Tuesday, October 9, 2007 | Reason : Political | print version

If Muslim doctors are intolerant, let them go

by Andrew O'Hagan, Telegraph

Thanks to Brian Porter for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/10/09/do0902.xml

In the place where I grew up – a particular square in one of the nicer Northern housing estates – there was a young Muslim doctor who lived with his wife and children.

I never found out why this gentleman had come to live among us, but he must have known when he made the decision that he and his family might suffer some racial abuse. They duly did suffer it, and I still feel ashamed when I remember how people spoke to them (and about them) in those years.

The older daughter was very smart: the family were probably the only middle-class people we knew at the time, though that didn't mean anything very much, and the whole community expressed a terrible degree of contempt towards them – all the more terrible for seeming so natural.

Our Pakistani doctor did something that has now gone quite out fashion – he rose above it.

I imagine that he, as an educated man, felt quite sorry for many of the people around him. In any event, he forgave them. He and his wife worked very hard and they alone taught us a crucial lesson in liberalism – that sometimes we must tolerate other people's intolerance.

Our neighbour, the doctor, treated everyone's ailments and sought not only to face reality but slowly to change it. His tolerance was much greater than ours and, in some part, he taught a congenitally racist little community how to behave. That is a British story not often told, but none the less true.

This all came back to me when I read of the Muslim medical students who won't have anything to do with patients with alcohol problems or sexually transmitted diseases.

It should be stated immediately that this is not a large group and it mercifully does not apply to all Muslim trainee doctors. But the British Medical Association has confirmed there are students who are refusing to attend lectures on these matters and that the refusal is being made on religious grounds.

Has the world gone mad? It was only last week that Sainsbury's said it would permit Muslim employees who worked at its checkouts to refuse to scan alcohol if doing so offended their religious beliefs.

Other Muslim students are refusing to examine female bodies and still more, working in high street pharmacies, refuse to supply the Pill.

A friend of mine recently went to a wine warehouse in London. He didn't have a car, so he asked the local minicab firm to come and pick him up, but it declined on account of the fact that the driver on duty refused to have alcohol in the car or to touch it.

Let me ask a simple question. Why do people who wish to train to be doctors choose to do so in a culture they find so objectionable as to make their jobs impossible?

It's like someone yearning to be a carpenter, only to admit later that he actually has a horrible aversion to wood. Do these enlightened young doctors also hate the ethanol they put into their cars? Do they detest anti-freeze to the same degree that they abhor the sight of women's naked bodies?

Britain might have many problems, but it is nevertheless a society with a broad understanding of people's vulnerabilities and conditions, whether that means alcohol-related illnesses or thrush.

Are we to de-liberalise in order not to offend the Muslim trainees? Are we to make ourselves more like many of the Muslim countries those young doctors' families fled from in order to have a life in Britain?

It's impossible to comprehend this. I'm against those war-mongering fools who imagine that Islamo-fascism pervades every corner of the Muslim consciousness. I'm against those who allow Muslim extremism to colour their entire view of that ancient – and medically innovative! – culture. They would never allow the murderous antics of some abortion-hating Christian fundamentalists to colour their entire view of Christianity, would they?

But I'm afraid the actions of this small group of Muslim medics are playing right into the hands of those who want to see Islam as a fundamentally life-hating, reality-hating theocracy.

There are millions of believers who know it is not, but the lesson of the militant trainees is that they not only hate the country in which they seek to thrive but that they hate people who aren't them.

The good doctor in my youth showed us the desperate limits of our own intolerance, and there is no way he would have encouraged us to stay like that.

Sainsbury's and company may think they are being politically correct, but they are simply being stupid and encouraging discrimination where it need not exist. I perfectly understand if people don't want to have anything to do with alcohol, but the remedy is simple: don't work in Sainsbury's.

I'm afraid to say I would take those workers off the shop floor immediately and the junior doctors I would send down without a moment's hesitation.

I would say exactly the same if a bunch of Catholic pharmacists refused to let people buy condoms, or if a pack of Christian medical students refused to treat women who agreed with abortion. I'd sack them tomorrow morning and feel fine about it long before lunchtime.

I dislike the way that those who shout the loudest or create the most fuss always get the bigger share of people's sympathy – it's almost a definition of childishness.

How often in life do we fool ourselves into thinking it is fine for the more irrational person in a relationship to hold the reins, just because they grab them, just because they say so, just because we're too troubled by the possible consequences of our firmly saying no.

Extremists are just that: they rely on the fact that people in the centre will be too soft to come out and disarm them or scorn their sense of entitlement.

Well, I'm scorning it. Despite all their efforts to become educated and make a contribution to human wellbeing, junior doctors who refuse to treat female patients or people with cirrhosis are too ignorant to do the job, unless they wish to do it in an environment where such ignorance is held to indicate some kind of religious nobility. Off you go, then. Be my guest. Your plane awaits.

There's a limit to what people should do to please fanatics.

Add to del.icio.us Posted: Tuesday, October 9, 2007 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 69 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #77465 by Jiten on October 9, 2007 at 11:31 am

These medical students are being radical for the sake of it.They really have nothing to campaign against and so invent supposed infringements to their religion so that they then do.

Other Comments by Jiten

2. Comment #77468 by Mango on October 9, 2007 at 11:37 am

Although political correctness served a certain purpose at a certain time, now is the time for rational heads to prevail in this matter of intolerance by theists.

Other Comments by Mango

3. Comment #77469 by technogogo on October 9, 2007 at 11:38 am

I am starting to cringe slightly when I hear criticism of islam contain a contrived reference to christianity being equivalent in terms of extreme dogma (usually care of the vanishingly small number of violent anti-abortion militants). I am not convinced such equivalence is reality. In fact there are some surveys on the attitudes of british muslims do make worrying reading. They suggest a much more embedded and pervasive views which are contrary to the prevailing sentiments in the UK on many things. Islam appears to be unique in being a religion that tries to control so many aspects of life. Well, all aspects really.

Otherwise a good article which makes its point fairly clearly.

Other Comments by technogogo

4. Comment #77470 by drive1 on October 9, 2007 at 11:47 am

Unfortunately, there's more to it than just religious sensibilities. We've imported a culture of ambulance-chasing lawyers, where everyone is a victim, everyone's 'rights' trump those of everyone else, and where justice and a tax-free lump sum compensation are synonymous. Sainsbury's can't sack 'em, because they'd sue. Ditto the Health Service and every other employer.

My employer has just instructed every employee to complete a detailed nationality/race/religious belief questionnaire 'to make sure we're not discriminating against any minorities'. Since the organisation is in the process of cutting the workforce by 20%, that's like asking turkeys to vote for Christmas. Naturally I've ticked the 'I do not wish to disclose this information' box. What's a middle class, middle age, heterosexual, able bodied, atheist white boy supposed to do? I suppose by failing to surrender my job that makes me a racist bigot.

Other Comments by drive1

5. Comment #77473 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on October 9, 2007 at 11:55 am

Totally on board with this article, what a lot of precious whiners!!!

Other Comments by briancoughlanworldcitizen

6. Comment #77474 by Philip1978 on October 9, 2007 at 11:55 am

This is the kind of thing that really gets on my nerves, I cannot say just how irresponsible the world is for pandering to anything so dangerously stupid. I have heard horrible stories of rape victims being refused the emergency pill because of religion and I wholly agree with this article's question asking why these maniacs accept these jobs when they know full well what the job description will involve. The sooner that religious idiocy like this is not tolerated the better this planet will be.

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

7. Comment #77475 by phasmagigas on October 9, 2007 at 11:57 am

i guess those med students would really be against treating some guy who 'fell on' a cathode ray tube (ok, thats probably an urban myth but there you go).

Other Comments by phasmagigas

8. Comment #77476 by junklight on October 9, 2007 at 11:58 am

So the health service which is overstretched is happy to hire people who won't do all of the job?

Hmm - perhaps the FSM religion (the only one which I could even pretend to believe in) should declare that its adherents won't work on wednesdays, oh and perhaps Friday afternoon too. Oh and need their coffee delivering to their desk, *with* chocolate biscuits, on the best china.

Other Comments by junklight

9. Comment #77479 by phasmagigas on October 9, 2007 at 12:03 pm

Islam appears to be unique in being a religion that tries to control so many aspects of life. Well, all aspects really.

if you read the muslim council of britains suggestions for making UK schools suitable for muslims youd honestly think that some individuals spend each and every minute considering their relationship with god. Within the context of UK society I suspect in many cases it has little to do with god and more with asserting ones self amongst a wider non muslim community.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

10. Comment #77483 by tieInterceptor on October 9, 2007 at 12:09 pm

hear hear, totally agree.

somehow related to this, check the latest Pat Condel youtube video, good stuff as usual,

More demands from Islam

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHh0NdR5Jh0

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

11. Comment #77488 by cowalker on October 9, 2007 at 12:16 pm

If I were shopping in Great Britain I would want to know what companies are making silly compromises based on the religion of their employees. They're encouraging the kind of poisonously divisive atmosphere that endangers women like Ayaan Hirsi Ali. They wouldn't get my business.

I suppose it's clearer to an atheist than to a believer in ANY religion, but the whole reason for apparently random and highly visible and inconvenient religious rules is to set the members apart from other people. They are required to proclaim their faith publicly in their multiple daily prayer rituals, hairstyles, clothing, eating habits, working habits and rules for associating with others. The rules are purposely energy-consuming to keep religion at the forefront of their minds. The rules intentionally make it inconvenient to interact with others of different beliefs to discourage fraternization.

Does a strict Hindu who refuses to serve hamburger have a right to a job at McDonald's? Does a real estate agent who refuses to sell houses to gay couples on religious grounds have a right to a job with a real estate company? It makes no more sense to hire a doctor who refuses to treat half the human race.

I'm a vegetarian. Do I get to work in a grocery but refuse to scan or bag any purchase that contains animal products? What nonsense.

It is madness to bring people into a society based on tolerance and then make exceptions to allow them to keep themselves as much apart from that society as they can.

Other Comments by cowalker

12. Comment #77489 by steve99 on October 9, 2007 at 12:18 pm

Does a real estate agent who refuses to sell houses to gay couples on religious grounds have a right to a job with a real estate company?

Fortunately in Britain we now have laws against such discrimination.

Other Comments by steve99

13. Comment #77493 by Vinelectric on October 9, 2007 at 12:22 pm

that this is not a large group.....

A friend of mine recently went to a wine warehouse......

Other Muslim students are refusing to examine female bodies and still more, working in high street pharmacies, refuse....

This man sounds like he did some serious research on the sources before he farted out this masterpiece of journalism.

But I'm afraid the actions of this small group of Muslim medics are playing right into the hands of those who want to see Islam as a fundamentally life-hating, reality-hating theocracy.

Journalists alway give themselves away when they 'emphasize' that it is only a 'small group of Muslims' who are causing all the trouble. As employees of the NHS we hear about these oddities like other people do: fromt the loud mouths of the well meaning journalists.

Typical Daily Telegraph scum.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

14. Comment #77494 by junklight on October 9, 2007 at 12:27 pm

Journalists alway give themselves away when they 'emphasize' that it is only a 'small group of Muslims' who are causing all the trouble. As employees of the NHS we hear these oddities like other people do: fromt the loud mouths of the well meaning journalists.

Typical Daily Telegraph scum.

So what - we just turn a blind eye to the currently few instances of letting Muslims let their nonsense dictate which parts of jobs they do. Until when? Until it is a widely accepted practice?

Other Comments by junklight

15. Comment #77495 by Philip1978 on October 9, 2007 at 12:28 pm

Vinelectric, thats a bit harsh isnt it?
The Torygraph it may well be, but that and The Times are probably the most objective papers I have ever read ( this is considering how bad the press is anyway!). Come on, at least it wasnt the Daily Mail!

This article has some good points in it and I think well addressed, give the guy a break!

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

16. Comment #77500 by Ivan The Not So Bad on October 9, 2007 at 12:43 pm

This is not originally a Telegraph story.

It was reported by the BBC last week in a story following up the release of new General Medical Council (the regulatory body) guidelines to cope with a very real recent increase in such incidents.

Sad to say, in a fit of wooly-mindedness, the GMC are minded to allow such opt outs. On a brighter note, the British Medical Association (who represent the doctors) are dead against.

Other Comments by Ivan The Not So Bad

17. Comment #77502 by jimbob on October 9, 2007 at 12:48 pm

A course in proctology should be part of the preparation for all those jobs.

That way, there would be at least a chance that they would find their religious raison d'etre staring them in the face.

Other Comments by jimbob

18. Comment #77504 by Dinah on October 9, 2007 at 12:53 pm

If certain Muslims dislike, as part of their jobs, having to handle alcohol or the bodies of the opposite sex, they should realise this is the price they have to pay for living in a free society. The more secular institutions are modified in order to avoid offending religious sensibilities, the less secular and the more theocratic they become, and in the end our society will end up being as repressive as those which some of those Muslims, or their ancestors, fled from in the first place.

Other Comments by Dinah

19. Comment #77523 by Dr Benway on October 9, 2007 at 2:07 pm

I can't get my head around this problem. Patients don't present with a neat set of symptoms as listed in some medical text. You get useful data mixed together with several red herrings. Plus a few lies of omission and otherwise. It's up to you to sift the useful stuff from the irrelevancies. To do that you need a working understanding of everything, including booze, STDs, and our tingly, naughty bits. Remove even just a few pages from the book of What Can Go Wrong With People, and you lose the ability to develop a comprehensive differential diagnosis for anything.

Someone old enough to apply to med school who believes that devout people don't drink or sleep around, ever, ought to be denied admission due to malignant naivete.

Am I hearing the bottom of a barrel being scraped? Did someone finally suck all the fun out of being a doctor? Is it now a job for the marginally qualified?

Other Comments by Dr Benway

20. Comment #77526 by Chris Bell on October 9, 2007 at 2:15 pm

As a lawyer, this is a fascinating topic. The U.S. Supreme Court switched positions on this issue not too long ago, and it surprisingly switched towards the "atheist" view in an opinion by J. Scalia.

The U.S. Congress (voting 99-0) tried to override the decision by passing the "Religious Freedom Restoration Act", but the Court struck down the override.

So why did J. Scalia, a passionately anti-atheist man, vote this way?

The American system was set up to grant these special exceptions to religious people when the business could stand it. So taxi drivers could reject drunk passengers, doctors could refuse rape victims abortion pills, etc as long as these services weren't crucial to the business. This applied to laws as well. In the actual case, a Native American wanted an exception made to drug laws so that he could smoke peyote in a religious ritual. The exception would be granted if it wouldn't undermine the law too much.

But who made this evaluation? Who decided when a religious exception went too far? A judge.

J. Scalia changed this situation because he said that it was not the place of judges to say when a law "didn't really apply". I agree, and I think it's a wonderful decision. A secular society needs more decisions like it.

You can read the case online. It's Employment Division v. Smith.

And friends are sometimes found in the most unlikely places....

Other Comments by Chris Bell

21. Comment #77532 by Jonathan Dore on October 9, 2007 at 2:52 pm

I recently heard that it costs about 250,000 pounds to train a doctor in the UK. If, at the end of that process, some of them refuse to do their job properly, they should be required to pay that money back. Better still, to prevent time wasters clogging up the system, get them to fill in a legally binding statement before they start their medical training, affirming their willingness to carry out all of the functions the job requires.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

22. Comment #77533 by PaulJ on October 9, 2007 at 3:01 pm

My employer has just instructed every employee to complete a detailed nationality/race/religious belief questionnaire 'to make sure we're not discriminating against any minorities'.

Local authorities in the UK have been doing this for some years with people or organisations making planning applications (many of them use the same PR company's questionnaire).

I always leave the questions unanswered, but put a note to the effect that the best way of avoiding discrimination against any group is not to have information about which group you're dealing with. (It's impossible to discriminate when you can't distinguish between groups.)

Other Comments by PaulJ

23. Comment #77534 by Barbara on October 9, 2007 at 3:01 pm

Employer: The job requires that you do this, this, this, and this.

Applicant: I am perfectly fine performing this, this, and this. But I cannot do this because it goes against my religious beliefs.

Employer: In order for you to adequately perform your duties on this job you must perform this task.

Applicant: I cannot! My religion forbids it.

Employer: Good luck with your job search.

Employer (to secretary) Send in the next applicant, please.

Other Comments by Barbara

24. Comment #77546 by stereoroid on October 9, 2007 at 3:34 pm

Apart from the explicitly racist, does anyone actually want to see Islam in this way, or any particular way? This kind of nonsense is popping up without any instigation from we atheists...

Other Comments by stereoroid

25. Comment #77556 by BaronOchs on October 9, 2007 at 4:41 pm

This problem has surfaced in the news before. The actual number of muslim students making these objections may be small but he is right, if they have a problem with the job they should leave and find something else to do. Simple.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

26. Comment #77562 by paulcaira on October 9, 2007 at 5:11 pm

There was a similar (and rather more succinct) piece by Libby Purves in yesterday's Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/libby_purves/article2617350.ece

Other Comments by paulcaira

27. Comment #77571 by Matt7895 on October 9, 2007 at 5:43 pm

It goes against the very ethics of a doctor to refuse treatment to someone based on their sex. Ever heard of the Hippocratic Oath, Muslims?

And putting their fingers in their ears shouting 'We don't want to learn about alcohol or STIs' won't make them better doctors either.

Andrew O'Hagan is right. Tell these idiots to grow up or get out of the medical profession.

Other Comments by Matt7895

28. Comment #77573 by captain underpants on October 9, 2007 at 5:52 pm

Muslim medical students who won't have anything to do with patients with alcohol problems or sexually transmitted diseases.

The article doesn't say whether such students are allowed to graduate as doctors. If they are, it's truly scandalous. Why are people in the UK so unable/unwilling to see where this spineless cultural relativism is leading us? To hell with political correctness, if those Muslims despise European culture so much, they should fuck off out of Europe.

Other Comments by captain underpants

29. Comment #77586 by Goldy on October 9, 2007 at 7:22 pm

Judging from the comments here and from letters written in (see below) I dare say not many people go along with the faith of doctors when it comes to healing - including Muslims who'd rather not see their taxes squandered any more than anyone else likes their taxes pissed away. I dare say if they felt strongly about it, they'd indeed fuck off, as would patients who feel their religion is more important (it's also probably a lot cheaper in India or Pakistan to get treatment...but that's another story).
Anyway, the letters...

Patients should not face religious prejudice

Sir – British taxpayers bear the cost of training doctors. Patients should therefore expect to benefit from a doctor's medical expertise, regardless of whether a condition is alcohol-related or sexually transmitted.

Under English law, abortion is the only medical procedure doctors can refuse on the basis of conscience. This legal opt-out has always incurred the wrath of the pro-choice liberals, but they've been curiously quiet in this case.

As a former NHS consultant, I find it hard to believe that we are prepared to indulge the behaviour of a tiny minority of Muslim medical students, especially when the NHS faces unprecedented rates of alcoholism and STDs. Patients deserve dispassionate medical treatment, not religion-based judgmentalism.

Dr Charles Tannock MEP (Con), Brussels

Sir – Andrew O'Hagan (Comment, October 9) says that he would "sack tomorrow" pharmacists who refused to let people buy condoms, "or if a pack of Christian medical students refused to treat women who agreed with abortion".

Unfortunately, he would not be permitted to sack them, or even chastise them. The Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the General Medical Council have codes of practice that make exemptions for people to refuse to do all these things on religious grounds. Last week, there were two more reported cases of women whose prescriptions for the morning-after Pill were refused by pharmacists exercising their "religious conscience".

Supermarket staff are permitted to opt out of handling alcohol if it offends their religion, doctors won't treat people with STDs, and all this is accommodated by their employers anxious to embrace the new culture of "diversity". As we are now discovering, diversity can rapidly become divisiveness. It's time to secularise the workplace and the medical profession.

Terry Sanderson, President, National Secular Society, London WC1

Sir – The blame for the refusal of some Muslim medical students to attend lectures connected with alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases must lie in the process of selecting students.

I once attended, as a silent observer, an appointment board for RAF aircrew. One question asked was: "Would you be prepared to kill someone under appropriate circumstances?" If the answer was "No", the interviewee would have been politely shown the door.

Professor M.M.R. Williams, South Croydon, Surrey

Other Comments by Goldy

30. Comment #77612 by chauvinj on October 9, 2007 at 9:05 pm

Is it just me, or does it seem more and more like it is not the majority who are intolerant of Islam, but Islamists who are intolerant of the majority?? They are completely intolerant of our ways of doing things, and this article exhibits that completely. They've nicely blinded us to this though, they've turned it against us and said it is us who are intolerent of them! Hogwash! It is time that we as a people stop caving in to these primeval demands.

Other Comments by chauvinj

31. Comment #77624 by Veronique on October 9, 2007 at 10:56 pm

This is just pathetic. This is PC gone nuts. As well as religious apologists, we now have PC apologists. What in the world are we coming to? Is labour so hard to come by in England? Someone tell me, please, how many applicants are there for advertised jobs? Does anyone know?

If I were to go to a quack who refused me certain medical procedures and/or prescriptions on fucking religious grounds, I would be out of there like a shot (and never go back). If I were to go to a checkout where someone refused to touch and log some of my purchases, I would cancel the whole transaction and walk out (and never go back).

As an employer, I would have to agree with Barbara. As an employee, I either want to work or I don't. Unions notwithstanding.

I am old – when I was looking for work in the 1960s, of four jobs I applied for I was offered 3 or 4 of them. Over and over again – I wasn't very good at a lifetime career path:-). Those days are long gone. Now, in Oz, job advertisements attract dozens of applicants; it is hard to get work.

So why is England bowing to this sort of special treatment of people who feel they have the right to tailor their own jobs to include and/or exclude their particular penchants? And on religious grounds no less.

It's not as though England needs any more people on its little island. It's over-crowded to buggery now! Or am I wrong about this?

It appears to me that because of historical imperative and post-colonial guilt, England has opened her arms and accepted immigrants and refugees to the extent that she now has a closely quartered, culturally simmering mixed population. The pollies like to call it multiculturalism. I call it an accident waiting to happen.

Unless England draws a line in the sand and states what the conditions of entry are to her shores; unless she can get her act together (probably too late now – some foresight!!) she will forever be trying to accommodate the demands of so many ethnic groups that she will fail them all. Including her indigenous (if there ever was) peoples.

I want to come to Cornwall and Yorkshire to explore the history of my family. What am I going to find? Bloody shit, is what I am beginning to think! Why would I bother? The Land of my Fathers – I am not sure any more. Maybe the Land of Wankers instead!

FFS
V

Other Comments by Veronique

32. Comment #77632 by dazzjazz on October 10, 2007 at 12:18 am

Barbara, you really said it all!
These guys should be rendered unemployable, and have taken an oath I presume. I hope they never work on me...

Other Comments by dazzjazz

33. Comment #77633 by Nick Good on October 10, 2007 at 12:30 am

I'm against those war-mongering fools who imagine that Islamo-fascism pervades every corner of the Muslim consciousness.

Not "every corner", but "Islamo-fasicm" is endemic in the British Muslim population. Just for starters 40% of British Muslims are prepared to admit to a polster that they want Sharia Law in the UK.

Other Comments by Nick Good

34. Comment #77647 by Ian on October 10, 2007 at 1:45 am

Speaking as a kufar, I'd be interested as to when these people are going to refuse to treat me.

I've always been an anti-racist, but such fairness relies on everyone else being just as liberal.

Also, I pay doctors to treat illness, not to stand in judgement over my lifestyle or metaphysical stance. They may by all means advise me to eat more vegetables, because they almost certainly have superior knowledge of nutrition. However, there is no reason to suppose they have a better metaphysical grounding.

Being anti-discrimination means neither commiting it or accepting it from others. These doctors need to shape up.

Other Comments by Ian

35. Comment #77650 by nickthelight on October 10, 2007 at 2:02 am

Muslims are intolerant full stop. Their faith disgusts me and in my opinion is No1 on the list of humanities worst ideas.

Other Comments by nickthelight

36. Comment #77658 by Nick Good on October 10, 2007 at 3:00 am

One also should be mindful that 5 qualified doctors were in the terrorist ring round up recently in Britain. This is the ring that perpetrated failed attacks on London nightclubs - no doubt targeting British 'dancing slags'. They were involved in the widely publicised failed Jeep car bomb attack on Glasgow airport - one of those in the vehicle, detained at the scene, was a qualified medical doctor, practicing in the UK.

The deputy leader of Al Qaeda, Ayman al-Zawahri, is a medical doctor.

The list of Islamo-fascist MDs goes on

Dr. Mahmoud Al-Zahar--HAMAS co-founder, Dr. Fathi Abd Al-Aziz Shiqaqi founder of Islamic Jihad and active in Fatah, Dr. Bashar Al Assad President of Terrorist sponsoring state Syria, Dr. Wameeth Fadhli--A US MD that went on a shooting spree of infidels in Texas

The list of Islamo nutter MDs goes on and on, this is but a short list....it runs to pages.

Put it this way, as an infidel in a position to choose being treated by either of 2 Indian doctors, one called Patel and one called Khan, all other things being equal, I'd pick doctor Patel; it's a Hindu name. Khan, is a Muslim name.

It's by no means a perfect methodology, indeed it's a highly imperfect, even dodgy proxy indicator, but it would effectively control for the risk of being treated by someone whose religion's core tenets teaches them to despise the 'kuffar'. This is sad.

Other Comments by Nick Good

37. Comment #77660 by BaronOchs on October 10, 2007 at 3:22 am

V England certainly is overcrowded now as you can tell from the multitude of new housing estates going up everywhere. Although the majority of Britains asian population arrived to fill a deficit in the labour force after the World War II. The industries they came to work in have now to a great extent collapsed with negative social consequences.

Also when the Natinal Health Service started a significant number of doctors were recruited from India (mainly) to staff it. At the moment we have a shortage of doctors but some doctors at a more junior level are struggling to find posts! (don't ask how we have managed that!)

But in many cases immigrants have integrated well, and it's fair to say those that haven't have been muslims, and it's islam causing most of the difficulties now.

Other Comments by BaronOchs

38. Comment #77667 by logical on October 10, 2007 at 4:30 am

I will come to Great Britain, apply for a job at this Sain(t)sbury´s, and, being a stern atheist, refuse to handle christmas flitter and easter eggs.

Other Comments by logical

39. Comment #77668 by Philip1978 on October 10, 2007 at 4:38 am

Logical,
What about St Georges day beer? Surely you could let that one past? :)

Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

40. Comment #77669 by Matt7895 on October 10, 2007 at 4:45 am

"I once attended, as a silent observer, an appointment board for RAF aircrew. One question asked was: "Would you be prepared to kill someone under appropriate circumstances?" If the answer was "No", the interviewee would have been politely shown the door."

Heh heh, great quote. It shows the point clearly - either you want to do the job, or you don't. Muslim students bringing their religion into medicine are nothing more than time wasters.

Other Comments by Matt7895

41. Comment #77672 by Jestyr on October 10, 2007 at 5:09 am

This is fantastic. I'm a bar man. All I have to do is convert and I'm on easy street....

Other Comments by Jestyr

42. Comment #77687 by Vinelectric on October 10, 2007 at 7:07 am

Junklight

So what - we just turn a blind eye....

No, just suck up to the paranoia. Here's an excerpt from the story as it appeared on the Times:

The religious objections by students have been confirmed by the British Medical Association (BMA) and General Medical Council (GMC), which both stressed that they did not approve of such actions.

The regulating bodies are aware of these rarities and have issued the appropriate policy statements. You'd think the Telegraph would mention that or, better still, MOVE ON..!

But of course the cheap frauds can't get their hands of agitating public opinion with their nifty little piece on the angelic muslim doctor from long ago or whatever the writer was on about. Still don't know where I'm coming from? Just read the comments that followed. Nick started compiling an international list of muslim trained doctors-turned-terrorists (yeah, maybe it's not a limited phoenomenon afterall). Someone else started a full blown attack on muslims in general (nickthelight: Muslims are intolerant full stop.)

Aha, there you go, in a country troubled by muslim terrorism what can be better than fuelling up public tension?

Other Comments by Vinelectric

43. Comment #77691 by Jonathan Dore on October 10, 2007 at 7:24 am

The regulating bodies are aware of these rarities and have issued the appropriate policy statements.

Thanks for that, Vinelectric. Can you point us towards the appropriate statements please? I've googled but can't find any statements by either body specifically relating to this.

Other Comments by Jonathan Dore

44. Comment #77692 by Vinelectric on October 10, 2007 at 7:29 am

Maybe the Times are following in the Telegraph's line and making things up. Or maybe they learned of the GMC and BMA's positions by sheer intuition.

Keep Googling my friend.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

45. Comment #77693 by irate_atheist on October 10, 2007 at 7:34 am

Vinelectric -

Yeah - but one of them won the Gold Cup a few years back on a flying horse! Disgraceful behaviour!

Other Comments by irate_atheist

46. Comment #77694 by Philip1978 on October 10, 2007 at 7:35 am

Vinelectric,
I get the distinct impression you dont like the Telegraph? :)
I actually don't mind their level of reporting, the crossword is a bastard and I like Boris Johnson (Its not looking good for me is it!!)

I also get the impression that you think this might fuel up Muslim anger? (If I got that wrong, I apologise now) Sorry, I dont understand, are you worried about the public getting aggressive towards Muslims or the Muslims getting angry over reporting like this?

To be honest, I think the public is good enough not to really go over the top over this, I rather think its better to point out the ridiculous religious behaviour and keep racism at a minimum which the impression I get from this article, he is pointing out that difference.

Muslim fundamentalists are prone to anger, doesn't matter what it is, cartoons or Qu'ran flushings, they will always look for an excuse to go ballistic.

Can you explain a bit more about what you meant or did I get some of right in what I said above?( I am a bit slow today, not enough Tea!)

kind regards
Philip

Other Comments by Philip1978

47. Comment #77696 by Vinelectric on October 10, 2007 at 7:50 am

Jonathan Dore: look up paragraph 7 of the GMC's good medical practise. This was last updated in2006:

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/index.asp

Here's an excerpt:

You must treat your patients with respect whatever their life choices and beliefs. You must not unfairly discriminate against them by allowing your personal views* to affect adversely your professional relationship with them or the treatment you provide or arrange. You should challenge colleagues if their behaviour does not comply with this guidance.

Philip 1978: I was refferring to the public opinion against the overwhelming majority of decent law abiding muslims. The national front are growing strong round where I live. I've seen and heard with my own eyes patients threatening to kill and refuse treatment by foreigner/black/muslim doctors. That was before Glasgow and 7/7. It seems that the BNP and the terrorists are coming from the same direction. I don't think we should be complacent on either.

Other Comments by Vinelectric

48. Comment #77708 by tedsmith38 on October 10, 2007 at 8:44 am

This issue of individuals appealing to their religious beliefs in order to refuse treatment for themselves or others, etc. is a problem & needs to be dealt with.

I see that Quebec is debating changing the Quebec Charter of Rights to ensure that a human right - in this case the equality of men and women - supersedes any religious tenet such as wearing the veil or refusing to treat women if you are a male Muslim doctor.

I also note that a German soccer player is refusing to play in Israel for "political" reasons. This soccer player was raised in Germany from the age of 3, but his allegiance is to Iran, not Germany.

In Ontario, where I live, we are debating extending funding to faith-based schools. Such funding would supposedly ensure the faith school followed the approved curriculum, but they could still teach Creationism if they wished.

All of these examples lead me to agree wholeheartedly with Andrew O'Hagen. We need western politicians & opinion leaders to start standing up for 21st century values & for a quid pro quo with the Muslim world on the general question of allowing mosques and Muslim schools in the West. For every mosque/school in the west there has to be a Jewish or Christian church/synagogue/school in Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. No more one-way street.

Other Comments by tedsmith38

49. Comment #77713 by Veronique on October 10, 2007 at 9:06 am

36. Comment #77658 by Nick Good

We had a Dr Patel here in Queensland. He has skipped to the US where he's hiding out. He was responsible for something like 17 deaths in the hospital that had employed him. He's wanted back here in Oz for questioning. I know the point you are making, but be careful:-). You are right, the name can be an indicator but can be dodgy as a methodology.

We had a cousin of the Glasgow would-be bombers here (also in Queensland and working in a hospital). He was arrested, held for weeks and treated very shabbily by the Fed. Police and our Immigration Minister (a Mother Grundy and total arse) and was finally allowed to go back to Pakistan. Poor Haneef can't even get a job now. Guilt by association. It's the hysteria that goes with the fear of terrorism that is frightening. The reaction can also be over the top as it was here.

(BTW did you read those books, I posted on that other thread where we had a spat?)

37. Comment #77660 by BaronOchs

The same thing happened here after WWII and integration wasn't a problem with the European immigrants. It is now with some Muslims. We had a riot between Aussie dipstick redneck youth and Lebanese youths a couple of years back. It got nasty and out of control.

We also have a shortage of medicos and falling rates of medical student intakes into our Universities. We recruit doctors from other countries, but I am not sure that many Pakistani doctors will want to come here after the Haneef affair.

It looks like we are all suffering from the same types of things. And even though Oz is a big country the liveable areas are around the coastline. We are becoming overcrowded as well, so far as our natural resources and infrastructure are concerned.

10. Comment #77483 by tieInterceptor

I hadn't come across Pat Condel before. He's a very serious comedian. I clicked on several of his video clips. Thanks, I like what I saw:-).

……………….

I don't like where this shit is going at all. And I don't think it is going to get better anytime soon.
V

Other Comments by Veronique

50. Comment #77719 by Bonzai on October 10, 2007 at 9:28 am

tedsmith38,

In Ontario, where I live, we are debating extending funding to faith-based schools. Such funding would supposedly ensure the faith school followed the approved curriculum, but they could still teach Creationism if they wished.

Come now, the way you present it other readers may think we are living in the Bible belt. In fact quite the opposite, this is almost a non debate and the way events unfold show indeed how secular we have become as a province.

The proposal to extend funding to all faith schools is so unpopular with Ontarians that John Tory,--the leader of the Conservative party and the architect of the idea--has since back peddled from it, promising instead a free vote on the issue should he get elected. That means the plan to extend funding is as good as dead because even his own caucus does not support it.

All commentators agree that this is a major political blunder for Tory. He basically blew the election. Before this stunt he stood a fair chance of winning but now there are some indications that he may not even be able to win his own parliament seat, there is a good likelihood that he may even lose his job as the leader of the Conservative Party.It is a shame because John Tory is an otherwise sensible man, quite liberal and middle of the road.

Other Comments by Bonzai

Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last