The Claim
“Refused requests for medical treatment from a pregnant woman in detention who subsequently had a miscarriage. She probably would have had a normal birth had she received the treatment she asked for. The government declined to comment further.”
Original Sources Provided
✅ FACTUAL VERIFICATION
The claim involves an Iranian asylum seeker named Elham who was 13 weeks pregnant when she was detained on Christmas Island in September 2013. According to multiple sources, Elham complained of pain but was initially told by nurses and doctors that "there was nothing wrong" [1]. When she asked for an ultrasound "to see how is my foetus," she was told there was no ultrasound available on Christmas Island [1].
According to the Guardian Australia report, the situation escalated when Elham experienced severe pain: "I was going unconscious sometime and I got bleeding – and even with this situation they didn't pay attention to me and told me it's normal, no need to go to hospital" [1]. A detention staff member eventually drove her to the hospital where an ultrasound revealed she had miscarried. Hospital doctors reportedly told her husband that the baby "might have been saved if they could bring your wife earlier" [1].
Weeks after the miscarriage, Elham stated she had been given no further ultrasound to determine what went wrong, and was told by medical staff: "Every time I am asking them, they keep telling me that you are in detention centre and should not expect a lot" [1][2].
The incident was documented in a "letter of concern" written by 15 doctors working for International Health and Medical Services (IHMS), the healthcare provider contracted by the Department of Immigration and Border Protection. The letter detailed "unsafe practices and gross departures from generally accepted medical standards" experienced by asylum seekers on Christmas Island [1][2].
Regarding the government's response, then-Immigration Minister Scott Morrison did refuse to comment specifically on the case. At a press conference on December 20, 2013, Morrison "refused to take questions about Latifa's case" (another pregnant asylum seeker) and regarding the doctors' letter stated only: "We are working through the issues of that letter" [3]. The Guardian reported that Morrison "said nothing" about the damning medical conditions report that his department had received two weeks prior [4].
Missing Context
Policy Change Under Coalition: The claim omits important policy context. When the Labor government revived offshore processing (the "Pacific Solution") in August 2012, they did not send pregnant women to Nauru – they were exempted from offshore transfers [1].
However, the new Coalition government, elected in September 2013, implemented a "no exceptions" rule. As the Guardian reported: "the new Coalition government operates under a 'no exceptions' rule that means all asylum seekers who have arrived at Christmas Island since mid-July – even women with high-risk pregnancies – are sent to the immigration detention centre on Nauru" [1].
Medical Infrastructure Limitations: The doctors' letter highlighted systemic failures, including that ultrasonographers visited Christmas Island only every few months and "cater primarily for local residents" [1]. The island's hospital had an ultrasound machine but "there are rarely specialists available who know how to use it" [1].
IHMS Response: IHMS, the contracted healthcare provider, acknowledged the period was "high intensity, with an unprecedented number of arrivals and an increased number of people presenting with a range of significant complex medical conditions" [2]. IHMS stated they would work "constructively with Dr Sanggaran [the principal author] to review these matters and to resolve his concerns" [2].
Multiple Cases: The Elham case was not isolated. The doctors' letter referenced other pregnant women in detention, including "Latifa" – a 30-year-old Rohingyan woman with a "very high risk" pregnancy (history of caesareans, thought to be carrying twins) who was sent to Nauru despite medical concerns [1]. Latifa eventually had to be flown to Brisbane for delivery due to complications [1].
Source Credibility Assessment
The Guardian Australia: The original source is Guardian Australia, which is generally considered a reputable mainstream news organization with professional journalism standards. The article was co-authored by David Marr (a respected Australian journalist) and Oliver Laughland. The Guardian has a center-left editorial stance, which should be considered when evaluating coverage of politically sensitive topics like asylum seeker policy [1].
International Business Times: The IBTimes article corroborates the Guardian's reporting, confirming Elham's account and the doctors' concerns [2].
Doctors' Letter: The primary evidence comes from a letter written by 15 doctors working on Christmas Island. These were healthcare professionals directly involved in treating asylum seekers, employed by IHMS, the contracted healthcare provider. Their professional credentials and firsthand experience lend credibility to the claims, though the letter represents their professional concerns rather than an official audit or investigation [1][2].
Australian Human Rights Commission: Professor Gillian Triggs, then-president of the AHRC, publicly supported the doctors' concerns, describing their report as "chilling in its objective scientific clarity" and stating that "Australia appears to fail to meet international legal standards of humane treatment of asylum seekers" [1]. The AHRC is an independent statutory body.
Potential Bias: The original source (Guardian Australia) and associated advocacy organizations (ASRC, Human Rights Law Centre) generally advocate for more humane asylum seeker policies. However, the core facts about Elham's case are consistent across multiple independent sources and the doctors' own documentation.
Labor Comparison
Labor's Policy on Pregnant Women: When the Labor government (under Prime Minister Julia Gillard) revived offshore processing in August 2012, they specifically exempted pregnant women from being sent to Nauru [1]. This policy difference is significant – under Labor, pregnant women like Elham would likely have remained in onshore detention or community detention rather than being transferred to offshore facilities with limited medical infrastructure.
Policy Reversal Under Coalition: The Coalition's "no exceptions" policy, implemented after their September 2013 election victory, removed this exemption. As the Guardian reported: "When Labor revived the 'Pacific solution' in 2012, pregnant women were not sent to Nauru. But the new Coalition government operates under a 'no exceptions' rule" [1].
Scott Morrison's Statement: The new Immigration Minister Scott Morrison explicitly contrasted the two approaches in October 2013: "The previous government sent very few people to Manus Island and Nauru for offshore processing because they didn't really believe in it... The difference between the Coalition government and Labor is that the Coalition is actually implementing offshore processing properly" [1].
Historical Context: It's important to note that while Labor exempted pregnant women from offshore detention during their 2012-2013 offshore processing regime, the Labor government (1992-1996, 2007-2013) maintained mandatory detention policies that had their own documented issues with healthcare access. However, the specific combination of:
- Sending pregnant women to remote locations with limited medical infrastructure
- The "no exceptions" policy removing previous exemptions
- The resulting documented medical consequences
appears to represent a deterioration in specific protections for pregnant asylum seekers compared to the immediately preceding Labor policy framework.
Balanced Perspective
Government Justification: The Coalition government defended its strict offshore processing policy as necessary to deter dangerous boat journeys and prevent deaths at sea. Scott Morrison's statement about "implementing offshore processing properly" reflects the government's view that Labor's more lenient approach (including exemptions for pregnant women) undermined the deterrent effect of the policy [1].
Healthcare Provider Position: IHMS acknowledged the challenges of the period, noting it was "high intensity, with an unprecedented number of arrivals" [2]. They committed to working with concerned doctors to address the issues raised [2].
Systemic vs. Individual Failures: The doctors' letter suggests systemic failures rather than isolated incidents. The issues included:
- Lack of regular ultrasonography services
- Inadequate antenatal care not meeting Australian standards
- Transfer of high-risk pregnant women to Nauru despite medical concerns
- Confiscation of medications and medical aids
- Lack of child-specific mental health services [1]
Multiple Accountability Layers: The incident raises questions about:
- The Department of Immigration and Border Protection's policy decisions
- IHMS's healthcare delivery standards
- The availability of medical infrastructure on Christmas Island
- The appropriateness of the "no exceptions" policy for vulnerable populations
International Standards: The Australian Human Rights Commission's assessment that Australia "appears to fail to meet international legal standards of humane treatment of asylum seekers" represents an independent statutory body's professional judgment [1].
Key Context: This is not unique to the Coalition in the sense that both major Australian political parties have supported offshore detention and mandatory detention policies with documented negative health impacts. However, the specific policy change regarding pregnant women – removing the exemption that existed under Labor's 2012 offshore processing regime – appears to have directly contributed to the circumstances that led to Elham's case and other similar incidents.
PARTIALLY TRUE
6.0
out of 10
The core facts of the claim are substantiated: an Iranian asylum seeker named Elham who was pregnant was denied timely medical care including an ultrasound on Christmas Island, subsequently suffered a miscarriage, and doctors reportedly indicated earlier intervention might have saved the pregnancy. The government, specifically Immigration Minister Scott Morrison, did decline to comment specifically on the case, referring only to "working through the issues" of the doctors' letter [1][3][4].
However, the claim contains elements that require qualification:
- The phrase "refused requests for medical treatment" somewhat oversimplifies a situation involving systemic healthcare infrastructure failures and policy decisions rather than a direct refusal to treat
- The claim that "she probably would have had a normal birth" is based on what hospital doctors reportedly told her husband – the baby "might have been saved" – but this is not a certainty
- The claim omits the important context that this represented a policy change from the preceding Labor government, which had exempted pregnant women from offshore detention
Final Score
6.0
OUT OF 10
PARTIALLY TRUE
The core facts of the claim are substantiated: an Iranian asylum seeker named Elham who was pregnant was denied timely medical care including an ultrasound on Christmas Island, subsequently suffered a miscarriage, and doctors reportedly indicated earlier intervention might have saved the pregnancy. The government, specifically Immigration Minister Scott Morrison, did decline to comment specifically on the case, referring only to "working through the issues" of the doctors' letter [1][3][4].
However, the claim contains elements that require qualification:
- The phrase "refused requests for medical treatment" somewhat oversimplifies a situation involving systemic healthcare infrastructure failures and policy decisions rather than a direct refusal to treat
- The claim that "she probably would have had a normal birth" is based on what hospital doctors reportedly told her husband – the baby "might have been saved" – but this is not a certainty
- The claim omits the important context that this represented a policy change from the preceding Labor government, which had exempted pregnant women from offshore detention
📚 SOURCES & CITATIONS (7)
-
1
theguardian.com
'They keep telling me that you are in detention centre and should not expect a lot,' says Elham, an Iranian asylum seeker who begged for an ultrasound before – and after – losing her baby
the Guardian -
2
ibtimes.co.uk
Ibtimes Co
-
3
theguardian.com
Minister claims he never 'received' the letter of concern from 15 doctors despite his department having it for a fortnight
the Guardian -
4
theguardian.com
There were 23 questions put to the immigration minister at last week’s Operation Sovereign Borders press conference, but his website says he didn’t hear them
the Guardian -
5
humanrights.gov.au
Humanrights Gov
-
6
hrlc.org.au
Human Rights Law Centre -
7
mja.com.au
A high standard of pregnancy care should be provided for all women
Mja Com
Rating Scale Methodology
1-3: FALSE
Factually incorrect or malicious fabrication.
4-6: PARTIAL
Some truth but context is missing or skewed.
7-9: MOSTLY TRUE
Minor technicalities or phrasing issues.
10: ACCURATE
Perfectly verified and contextually fair.
Methodology: Ratings are determined through cross-referencing official government records, independent fact-checking organizations, and primary source documents.