (as it does in this country)? If available, does anyone have any idea what the premiums would be? Also, are there any group insurance options offered through employers which could cover pre-existing conditions, and are such insurance policies routinely offered with jobs? If not, do you know how much it would cost for my husband to see a consultant nephrologist once or twice per year? Are any of these costs covered via the Reciprocal Healthcare Agreement? We also wondered if it is possible for medicines to be shipped from UK if we have not emigrated permanently? Would we also face the same medical issue difficulties when applying for permanent visas if we are already in Australia? I wonder if there is anyone else out there on a temporary visa in this/similar situation? Sorry for all the questions, but as you can probably guess we have had to think through a lot of issues carefully before making a big decision, yet we also understand how precious health is and want to make this change in order to live our lives to the full. Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachael701 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Hi, I am a 27 year old nurse currently in Australia on a 457 visa. My medical for the 457 went forward to the MOC but after requesting more information from my nephrologist I was cleared. however, I am now trying to get my permanent residency for Australia and I know I will have a much bigger battle. I had a kidney transplant 21 years ago due to a genetic condition called Jeune Syndrome. I have never had any rejection or renal problems since and have excellent kidney function now. I have never met a doctor who has heard of Jeune Syndrome (which is half the battle) so when i go to the visa medical obviously they have never heard of it either and simply look on google which shows the most extreme circumstance, which isn't the case with me. The majority of sufferers of Jeune Syndrome only have problems in infancy and once they get past that point they have no further issues, which is the case with me. I have lived independently since age 18, have travelled the world on my own and work full time as a nurse. I am thinking i will need to get letters of support from geneticists with knowledge of my condition and obviously my nephrologist but is there any other advice you can give me. I know I have a fight on my hands and i want to go in it with the best possible chance. Thank you so much, Rachael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rachael701 Posted January 8, 2014 Share Posted January 8, 2014 Hi, I am a 27 year old nurse currently in Australia on a 457 visa. My medical for the 457 went forward to the MOC but after requesting more information from my nephrologist I was cleared. however, I am now trying to get my permanent residency for Australia and I know I will have a much bigger battle. I had a kidney transplant 21 years ago due to a genetic condition called Jeune Syndrome. I have never had any rejection or renal problems since and have excellent kidney function now. I have never met a doctor who has heard of Jeune Syndrome (which is half the battle) so when i go to the visa medical obviously they have never heard of it either and simply look on google which shows the most extreme circumstance, which isn't the case with me. The majority of sufferers of Jeune Syndrome only have problems in infancy and once they get past that point they have no further issues, which is the case with me. I have lived independently since age 18, have travelled the world on my own and work full time as a nurse. I am thinking i will need to get letters of support from geneticists with knowledge of my condition and obviously my nephrologist but is there any other advice you can give me. I know I have a fight on my hands and i want to go in it with the best possible chance. Thank you so much, Rachael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.