Paper short abstract:

The Scottish Government states that an individual at any stage of the asylum process is entitled to the same medical treatment as a UK national. This paper argues that the culture, discourse and uncertainty which surround the asylum process affect perceptions of entitlement, and thus applicants’ access to wellbeing.

Paper long abstract:

According to guidance offered by the Scottish Government, ‘anyone who has made a formal application for asylum, whether pending or unsuccessful, is entitled to [NHS] treatment on the same basis as a UK national who is ordinarily resident in Scotland while they remain in the country.’1 Yet, this is not always acted upon by NHS staff due to a lack of knowledge around eligibility.2

Based on ethnographic research conducted in Glasgow, with actors involved in the asylum system in various ways (from asylum applicants to Home Office caseworkers and the service providers, campaigners, medics and lawyers in between), this paper explores the gap between policy and perceptions of entitlement.

Over the last few decades there has been a growing de-legitimisation and suspicion, a ‘culture of disbelief’, towards asylum seekers throughout Europe. This culture causes politically-loaded acts of classification and moral distinctions around the deservingness of asylum applicants. By juxtaposing this with the uncertainty involved in the asylum process as a whole, in this paper I will argue that applicants' perceptions of entitlement, their access to health-related support services, as well as their overall wellbeing, are negatively affected by these issues.