Hi there! You are currently browsing as a guest. Why not create an account? Then you get less ads, can thank creators, post feedback, keep a list of your favourites, and more!
Forum Resident
Original Poster
#1 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 6:42 AM
Default 'disobey hygiene rules'
Quote:
Muslim medical students are refusing to obey hygiene rules brought in to stop the spread of deadly superbugs, because they say it is against their religion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...3/nislam403.xml

This is one of the latest problems coming about in the UK regarding trying to be PC in all regards. One that is threatening the health of others under their care. So that leave me to ask. Should patients be more willing to allow the medical practitioners religious practices to come before their well being, or should the medical practitioners set aside their religious beliefs and think of the safety and well being of those under their care first?

Erasing One Big Astounding Mistake All-around
Advertisement
Inventor
#2 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 7:03 AM
This is taking political correctness far too far. The well-being of the patient MUST come first- if a given medical practitioner feels that their religious or cultural beliefs do not permit adequate preparation for a medical procedure then quite frankly they ought not be performing that procedure.

Infections occur even when aseptic procedures are followed to the letter. If practioners aren't scrubbing correctly or wearing appropriate clothing, I can see that rate greatly increasing. You're not just talking inconvenience and prolonged recovery for the patient, you're talking potentially life-threatening infection. I'm a vet rather than a human practitioner, and I scrub to the elbow for any surgical procedure, so I'd certainly expect human medicos to do the same.

I've had to have multiple surgeries (and in fact was meant to have another today)...all I can say is, if someone told me that I had to compromise the sterility of my surgery for whatever reason, they'd learn very quickly where they could stuff it. I'd never have anyone near me if I suspected that they wouldn't be preparing themselves adequately. No patient should have their health placed at risk, regardless of religious or cultural objections to procedure on the part of the staff treating them.

Even elbow-length sterile gloves, as mentioned in the article, would potentially be compromising a patient's health if the wearer wasn't scrubbing their hands and arms prior to gloving.

NO exceptions- hygiene protocols are there for a bloody good reason and need to be followed by EVERYONE.

Please call me Laura
"The gene pool needs more chlorine."
My Site
Mad Poster
#3 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 7:30 AM
No, I do not believe that anyone who cannot obey required, true and tested hygiene procedures should be allowed to practice medicine. If an individual places his or her so-called religious beliefs before the safety of the patient (and others in the operating room as well), that individual should not be allowed into the profession. Despite the negative publicity regarding the medical profession so often, being a physician is one of the highest callings a human can aspire to. Indeed the Hippocratic Oath requires that a physician "first do no harm." That rule must be paramount. If a person's religion does not allow them to follow these procedures, then they should become politicians or accountants or something which will not impinge on their religious beliefs.
Mad Poster
#4 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 8:40 AM
That's crazy! Wonder how they survive a visit to the hospital in the muslim countries...
Field Researcher
#5 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 11:52 AM
As a doctor, you swear an oath to protect your patients and their health - by not following the the most basic and standard procedures you are compromising your patients health and safety. If you can't follow procedures, you shouldn't be a doctor, end of.
world renowned whogivesafuckologist
retired moderator
#6 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 1:06 PM
Reminds me a bit of the girl who wouldn't take off her headscarf to be a hairdresser - only a more serious version. If your religion interferes with the basic standards of your chosen profession then you either have to compromise with your religion and just roll up your dang sleeves, or choose a different profession. It's not as if needing to wash your hands should come as a real big shock - don't choose to become a doctor if you're not willing to do that.

my simblr (sometimes nsfw)

“Dude, suckin’ at something is the first step to being sorta good at something.”
Panquecas, panquecas e mais panquecas.
#7 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 2:12 PM
That's utterly ridiculous. A doctor has to roll up their sleeves. So why should it be any different for them? That's just a cry too far, I think.
#8 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 4:58 PM
Quote: Originally posted by HystericalParoxysm
Reminds me a bit of the girl who wouldn't take off her headscarf to be a hairdresser - only a more serious version. If your religion interferes with the basic standards of your chosen profession then you either have to compromise with your religion and just roll up your dang sleeves, or choose a different profession. It's not as if needing to wash your hands should come as a real big shock - don't choose to become a doctor if you're not willing to do that.


I completely agree.

As a trainee teacher I come across issues like this all time, being worried to do a lot of things in schools in case I "offend" other religions.
Rolling up sleeves and scrubbing up to be more hygienic if you are a doctor is not a crime against your religion, it's common sense! And common sense is something I think should prevail much more often in cases of Britain trying to be more "politically correct".
Theorist
#9 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 5:01 PM
If the religious practice doesn't harm anyone else (such as the praying on the carpet towards Mecca) then by all means, Muslims should practice what they can at their workplace, provided it does not interfere with their work habits, or put others in a compromised position. But, in this case, their religious customs definitely interferes with their work habits, clearly puts others in a compromised health position. If they can't follow proper medical procedures, they have no business training to become doctors or nurses. The hospital's position on the matter should be something akin to "my way, or the highway".

I would never voluntarily seek treatment at any hospital that allowed its doctors to ignore established safety and health procedures. If something went wrong, and I was treated by one of these female Muslim doctors, the hospital could potentially have a huge malpractice suit on its hands. Any prosecuting attorney would be easily able to argue that the women are guilty of gross negligence by endangering their patients that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Theorist
#10 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 8:56 PM
I gathered that the main issue wasn't so much the washing itself, but that they would have to expose their arms to do it, which was "immodest". Because they won't bare their arms, they won't wash their hands...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Lab Assistant
#11 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 10:45 PM
I agree that the health and safety of the patient should come first, but I also think that it's awfully closed minded of us to sit here and say that these women shouldn't be doctors, rather than saying, "I wonder if someone can devise a way to allow these women the privacy they need to maintain the standards of hygiene required for their jobs." I mean, before we tell all women who adhere to a strict code of modest dress that they can't be medical professionals, we should probably think about finding some way for them to be able to perform their duties without endangering themselves or their patients.

To me, it seems incredibly anti-feminist and anti-Muslim to tell this group of women and girls aspiring to medical careers that they should just do something else because no one will put forth the time, energy, and money to try to find a way to allow them to scrub up without a male audience.
Field Researcher
#12 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 10:54 PM
Quote: Originally posted by normawilahmina
To me, it seems incredibly anti-feminist and anti-Muslim to tell this group of women and girls aspiring to medical careers that they should just do something else because no one will put forth the time, energy, and money to try to find a way to allow them to scrub up without a male audience.


I'm not anti anything; I am very opened minded about the world, but not when it comes to the health of anyone. Would you want someone operating on you that hadn't followed hygiene procedures? It's due to poor hygiene procedures that so many people in UK hospitals are being infected with and dying from MRSA. So, no matter what gender, religion, race, sexuality the doctor/nurse is, I would expect they would follow the Oath they swore to when they started training to become a doctor/nurse and when they took on the decision to save people's lives not endanger them.
Field Researcher
#13 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 11:01 PM
It's not anti-anything. I don't mind a woman who dresses modestly operating on me. I don't mind a Muslim operating on me. They've gone to med school and done the work, they can handle it. Where people are upset is there is a safetly procedure. To ensure that the health of the pacient is given the best chance possible, doctors must wash there hands well.

My father died from "complications due to cancer". What that translates to is that, despite the best efforts of the surgeons, my father got an infection when they were removing a tumor that had formed around his spine. He never recovered. Now, if someone was to tell me that the doctor preforming that operation (man, woman, Jew, Christian, Muslim, gay, straight, ect.) didn't wash his/her hands because it went "against their beliefes" I'd be pretty f*cking pissed off and rightly justified. And their isn't a judge on this planet who would have sided with doctor who was at fault.

This isn't about being anti- anything. This is about living breathing person who has family, friends, and people who care about him or her and need their continued survival. If there isn't a simple build another sink room, these people need to shape up or ship out. And I am the guy preaching about being tolorant of all faiths. Sorry, but this isn't about tolorance, this is about lives.
Inventor
#14 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 11:05 PM
That's ridiculous. I respect that it goes against their religion, but the health and safety of their patients should come first. However, it seems to me that this could easily be fixed by making a private area for female doctors to wash up, therefore alleviating the problem of men seeing their arms.
Theorist
#15 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 11:42 PM
Doctors are creatures of routine. They do things the same way, every time. Why? Because it prevents them from making stupid little mistakes. The procedure regarding the handwashing is completely ingrained in their minds...now in order to cater to a group of muslim women, who knew ahead of time that doctors are very self-conscious about their handwashing, knew ahead of time that they would be expected to do the same, we have to tell a group of doctors that they have to be inclusive now? BULL. Everyone knows doctors wash their hands, we see it in every hospital TV show that has ever aired, whether its ER, Grey's Anatomy, House, St. Elsewhere or Doctor Who...(ok, just kidding about that last one). Even as someone who has never even contemplated going to medical school, I knew that. Lets be real, you knew that too. Only someone who has deliberately avoided learning anything at all about medicine could get away with claiming ignorance of knowing that doctors wash their hands. A lot. It is called scrubbing in, after all. Those people shouldn't be going to med school, shouldn't be trying to become doctors themselves. You either do things the hospital's way, or you don't do them at all. It has nothing to do with their religion, bacteria that is being carried around on their hands and clothing could care less what religion they are...what the bacteria does care about is whether those hands are scrubbed with anti-bacterial soap consistently or not. This is about safety of patients, and the safety of patients only. If they cannot follow the same procedures as everyone else to maximize the sterile nature of the OR, they should in no way ever become a doctor.

Also, doctors of both sexes frequently have to change in and out of their clothes in mixed company. How do these women expect to manage the locker rooms the doctors have in hospitals? They aren't separated by sex. I also wonder, if modesty is their chief concern, how will they handle the possibility that they would have to operate on another Muslim woman? Wouldn't that require them to deliberately expose those women to male doctors? Hypothetically, lets say there is some breast cancer, and the woman needs to have a mastectomy, but there are some complications. Lets say that the woman is a Muslim, and the very best surgeon, who is on duty at the time, is a male. Would these Muslim women doctors prevent the best doctor at the hospital from operating on her, because they are too busy trying to protect the woman's modesty? Perhaps in a different situation, a male intern or orderly or someone is required to shave the Muslim woman genital area, to prep for an appendectomy or something. Would those Muslim female doctors refuse to work on that woman, because her modesty was violated?

HOSPITALS HAVE NO ROOM FOR MODESTY, REGARDLESS OF RELIGION.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Obama on ABC's This Week, discussing Obamacare
What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore
umm...Isn't having other people carry your medical burden exactly what national health care is?
Inventor
#16 Old 4th Feb 2008 at 11:46 PM
Although a women-only scrub area may help to solve some of these problems, I don't know a/ how practical this would be given the space constraints already occuring in many hospitals, and b/ I don't think this would alleviate the problem completely in any case. A surgeon still has to scrub in one area and move to another in order for them to gown and glove. Theatre, prep and recovery staff have a 'uniform' of scrubs- trousers and short-sleeved top. Long sleeves would create a problem- they are easily contaminated, and unlike hands or forearms, cannot be easily cleaned as the person moves from patient to patient. The same goes with minor procedures (e.g. performed in a gp's consulting room or on a ward) that do not require gowning and probably don't have facilities for the full-on aseptic preparation that occurs in surgery. Bare forearms (with sterile gloves over the hands and lower forearm) are easily controlled so that they don't contact the prepped area on the patient. Long sleeves, even if they are quite close-fitting cannot. As I said in my earlier post, hygiene protocols exist for a reason.

Interestingly, this arrived in my inbox last night. I think this should be accessible for everyone- can somebody give me the heads up if it's not?

Please call me Laura
"The gene pool needs more chlorine."
My Site
Lab Assistant
#17 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 12:05 AM
I'm not saying that any health care professionals should be working on patients without properly washing up. I am saying that someone should be working on a way to allow these Muslim women the same professional opportunities as everyone else. I find it morally reprehensible to exclude someone from a profession because of religious codes.

Do I think that everyone should just shrug their shoulders and let these women practice medicine without adhering to the strict hygienic guidelines that everyone knows doctors must practice? No.

I am not accusing anyone here of being specifically "anti" anything. I am saying that Western society is notorious for excluding "others". Somebody should be working on a way to make it feasible for these women to be doctors.

The rules should not be bent for these women. I am not saying that any patients should be treated by a doctor who refuses to follow protocol. One more time, I am all for protecting the health and safety of patients.
#18 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 12:15 AM
I see what you mean normawilahmina, but hospitals are hospitals. They are (or should be) places of strict regulation and rule abiding. The rules are you roll up your sleeves. That's the rules. I really don't think this rule was created to be fair for everybody, or to include all people from differents walks in life. It was made for hygeinic reasons obviously and I think that's how it should stay. Like Davious said, these women must have known that it was mandatory for all doctors to scrub in properly. Using their religion as an excuse to bend the rules in this case, is pretty uncalled for. Unfortunately for them it will just have to be a different career. If they do bend the rules for these women however, I will be disappointed. Disappointed severely because we have let political correctness go to extremes. And this will become a prime example.
#19 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 12:23 AM
Jesus.. So these medical students would rather put someones life at risk than use a bitta water and alcohol hand rub?

Don't get me wrong, I believe in equal opportunities. But when I'm being put to the back of the queue for my place at medical school behind socially inept idiots who don't seem to grasp that their 'morals' could seriously kill hundreds of people, that's wrong. They should know what the job entails and be willing to make sacrifices for it.

Christs sake, in a few months I'm having vaccinations that could kill me because I want to get into medical school so bad. I'm making a huge sacrifice - I'm freaking allergic to vaccines but I'd rather take the risk than put my patients at risk. So I rather resent these people, yes. If morals or religious ethics get in the way of being able to do a job properly, then exceptions should not be made.
Lab Assistant
#20 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 12:54 AM
See, I don't buy the "hospitals do it this way, and it can never change argument". Not too long ago, doctors smoked while treating patients. Now they don't. There was a time when women weren't allowed to be doctors. Now they are. I know that the problem at hand is not something that will change over night, and I know that it's a difficult problem to solve, but I'd rather read about people trying to come up with solutions for this problem than hearing a bunch of people say that Muslim women who must keep their arms covered can never be doctors.

No one knows what the solution is, and I realize that it means excluding these women for now, but I don't think it has to mean that all women who must keep their arms covered can never practice medicine in the future.

I sincerely hope that no one bends the rules for these women, as that would put patients' safety in danger. I just think that there must be a way to protect both the safety of the patients and the doctors' ability to practice their religion.

If there are enough Muslim women who want to be doctors that this is becoming an issue, maybe someone should start producing opera length, opaque, sterile, disposable gloves.

Also, religious concerns prevent medical professionals here in the U.S. from performing necessary procedures, providing referrals, and prescribing medications all the time. It's stupid and wrong, but it happens.
Test Subject
#21 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 4:14 AM
Quote: Originally posted by HystericalParoxysm
Reminds me a bit of the girl who wouldn't take off her headscarf to be a hairdresser - only a more serious version. If your religion interferes with the basic standards of your chosen profession then you either have to compromise with your religion and just roll up your dang sleeves, or choose a different profession. It's not as if needing to wash your hands should come as a real big shock - don't choose to become a doctor if you're not willing to do that.

Thats the most simple solution and I don't see whats so hard about it. Why do something thats contradicting your morals? Is it the money? The need for a Job? I don't understand.
#22 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 8:21 AM
As I recall, the first part of the Hippocratic Oath, which all doctors take, is "first do no harm". Seems to me if you can't be down with that little bit of wisdom, you've made a serious vocational error somewhere along the line. No one has the right to be a doctor, it's something that can be given or taken away at the behest of the appropriate licensing agencies. Be competent and follow the rules: great. Be a screw-up or think you're somehow above the rules; I've got a phrase for you to memorize in your next job--"You want fries with that?".
#23 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 8:32 AM
Religion has a terrible tendency to get in the way of things like... oh, I don't know, peoples lives? Countless people have been murdered in the name of religion, so why are we surprised that the ignorance perpetuated by Christianity, Islaam, and other organized religions is being spread into medical practice.

If I remember correctly, these are the same type of folks who insisted the world was flat and Van Leeuwenhoek's discovery of the cell was an abomination.

The way I see it, you should either be a professional and competent medical practitioner, or you should practice your little backwards, screwed up religion that prioritizes archaic rules and the need to flatter some incredibly cruel and jealous god over the sanctity of human lives. You can't have it both ways.
Top Secret Researcher
#24 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 11:27 AM
Quote: Originally posted by normawilahmina
See, I don't buy the "hospitals do it this way, and it can never change argument". Not too long ago, doctors smoked while treating patients. Now they don't. There was a time when women weren't allowed to be doctors. Now they are.


In the first case, the change happened discoveries about passive smoking and how it affected the health of the patients, so the rules was changed in preference to the health of the patient. So basically, this is actually supporting the rule of no exceptions, as this is all done with the patient and their life in mind, not the doctor's personal wishes.

And as for the second, that's a result of social change, not change in hygiene.

I would like to clear up the little matter of my sanity as it has come into question. I am not in any way, shape, or form, sane. Insane? Hell yes!

People keep calling me 'evil.' I must be doing something right.

SilentPsycho - The Official MTS2 Psycho
Lab Assistant
#25 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 3:42 PM
I agree with everyone here that the health and safety of the patients comes first. I also agree that, for the time being, anyone who is unable to follow the hygiene rules, for whatever reason, should not be a doctor.

I am simply saying that instead of "Muslim women can never be doctors", I would like to hear "what can we do to accommodate their religious practices, while protecting the safety of the patients?" Because obviously, the patients come first. It just seems to me that it is morally wrong to exclude an entire group of people from an occupation based on religion and gender, without so much as an attempt to accommodate them.

I can see that my stance of attempted inclusion is unpopular here, but I don't understand why. I am not suggesting that patients be put in danger. I am not suggesting a change in hygiene so much as a change in the way the same or better level of cleanliness would be obtained.
 
Page 1 of 2
Back to top