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!
Inventor
#26 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 4:43 PM
Quote: Originally posted by normawilahmina
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.


I hear/see your stance on inclusion for these female doctors and your cry for a solution, however, if these doctors have made the decision to protect their arms from being seen by men over the health of their patients, I would think there is more going on here that should be considered. I did not read the link but it would seem that they should/would also have a problem working on male patients. In such a case they would have to request assignments to work on women only in an all women environment. I am clueless as to how their medical facilities are setup in Moslem’s community but it seems unreasonable to bring in religious stance if you are in an environment where the expectation is be all inclusive of those seeking health care.

I respect their aspirations to become doctors, I just don’t understand how one would make such a decision knowing that the environment is not [size=2]conducive [/size]to their religious commitments. Maybe a solution could be that they request from the Moslem’s community that they invest in institutions that meet their religious commitments. There have been a number of religious groups that did just that in a number of situations. The Jewish people have been very successful in this regards as they found themselves shutout of many things because of their religion/culture.
Advertisement
Lab Assistant
#27 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 5:10 PM
Quote: Originally posted by urisStar
[size=2]

I respect their aspirations to become doctors, I just don’t understand how one would make such a decision knowing that the environment is not conduces to their religious commitments. Maybe a solution could be that they request from the Moslem’s community that they invest in institutions that meet their religious commitments. There have been a number of religious groups that did just that in a number of situations. The Jewish people have been very successful in this regards as they found themselves shutout of many things because of their religion/culture.

[/size]


This is an interesting idea. It would at least provide patients with the choice of what kind of environment they are more comfortable in, and it would provide Muslim women with similar, if not the same professional opportunities as other people in the medical field.
#28 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 5:15 PM
Okay I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and get all controversial. I don't care.

I don't understand why we have to shift our ideas to accomodate their culture. If they (or their parents) made an educated, informed choice to emigrate to our country, then they should understand that they have to fit in with the regulations we already have here. If they can't cope with that, there's nothing stopping them from staying at home. Okay, I know most Muslims in the west are born here, but their parents should bring them up with western values. If they can't do the job as it is because of their beliefs, why should we make new laws and regulations up around them? I think it's just madness. If they're that desperate to practise medicine then they'll sacrifice whatever to do it! I know I will! So they should be made to do the same. There's no exceptions being made for me because I'm allergic to necessary vaccinations. So why should exceptions be made for them?

I don't think there is a compromise here. They should either do the job properly or find something else to do. And if they truly have the motivation and dedication required to be a good doctor, they'll stick with it whatever. If not, I'm sure the medical community won't see it as a significant loss.
Inventor
#29 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 5:42 PM
Quote: Originally posted by Haylifer
Okay I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here and get all controversial. I don't care.

I don't understand why we have to shift our ideas to accomodate their culture. If they (or their parents) made an educated, informed choice to emigrate to our country, then they should understand that they have to fit in with the regulations we already have here. If they can't cope with that, there's nothing stopping them from staying at home. Okay, I know most Muslims in the west are born here, but their parents should bring them up with western values. If they can't do the job as it is because of their beliefs, why should we make new laws and regulations up around them? I think it's just madness. If they're that desperate to practise medicine then they'll sacrifice whatever to do it! I know I will! So they should be made to do the same. There's no exceptions being made for me because I'm allergic to necessary vaccinations. So why should exceptions be made for them?

I don't think there is a compromise here. They should either do the job properly or find something else to do. And if they truly have the motivation and dedication required to be a good doctor, they'll stick with it whatever. If not, I'm sure the medical community won't see it as a significant loss.


I was not suggesting that the UK make adjustment for them, I am suggesting that they as a community make their own opportunities for their own people. They have a need, work on meeting it for themselves in a way that their religion/culture/people can aspire to those things that put them out of the main stream. As a people they can make the decision to compromise or make/create their own reality.
Lab Assistant
#30 Old 5th Feb 2008 at 6:29 PM
If you do not feel that the requirements of your chosen profession align with your religious/moral beliefs, do not pursue that profession. It's really quite simple. This is an issue of public health. If a Muslim woman's commitment to modesty interferes with her ability to safely work as a doctor, she should not be a doctor. If she finds away to obey the rule without being immodest, bully for her.
Field Researcher
#31 Old 6th Feb 2008 at 12:00 AM
Quote: Originally posted by normawilahmina
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.

But would you also want to dispense millions of dollars (or pounds in this case) just so women can wash up around the corner? I don't really see the point of that. :\

What I don't understand is what even got them into the Medical Field if they knew that cleanliness was a major issue at hand; that's somewhat defiant imo, knowing that you're going to HAVE to wash your hands (its basically every other thing that doctors do) but are unable to, but then still go into the profession and cry because you don't have another sink behind a wall, I find it kind of rude and disrespectful in a way because they actually think that it'll happen. ;(
Field Researcher
#32 Old 6th Feb 2008 at 12:37 AM
I do not think the rules should be bent for any one group of people, no matter what their reasons are for not wanting to follow protocol. It is very simple if one cannot conform to the rules of a profession than one should not choose said profession. It is ridiculous to suggest putting people's health and safety at risk because someone won't wash their hands properly, simply because they "don't believe in it".
Top Secret Researcher
#33 Old 6th Feb 2008 at 1:02 AM
Well, I am not nearly as familiar with Islam as with Christianity, and again not as familiar with that as with judiasm. So its quite possible that what I cite next only survived in judiasm... but you'd think the other monotheistic religions owuld ahve it. Anyway, a tenet of judiasim is that one should follow all of thsoe niggling 613 commandments SO LONG AS IT DOES NOT INTERFERE WITH HUMAN HEALTH. If you're starving you're allowed to eat pork. If you need to get to a hospital you're allowed to carry things on the sabbath. ANd so on and so forth. Now I don't know if that carries in the other major monotheistic religions, but I thought I would point it out. Pardon typos, I'm a bit out of it.

The humor of a story on the internet is in direct inverse proportion to how accurate the reporting is.
Test Subject
#34 Old 6th Feb 2008 at 8:42 AM
I pretty much agree with everyone else and don't understand how anyone would think otherwise.
#35 Old 8th Feb 2008 at 12:41 AM
I think its put a bit out of perspective, as always when there are Moslem's to "attack" in the media. I'm more concerned with the "deadly super bug" (!?) than with people disobeying hygiene-rules. Particularly Moslem people. The ones I know happens to be the most hygienic people in the world. That too, seems to be part of their religion in some places. Its rather trying/annoying to read about all the "problems" they're causing nowadays, I think its time to find another "hype" and put an end to the persecution, the way I see it. Jews and "niggers" didn't pay much attention to hygiene either, as the propaganda claimed once.

jooxis84: I love what you just said
#36 Old 8th Feb 2008 at 7:30 AM
Quote: Originally posted by Sinthe
If you do not feel that the requirements of your chosen profession align with your religious/moral beliefs, do not pursue that profession. It's really quite simple. This is an issue of public health.


Exactly. At the risk of causing a derail, this exactly like certain rabidly pro-life pharmacists who refuse to fill valid, legal prescriptions for RU-486 or even birth-control pills. You don't get to inflict your personal morals on others as a function of your job. And since being a doctor or pharmacist is not a fundamental right, but rather a priviledge, since they a licensed professions, you follow the hygiene rules or fill the prescription and that's that. If you're that morally conflicted just doing your job, seek other employment.
#37 Old 8th Feb 2008 at 11:32 PM
Quote: Originally posted by NVRaptor
Exactly. At the risk of causing a derail, this exactly like certain rabidly pro-life pharmacists who refuse to fill valid, legal prescriptions for RU-486 or even birth-control pills. You don't get to inflict your personal morals on others as a function of your job. And since being a doctor or pharmacist is not a fundamental right, but rather a priviledge, since they a licensed professions, you follow the hygiene rules or fill the prescription and that's that. If you're that morally conflicted just doing your job, seek other employment.

But then they wouldn't be in a position of power to influence others morals. And wouldn't that be horrible? [/sarcasm]
Theorist
#38 Old 9th Feb 2008 at 12:32 AM
NVRaptor, you need to do a little research...at least in the United States, RU-486 is never dispensed by a pharmacist to a patient. It must be dispensed by a physician, and then, only in the doctor's office. Pharmacies are not allowed to distribute RU-486. Any pharmacists that DO dispense RU-486 are opening themselves up for prosecution, as its illegal for a pharmacist to do so. In other words, if a person walks into ANY pharmacy, trying to get a prescription for Mifepristone (the real name of RU-486), the pharmacist is REQUIRED to refuse to fill it. Per the FDA, only doctors who are also willing to do a physical abortion should the chemicals fail, are allowed to distribute RU-486. Doctors are not required to perform abortions in order to be doctors, so of course there will be doctors that don't have to dispense RU-486 to patients. They are required to practice safe hygiene practices, from the local physician at the family clinic, the plastic surgeon, to the best heart specialist at the big city hospital. Safe hygiene practices are universal in hospitals everywhere in America, as they should be...

Perhaps you are simply referring to Plan B, the morning after pill, which is NOT the same thing as RU-486. However, if you actually are referring to RU-486, you made the whole example up, because a pharmacist could never legally fill a prescription for it to begin with.

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?
#39 Old 9th Feb 2008 at 5:47 AM
Ah yes, I was refering to Plan B.

Been a while since any overly-moral pharmacists have hit the news, and I got my pharmaceuticals mixed up. Sorry for the confusion.
Theorist
#40 Old 9th Feb 2008 at 12:26 PM
I kinda figured...those two drugs get mixed up all the time, and something about RU-486 and pharmacies just didn't seem right...

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?
 
Page 2 of 2
Back to top