A radiographers union has backed a motion to oppose the legislation that allows X-rays and MRI scans to be used to verify the age of asylum seekers, calling it “inaccurate and unethical.”
Delegates at the Society of Radiographers conference in Leeds carried the motion on Wednesday and agreed the body’s council should issue guidance for members who may be asked to carry out such imaging. Technicians could refuse to conduct the scans, with the society arguing staff are not contractually obliged to operate machines for age verification purposes.
Legislation came into force in January enabling the Home Office to use imaging to assess the age of asylum seekers which would involve conducting radiographs of teeth, hands, and wrists, and MRI scans of thighs and collarbones to determine if they are under the age of 16. Former Home Secretary Priti Patel had said the measures would stop grown men “masquerading as children.”
The society, which represents 33,000 professionals working in radiotherapy and medical imaging mostly for the NHS, said that because the technique “is not an exact science,” it is “both inaccurate and unethical.”
Richard Evans, the society’s chief executive, said: “When hundreds of thousands of people are waiting unacceptably long times for MRI scans, it’s completely unjustifiable to take up machine time to work out the age of migrants.
“Conducting these scans falls outside the terms of the contract of a clinical radiographer. This means that any radiographer conducting the scans would have to agree to it voluntarily and be paid separately.”
‘Trivialises’ Radiation Exposure
Mr. Evans said that the union was against the measure because it “trivialises” radiation exposure. The society also questioned whether there would be issues around the asylum seeker consenting to an examination.The Society of Radiographers CEO said, “The Society of Radiographers is opposed to scanning migrants because it trivialises ionising radiation exposure, because issues of consent haven’t been properly explored, and because we’re unconvinced that there will be proper legal regulation of radiation exposure.”
Responding to the society, a Home Office spokesperson said: “We are strengthening the age assessment process through the National Age Assessment Board and introducing scientific assessments such as X-rays and MRIs.
Adult Men ‘Masquerading as Children’
In January 2022, Ms. Patel had commissioned the Age Estimation Science Advisory Committee (AESAC) to advise the Home Office on “scientifically based methodologies” which might assist in determining how old asylum seekers are when age is disputed. This would help ensure asylum seeking adults would not be able to pose as children to access support they are not entitled to.“The practice of single grown adult men, masquerading as children claiming asylum is an appalling abuse of our system which we will end. By posing as children, these adult men go on to access children’s services and schools through deception and deceit; putting children and young adults in school and care at risk,” Ms. Patel said at the time.
“It is a fact that two thirds of age dispute cases have found that the individual claiming to be a child is actually over the age of 18,” she added.
Other countries use scientific methods for proving age such as X-rays, CT scans, and MRI imaging. The government said introducing the methods would bring the UK in line with most European countries, giving the examples of Norway and Finland, which use radiographs to examine the fusion of bones in the wrist and development of teeth. France examines the fusion of the collarbone using X-rays.
The report also said the risk of ionising radiation is “small.”
“There are strong views on the use of ionising radiation in the age assessment process and the interim committee has listened to and debated these arguments at length. However, the risk is recognised to be small and the benefits of a reliable age assessment are considerable for the ongoing health and wellbeing of the individual while minimising safeguarding risks,” the AESAC said.
The report said asylum seekers should be given “clear information explaining the risks and benefits of biological evaluation” in order for them to be able to give their “informed consent.”
