Islamo-Docto-Phobia

Evidently it's some Islamic med students in Britain who have the phobia thing going on. They are refusing to treat STD's, diseases related to alcohol consumption and some are refusing to treat women at all. Given that such fundamentalists also oppose education for women, in their world-view it would seem women simply wouldn't have access to any health care.

What would Hillary say?

Comments

[Fred Belot]

Just one more outrage to add to the list. Vae victis.

[Sharon]

Why are they even allowed to train in Britain? It is like refusing to treat blacks or Jews or Sikhs? Would they allow this? I just don't understand how free,democratic countries can allow foreign immigrants the right to stay in these countries when they refuse to recognize the rule of law when it contradicts their religion. We don't allow polygamy,force kosher meals, make everyone eat fish on Friday etc to accomodate religious beliefs. If people feel that strongly about upholding religious traditions, let them send their children to parochial schools. Why are taxpayers being forced to pay for one religions taboos. Where does it end?

[Continuum]

If they want to be doctors they should be willing to accept the rules and treat everybody.

There should be no exceptions for religious beliefs.

Exactly the same way we demand that all pharmacists dispense birth control and the morning after pill. No exception for religious beliefs.

Oh, wait a second . . .

[Wahoo Willie Sez]

Why should they be forced to treat anyone for any reason?

[seekeronos]

Following typical "Left Wing Moonbat Logik", the decision tree for dealing with Islamist med students refusing to provide treatment might look like this:

(a) What is the racial or other protected group status of the doctor?

(b) What is the racial or other protected group status of the patient?

If (a) is white or Christian, and refuses to treat (b), then (a) is subject to all sorts of litigation and criminal penalties.

If (a) is a has a protected minority status, then he can refuse to treat (b) if he is either white or Christian.

It's a shame that there is such a deep and abiding racism-in-reverse that we allow against ourselves (the white majority). But when a minority wants to practice racism, we just wink at it and say "Oh, well. It's just their cultural right to refuse service to anyone not of their cultural identity.

Thing I believe is:

If we are going to be so persnickety about keeping those vile Christians from reading their bibles, or hanging up the Ten Commandments in a courtroom, or putting a creche display of the Baby Jesus in the town square during Christmas time (much less actually referring to that time period as "Christmas", but rather obliquely calling it the "Holidays", or having group or even silent prayers -- on general principles of that all of these things somehow violate the "Establishment Clause"... then, we should be equally persnickety about enforcing a state of clinical separation of religion and state so harsh that there is no accommodation or respite for the observance of any religious tradition whatsoever.

That could also be taken to an excessive and even oppressive level of state-sponsored atheism that would rival that of the Soviet Union under Uncle Joe Stalin.

Somehow, I don't think that this is the solution to the problem; but that we should all allow just a little give and take in the public sphere -- and especially the that part of the sphere that intersects with that of governance, e.g. schools, courtrooms, etc.

And that should also mean that if a Muslim doctor refuses to treat women, infidels, or alcoholics, that his license to practice medicine should be revoked; and if he is an immigrant, that act should also be cause to terminate his visa as well, if applicable under law.

[K]

The question doesn't really concern Doctors once they are in practice.

Physicians have always refused to take patients or perform procedures. They needn't be blunt, there is always a way to be too busy and refer someone elsewhere.

But they cannot endanger someone by deliberate inaction or from personal motives. The emergency room Doctor must act. The psychiatrist can nearly always duck and weave.

Doctor training is another matter. Students are being trained and observed to see if they can adequately understand perform generally accepted medical procedures. It they simply refuse, or insist on selecting or modifying, then they should not expect the medical profession to licence them as Doctors.

Under a NHS the Doctor may have less latitude. I'm not familar with that. It is probably like being at a veterans hospital; you work what comes in and you have a boss.

I have some sympathy for students with moral objections. But moral objections can conveniently be found to anything whatever.

[Dr. Ellen]

What would Hilary say?

"Bona-fide cultural attribute which must be respected."

That's what Hilary would say - at least if she were speaking at an institution of Higher Learning.

[seekeronos]

"--- What would Hilary say? ... ---"

Exactly, except if the young medical student in question was a white Christian male. Then she'd be calling it a "hate crime".

[jj]

First of all, continuum, pharmacists are not doctors, although I myself agree with the premise that you must sell or dispense what your pharmacy has available to the public. Again, if you have a problem with that, look for another job.

As for a doctor, if he or she refuses to treat a patient, then goodbye. Go back to your hellhole in the Third or Muslim World and practice witchdoctery. Don't take someone's place in a medical school who could be trained to be a real doctor.

The West had better wake up, or we will be in the same shape as the Third World.

[seekeronos]

This is just another move for Islamists to separate themselves into a separate community within the "Kufr" civilizations - so as to better undermine them for the day of overthrow.