Use of x-rays in asylum age assessments “inaccurate” and “unethical”, experts warn

Medical experts have criticised the use of x-rays to determine the age of lone migrant children and young people seeking asylum in the UK.

Professor Andrew Rowland, officer for child protection at the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health (RCPCH) said the practice could be “widely inaccurate” and was “ultimately unethical”.

Secondary legislation laid by the Ministry of Justice on 12 September will authorise the use of x-rays in the age assessment processes.

If passed, the legislation would allow the Home Office to lay further legislation in front of parliament, taking forward powers under the Nationality and Borders Act 2022.

The RSPCH said this will specify that x-rays of teeth and bones of the hands and wrists and MRIs of knees and collar bones can be used as part of the age assessment process.

Outlining their position, the  RSPCH said that “exposure to radiation through x-ray imaging for a non-medical purpose is not ethical”, and that there is “insufficient evidence to make accurate conclusions about the age of this population of children from the methods currently available and proposed by the Government”. 

The RSPCH also shared concern over “stipulations” made by the Illegal Migration Act which suggest that refusal to undertake a biological age assessment will be held against children as a part of the decision-making process with regard to their asylum claim.

Professor Andrew Rowland, Officer for Child Protection, said: “Evidence shows that using x-rays to determine age can be widely inaccurate and the practice is ultimately unethical. It is appalling to see that the Government is persisting with these plans, which hinge life-changing decisions for some of the most vulnerable young people in our society on unspecific scientific outcomes and includes exposing them to radiation.”

He added: “Informed consent is fundamental to all medical practice, and by definition must be free from duress. This Government policy enforces a slide away from that core principle as it places such significant consequences on the refusal of biological age assessments. This directly opposes both the principles of informed consent and the recommendations set out by the independent body commissioned to look at the policy - the Age Estimation Scientific Advisory Committee (AESAC),with regard to assumptions or consequences stemming from refusal to consent.”

The Home Office and Age Estimation Scientific Advisory Committee (AESAC) have been approached for comment.