This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.

← Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules'

Female Muslim medics 'disobey hygiene rules' - Comments

epeeist's Avatar Comment 1 by epeeist

Dr. Katme is correct of course. Exposed arms can pick up germs, which is why you wash them. And of course, fabrics will pick up exactly the same germs, how do you guarantee they remain sterile?

Plus that the vision of women with transparent latex gloves up to the elbow is obviously going to lead to lust in any man who sees them.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:40:00 UTC | #115416

padster1976's Avatar Comment 2 by padster1976

Sorry, but they can piss off.

Hygiene is more important than their faith.

What happens if a death can be traced to a muslim women not washing her hands because of her religion?

Will the death be ok because otherwise it would offend her faith?

There must be a line drawn somewhere! Soon this place (UK) will offer more rights based on faith than reality!

PS - Does anybody want to take a morality test. V interesting at the Cognitive Evolution Lab at Harvard.

Check it out...

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:47:00 UTC | #115419

IceFreak2000's Avatar Comment 3 by IceFreak2000

I can't quite believe that I'm reading this; Medical students are objecting to rolling their sleeves up?

Sack them. Simple as that, and let them try to bring a coherent argument to the House of Lords as to why they've been unfairly dismissed.

This lunacy needs to stop now.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:02:00 UTC | #115427

troyreynolds86's Avatar Comment 4 by troyreynolds86

The purpose of any hospital is to provide a patient with the best available care. If you cannot check your beliefs at the door and provide that care, do not pass through those doors yourself. This is so much worse than Christian doctors refusing referrals based on beliefs. This could actually kill someone. And if their god has a problem with them stepping out of orthodoxy in order to help other people so much so that these women would experience Hell for their impunity then I would personally rather go to Hell having done the right thing as opposed to Heaven for the wrong. And religion thinks they hold a patent on morality.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:03:00 UTC | #115428

acidhouser's Avatar Comment 5 by acidhouser

"Dr Charles Tannock, a Conservative MEP and former hospital consultant, said: "These students are being trained using taxpayers' money and they have a duty of care to their patients not to put their health at risk.
"Perhaps these women should not be choosing medicine as a career if they feel unable to abide by the guidelines that everyone else has to follow."

I think this statement says everything that needs to be said about this matter. Succinct and to the point.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:04:00 UTC | #115433

82abhilash's Avatar Comment 6 by 82abhilash

I think they are trying to disrupt or destroy the British Public Institutions. That would be a very Islamic thing to do.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:12:00 UTC | #115437

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 7 by Agrajag

Dr Majid Katme, the association spokesman, said: "Exposed arms can pick up germs and there is a lot of evidence to suggest skin is safer to the patient if covered. One idea might be to produce long, sterile, disposable gloves which go up to the elbows."

I've seen these gloves: girls wear them to Prom. ;-)

Seriously: this may be the litmus test for tolerance to religion. I concur with the general consensus above: comply with safe practice or choose another profession. I would have been sacked from my residency instantly if I had tried to pull a stunt like this.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:21:00 UTC | #115442

epeeist's Avatar Comment 8 by epeeist

And of course it is a first step. Accept this opt out and where do we go next? Muslim doctors refusing to treat women who are menstruating? We have already had a dentist refusing to treat women who didn't cover their hair ( How about treating patients for alcoholism or dispensing contraception?

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:24:00 UTC | #115443

Dr. Strangegod's Avatar Comment 9 by Dr. Strangegod

So let me get this straight: Muslim women are objecting to handwashing on the basis of their own brainwashing? Hundreds of years ago some men decided that the best way to control their lust was to make women cover every inch of their body, and now these women themselves refuse to show a bit of skin in the interests of not accidentally killing people? Huh.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:25:00 UTC | #115445

agn's Avatar Comment 10 by agn

The moment they even uttered an objected a reluctance to perform a medically required action on basis of their "faith", they should be be thrown out of medical studies, with a report to all education institutions sent warning of the complete unsuitability of the person in the health services.

Religionists CAN be allowed to practice within health services, as long as their delusions do not interfere in their work. If it does, they are to be barred from practicing any form of medicine.

(Similar restrictions should, of course, hold for police officers, judges, military personell etc.)

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:26:00 UTC | #115446

Epinephrine's Avatar Comment 11 by Epinephrine

Completely absurd. If you cn't do the job by the rules, don't do the job. This is as dumb as making less strict physical restrictions for female firefighters; if they can't lift me, they have no business being on the force.

The requirements in both cases involve being able to save lives - while it's unfortunate, setting the bar lower for female firefighters could cost lives, just as spreading infections could in this case.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:30:00 UTC | #115448

vertigo25's Avatar Comment 12 by vertigo25

Isn't the Daily Telegraph basically a conservative tabloid that is pretty famous for innaccurate, nationalist, and racist wiritng?

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:31:00 UTC | #115450

agn's Avatar Comment 13 by agn


So, according to you, this story is FALSE?

Or is it nationalist and racist to say that Muslim medical students should follow the same rules of hygiene as every one else?

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:33:00 UTC | #115451

RickM's Avatar Comment 15 by RickM

I'm speechless. Not really, but I just won't say what I think. This is insane!

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:38:00 UTC | #115454

Skep's Avatar Comment 14 by Skep

...and this is all because they think it is "immodest" to uncover their elbows???

Already, doctors have been asked not to wear ties to reduce infection, as ties tend not to be washed on a daily basis. These measures are needed for patient safety and they are not a special burden on any religious group.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:38:00 UTC | #115453

IanRobinson's Avatar Comment 16 by IanRobinson

Quote - Isn't the Daily Telegraph basically a conservative tabloid that is pretty famous for innaccurate, nationalist, and racist wiritng?
End Quote

Nope. You are probably thinking of the Daily Mail.


Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:39:00 UTC | #115455

Agrajag's Avatar Comment 18 by Agrajag

10. Comment #121413 by epeeist on February 3, 2008 at 11:24 am

We have already had a dentist refusing to treat women who didn't cover their hair (

Dentists generally try not to criticize other dentists. Exception, please: Dr. Butt (nice name, too; good thing he went into dentistry, not proctology!) is a complete fucktard. "Unworthy Smile Clinic", indeed!

As for this (from the cited article):
John Snell, for the General Dental Council, told the committee that the patient was told by one dental nurse that inside the surgery was 'Dr Butt's world' and that his rules applied.
... if the GDC agrees with the dental nurse (we call 'em "assistants" on this side of the pond), then there's something rotten in your healthcare system.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:40:00 UTC | #115457

Epinephrine's Avatar Comment 17 by Epinephrine

To be fair, I have no issue with them training for non-clinical roles - if they won't take those precautions, they can man telehealth lines, serve as advisors in regulatory/policy positions and so on, but it should be clear that they can't do clinical duties without obeying the rules. There are many roles for doctors outside of seeing patients, including epidemiology, research, policy, compliance/enforcement in regulatory agencies, telephone health (poison control, pharmacological, general health), medical engineering...

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:40:00 UTC | #115456

the way's Avatar Comment 19 by the way

To be fair to Vertigo25...he may have got mixed up with another "Daily" Bile....I had to double check the source myself...maybe it will all come out in the wash!!

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:44:00 UTC | #115459

nogodsever's Avatar Comment 20 by nogodsever

How about a compromise. Let them do what they want with sanitation, but they can only work on other Muslims. That will kill two birds with one stone. Hopefully.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 11:52:00 UTC | #115462

ianmkz's Avatar Comment 21 by ianmkz

How about a compromise. Let them do what they want with sanitation, but they can only work on other Muslims.

Sounds right to me, as long as Muslim taxpayers are funding this Sharia Healthcare.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:00:00 UTC | #115464

Szymanowski's Avatar Comment 22 by Szymanowski

I'm a bit puzzled as to how The Telegraph has an apparent quotation in its headline: 'disobey hygiene rules', though it doesn't attribute this to anyone else in the article. 'Disobey' doesn't characterise correctly what the actual conflict was - the actual problem was 'objections' and 'difficulty in complying' - the headline smacks of old-fashioned media sensationalism to me.

What would be wrong with, say, sterilised long gloves which the doctors in question must pay for themselves? (i.e. either roll up your sleeves or buy gloves)

How would that solution be worse than letting young doctors quit?

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:03:00 UTC | #115467

agn's Avatar Comment 23 by agn

"How about a compromise. Let them do what they want with sanitation, but they can only work on other Muslims. That will kill two birds with one stone. Hopefully.

What has a tiny 5-year old boy done to deserve to be treated by doctor wallowing in his own sh*t and bacteria, just because the boy was unfortunate enough to be born to Muslim parents?

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:04:00 UTC | #115469

Serdan's Avatar Comment 24 by Serdan

We've had similar cases in Denmark. An interesting case I found was that of Nalen Yasin, who made her own custom uniform which lived up regulations as well as her own needs. Yasin also mentioned that "according to Islam I can put aside the rules of modest clothing if I'm treating a sick person."

There's always a solution if all involved actually wants one.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:06:00 UTC | #115470

tieInterceptor's Avatar Comment 25 by tieInterceptor

another example of why religion should be a private matter for consenting adults and at home only.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:07:00 UTC | #115471

hao's Avatar Comment 26 by hao

These people are basically demanding to be allowed to KILL PEOPLE because they they are too damn brain-dead to roll up their sleaves??!! This is sheer lunacy!!! These people need to be laughed out of any serious profession, public or otherwise.

I think the politicians are getting it wrong when they focus on the 'tax-payer money' bit. This would be MURDER, plain and simple. This business of gloves is just nonsense. If they want to open up a private hospital where all the women wear veils and people are refused treatment for alcohol-related diseases or STDs, then any muslims stupid enough to go there for such sub-standard and plain dangerous treatment are welcome to, but this would also involve their own medical, nursing, and everything else schools (segregation?), because any self-respecting educational establishment should expel them outright, it's as simple as that.

I go to the University of Leicester and they are certainly going to be hearing my views on this!!! See if this will get any reaction from so-called 'moderate' muslims, though I've never heard anything from them in other cases. I expect they are but figments of someone's imagination.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:08:00 UTC | #115472

the_assayer's Avatar Comment 27 by the_assayer

"No practising Muslim woman - doctor, medical student, nurse or patient - should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow,"

I like it how this sounds like they are on the women's side, fighting against an oppressive force. And also note that even a patient is not to bare her arms if she is a practising muslim.


Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:09:00 UTC | #115473

Vinelectric's Avatar Comment 29 by Vinelectric

One of the consultants I worked for refused to wear a plastic apron (standard Intensive care barrier nursing) because it made him look as if he was doing the dishes. Instead of reporting it to the papers the staff report such matters to the managers who discipline eccentric staff.

The NHS employs thousands and you're bound to bump into the loony-type every now and then but things should be dealt with internally as such sensational stories betray the vast majority who work hard to provide best patient care they can provide. I've come across all sorts of religious fundies including Muslims but I've never heard of this before as anyone who disobeys the strict nursing codes of meticuolous scrubbing is simply barred from theatre.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:10:00 UTC | #115475

evotruth's Avatar Comment 28 by evotruth

It's an outrage!

What these people are doing is called in the uk, "taking the piss". At my local hospital, the troops that were injured in Iraq and Afghanistan have had to be moved from one side of the hospital to another because of fears that they will "upset" muslim patients.

Muslims object to washing their hands in the alcohol based handrub solution and are now objecting to rolling up their sleeves!

SACK the lot of them.

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:10:00 UTC | #115474

Cartomancer's Avatar Comment 30 by Cartomancer

And to think that muslim doctors led the world in medicine in the tenth century...

Of course the covering of the arms thing is a publicity stunt - the flexing of muscles, nothing more. What you don't see is muslim women, or indeed their menfolk, complaining when they have to have their clothes removed for emergency surgery - after a traffic accident or even a routine operation. When it is obviously a matter of life or death for the muslim in question, where are their little religious rules now eh?

One could extend this little "islamic morality" game further. What should a muslim woman do if she is locked in a room with a man who is unrelated to her, and who will bleed to death if his wounds are not staunched with bandages. The only viable thing she can use to bandage him is her own covering, and doing so will leave her immodestly clad before him. Is it preferable to let him die or to expose herself but save his life?

Sun, 03 Feb 2008 12:22:00 UTC | #115479