Muslim Medical Students Getting Picky

[scribblet]

How far should a country or society go to accommodate religious beliefs, surely any students who refuse to comply with the medical standards should be booted out. Better still, why not ask students the pertinent questions before allowing them into the medical school. Better that seat go to someone who really wants to practice medicine and help ALL people.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/h...icle2603966.ece

From The Sunday Times October 7, 2007

Muslim medical students get picky

Some Muslim medical students are refusing to attend lectures or answer exam questions on alcohol-related or sexually transmitted diseases because they claim it offends their religious beliefs.

Some trainee doctors say learning to treat the diseases conflicts with their faith, which states that Muslims should not drink alcohol and rejects sexual promiscuity.

A small number of Muslim medical students have even refused to treat patients of the opposite sex. One male student was prepared to fail his final exams rather than carry out a basic examination of a female patient.

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. cont...

[maldon_road]

Next they will refuse to study history that "offends" them. And then they will insist English classes be taught in Arabic.

[Peter F]

One male student was prepared to fail his final exams rather than carry out a basic examination of a female patient.

My God! How dare he be prepared to fail!

There should be a law...

[ScottSA]

My God! How dare he be prepared to fail!

There should be a law...

Oh I think we all know the intent is not to fail, but to change the practice to accomodate Islam. It's happening all over Europe and North America every day. A little nibble here, a little nibble there, a surge here, a backstep there. And all the while a certain group of fools sit back in self-satisfaction making fun of the folks who can see what's coming. Such is the slippery slope, and within the context of multicult it can't be stopped. Both the official policies of multicult and the mindset of multicult have to be changed so that actions like this, across the board, are seen to be as truly ridiculous as they are.

It bothers me that so many people think that the west has no right to keep its culture, and is in fact beholden to change it to reflect the wants of every barbarian who comes along with a beef.

[betsy]

Anyone who refuses to comply to the requirements needed should be booted out of school.

Furthermore, anyone who has obvious leanings towards discrimination of anyone should not be allowed to enrol in and practice medicine.

We trust our doctors with our health and lives. There should not be any reason for that to change.

Edited October 8, 2007 by betsy

[Bonam]

Anyone who refuses to comply to the requirements needed should be booted out of school.

Furthermore, anyone who has obvious leanings towards discrimination of anyone should not be allowed to enrol in and practice medicine.

We trust our doctors with our health and lives. There should not be any reason for that to change.

Agreed. It really has nothing to do with them being Muslim either. It's very simple, if any particular individual, for whatever reason, can't handle all the steps that are necessary for one to go through to become a doctor, then they shouldn't become a doctor. Same can be said of any other profession, as well.

[Moxie]

Sadly they will leave England and get their MD status in some backwater Islamic Country and be hailed as heros for refusing the Western Ways. They are making a mockery of our democratic systems, they use them abuse them and then mock us and the left marches on to the beat of of a demented drumer. England will cave it always does regarding Radical Islamist, cowards and fools.

[Guest American Woman]

If they refuse to learn all that is necessary to get a degree in medicine in 'the west,' then they shouldn't get the degree.

[jennie]

I fail to see how qualifying to do something they will never do in practice makes any difference. Who wants to be treated by someone who doesn't want to be doing it?

I don't see this as a huge issue. Seems to me it is something that can be resolved and should be so it doesn't become another political football.

[scribblet]

Excuse me, it is an issue, they can't pick and choose what part they want to learn or practice. They can't or shouldn't be allowed to refuse to learn about or treat STDs etc. they shouldn't be able to take the Hippocratic oath then refuse to live up to it. They are not supposed to be picking and choosing whos lives they might save. Same goes for pharmacists of any religion, they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to dispense the morning after pill either.

One muslim chap failed to complete his training (and rightly) because he refused to examine a woman patient as part of his final exams. If that's the way they feel they can to Islamic countries and practice there, not here.

Edited October 9, 2007 by scriblett

[marcinmoka]

I fail to see how qualifying to do something they will never do in practice makes any difference.

So the student should set the agenda for the teacher?

Personally, I believe that this should be an integral part of the screening process prior to entry into med school. If someone wants to play the role of vigilante and politicize, if not wholly adulterate the art of medicine, all steps should be taken to prevent said person from being offered such an important position.

What next, refusal to treat someone of another faith?

[Melanie_]

Excuse me, it is an issue, they can't pick and choose what part they want to learn or practice. They can't or shouldn't be allowed to refuse to learn about or treat STDs etc. they shouldn't be able to take the Hippocratic oath then refuse to live up to it. They are not supposed to be picking and choosing whos lives they might save. Same goes for pharmacists of any religion, they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to dispense the morning after pill either.

One muslim chap failed to complete his training (and rightly) because he refused to examine a woman patient as part of his final exams. If that's the way they feel they can to Islamic countries and practice there, not here.

The curriculum is the curriculum - if someone doesn't pass, for whatever reason, they aren't entitled to the degree. Refusing to study something means that area of the curriculum can't be mastered, which means that person can't make the grade.

Its interesting that there was a long thread previously, debating whether or not doctors should be allowed to refuse the morning after pill. It seems that some people here think it is OK for Christian doctors to refuse a woman treatment because of their beliefs, but are up in arms about Muslim medical students making similar choices. For the record, I think any time someone puts their own irrational superstitions ahead of someone else's medical needs, they should lose the right to call themselves a doctor.

But what I find quite interesting in that article (if what the woman says is accurate), is the boldness of Dr Gish in frankly citing his religion as the reason. This is like waving the red flag to the bull.

I guess some doctors like Gish, are willing to make a provocative and aggressive stand on moral and religious ground. Good for them!

Edited October 9, 2007 by Melanie_

[capricorn]

What next, refusal to treat someone of another faith?

Sadly, it may come to that. With time, it will not be confined to the medical profession.

When it happens in other countries, it eventually makes its way here. Following is a case where a Muslim female police officer recruit refused to shake a high ranking British officer's hand because he is a man.

"He went out and shook the hand of every single new recruit apart from her. It was very obvious and very embarrassing.

"There was a great deal of discussion about it afterwards. People were asking how the hell is she going to make an arrest if she refuses to touch men."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

Political correctness and religious accommodation are incremental. When you chip away at the central structure long enough, it will eventually come down.

[scribblet]

The curriculum is the curriculum - if someone doesn't pass, for whatever reason, they aren't entitled to the degree. Refusing to study something means that area of the curriculum can't be mastered, which means that person can't make the grade.

You'll note that I have disagreed with health professionals opting out of dispensing the morning after pill etc.

As another poster has said, it is gradually chipping away at our customs and practices until accommodation is made for theirs, and we start to have a dual system. That is the intent of refusals etc.

fortunately up until now:

"The GMC said it had received requests for guidance over whether students could “omit parts of the medical curriculum and yet still be allowed to graduate”. Professor Peter Rubin, chairman of the GMC’s education committee, said: “Examples have included a refusal to see patients who are affected by diseases caused by alcohol or sexual activity, or a refusal to examine patients of a particular gender.”

He added that “prejudicing treatment on the grounds of patients’ gender or their responsibility for their condition would run counter to the most basic principles of ethical medical practice”. "

Wonder how long this will last.

[scribblet]

Further to this: http://www.musalman.com/islamnews/cair_med...ool_update.html

It appears to me that this U.S. school was trying to avert incidents such as those in the previous posts but CAIR of course is going to bat for them.

As for the police officer incident, I'll wager that eventually there'll be a problem, and an even bigger one if it involves a male muslim and female suspects. etc.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

MUSLIM MEDICAL SCHOOL APPLICANT ACCEPTED

AFTER BEING GRANTED SECOND INTERVIEW

First interview included inappropriate questions about Islam

(WASHINGTON, D.C., 7/26/99) - A Muslim applicant to State University of New

York (SUNY) Stony Brook School of Medicine has been given a letter of

acceptance after initially being turned down for admission.

The letter came following a second interview that resulted from the

intervention of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), a

Washington-based Islamic advocacy group. The Muslim applicant told CAIR that

the first interview included what she says were degrading and inappropriate

questions about her religious beliefs and about the role of women in Islam.

-snip-

CAIR publishes a booklet called "An Educator's Guide to Islamic Religious

Practices" that is designed to prevent just such incidents. There are an

estimated six million Muslims in this country and some 1.2 billion

worldwide. Islam is one of the fastest growing faiths in the United States.

[cybercoma]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/h...icle2603966.ece

From The Sunday Times October 7, 2007

Muslim medical students get picky

[The Muslim faith] states that Muslims should not drink alcohol and rejects sexual promiscuity.

What med school are these kids going to where they're required to get smashed and have sex with multiple partners to pass their courses!?

Oh wait... that's not what they're being asked to do at all. Guess they're just over-reacting (over-reaching?).

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/h...icle2603966.ece

Some trainee doctors say learning to treat the diseases conflicts with their faith.

BZzzzT! Wrong.

[kimmy]

My God! How dare he be prepared to fail!

Indeed. As long as the university is equally prepared to fail him, all is well.

There should be a law...

I don't know if there should be a law, but it's certainly to nobody's benefit that class space that could be used by a serious student is being wasted by people who enter an academic program who know ahead of time that they have no intention of doing the work required to complete the program.

I fail to see how qualifying to do something they will never do in practice makes any difference. Who wants to be treated by someone who doesn't want to be doing it?

I don't see this as a huge issue. Seems to me it is something that can be resolved and should be so it doesn't become another political football.

Why should it become a political football? Students who can't or won't complete the work required to complete the program do not earn their degree. It is as simple as that. It has always been that way, in any reputable university.

It only becomes a "political football" if they wish to make it one.

Is it discrimination? As it happens, there are a lot of Muslim doctors. There's lots of Muslim medical students. Islam doesn't prevent someone from completing the curriculum to earn a medical degree. The medical school curriculum does not discriminate against Muslims. The medical school curriculum discriminates against neanderthals. Muslims who are not neanderthals will not be prevented from obtaining a medical degree. Neanderthals, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, should probably consider a new field of work.

I would bet money, or even valuable Kimmy-points, that the people most troubled and upset by this story are *real* Muslim medical professionals. I expect that Muslim doctors who have earned their degrees by doing all of the required work will be furious to think that the actions of a couple of knuckleheads will cause patients to wonder at the credentials of any Muslim medical professional. I would expect that Muslim medical professionals will be most adamant against accommodating knuckleheads and thereby cheapening their degree and undermining their trust.

Why should someone who has not completed the program be allowed to call himself an MD? Should someone who doesn't finish Math and English be allowed to call himself a high-school graduate, provided he never intends to read a book or solve any numerical problems? It's stupid on the face of it. Unacceptible, Jennifer!

I object to the argument that they'll never be called upon to treat patients with problems of a sexual nature, or patients with substance abuse problems, or patients of the wrong gender. How about homosexual patients?

I question whether someone who picks and chooses which patients and which maladies he wishes to treat deserves to be called a doctor anyway.

I don't feel a medical professional should judge his patients and decide who deserves treatment and who does not deserve treatment. In fact I find it despicable.

-k

[Moxie]

Well articulated Kimmy, I concur one hundred perscent with your post. If you note it's always the females these dick wads don't want to touch, it's the year 2007 and some Muslim Doctors to be find us to offensive to touch or examine. How in gods name are they going to practice Medicine without discriminating against females and gays? They can't. Freedom of Religion should never be allowed to supercede the discrimination of people. EVER.

I salute you on this quote Kimmy. "I don't feel a medical professional should judge his patients and decide who deserves treatment and who does not deserve treatment. In fact I find it despicable." High five.

[BornAlbertan]

when you enter a profession to help all humanity...except these people...and these people....and these people...and them too...because their lifestyle does not jive with your belief structure, you lose all credibility and do not deserve to be given the opportunity.

In my eyes...can't be trusted. It is things like this which bring suspicion and dicrimination upon a group. Then again...perhaps that is the point.

Cause then afterall there can be calls of racism...

Edited October 19, 2007 by BornAlbertan

[guyser]

I am curious if this changes anything.

Abortion is not routinely taught in med schools and apparently it is not mandated to be taught , yet we know that it is a medical condition that needs to be addressed due to frequency of occurence.

Dr.s have a duty to help achieve mental and physical health , yet on sopmething so common it is not taught?

All doctors, muslim included, should be taught the same, no restrictions on religious grounds etc. But we can see that this is not the case when it comes to the schools.

I dont think one can get an abortion at St Mikes due to the religious nature of the hospital. So maybe we should say to the schools, teach the whole gamut, and then we can say to those who may want to pick and choose, sure go ahead, but you will not graduate.

[jefferiah]

I dont think one can get an abortion at St Mikes due to the religious nature of the hospital.

And does this generally violate the life saving credo we call the Hypocratic Oath?

Isn't it actually following that creed with greater strictness?

Edited October 19, 2007 by jefferiah

[guyser]

And does this generally violate the life saving credo we call the Hypocratic Oath?

Isn't it actually following that creed with greater strictness?

Good point, but abortions are legal. I am not aware of any legal out, but realize that not all hospitals can do everything.

As for the HO then what is an abortion doctor doing, commiting a crime?

[sharkman]

Muslim students that want footbaths. Muslim taxi drivers that don't want to pick up certain fares. Muslim students that want to become doctors who treat some patients only. As Scott said, little by little our culture is being removed in the name of tolerance.

[betsy]

Muslim students that want footbaths. Muslim taxi drivers that don't want to pick up certain fares. Muslim students that want to become doctors who treat some patients only. As Scott said, little by little our culture is being removed in the name of tolerance.

And the bleeding hearts refuse to see the folly in catering to all these accomodations: the backlash!

The irony of it, instead of achieving tolerance and harmony, the seeming do-gooders are only pushing us all towards the opposite direction.

Quebec PQ is now trying to pass a legislation that seemed to have two classes of citizenship.

And this is in response to the growing concern of reasonable accomodation.

Edited October 20, 2007 by betsy

[Guest American Woman]

I fail to see how qualifying to do something they will never do in practice makes any difference. Who wants to be treated by someone who doesn't want to be doing it?

I don't see this as a huge issue. Seems to me it is something that can be resolved and should be so it doesn't become another political football.

It makes a difference because a degree indicates that the required classes have been completed and passed. If one doesn't want to follow the curriculum required of a university, then one need not attend that university.

So the 'who wants to be treated by someone who doesn't want to be doing it' is a whole different issue. What reputable university wants to give a degree to someone who refuses to follow their curriculum? Why should they? What would that do to their reputation?

It is something that can be resolved, however, as easily as refusing to graduate those who have not completed the whole program in its entirety.

Edited October 20, 2007 by American Woman