News from the UK: Rules of the Koran are more important than hygiene, according to UK’s Islamic Medical Society. Actually, make that cultural standards, not Koranic rules, since the Koran itself doesn’t really specify the precise nature of modest women’s clothing. The imams have just taught that whatever they wore in Mohammed’s time has to have been the heavenly standard. Sort of like chronological snobbery taken to the extreme.
But yes. Now religious scruples trump scientific principles, and keeping a few inches of your skin covered is more important than taking good care of your patients. One wonders why these women are involved in health professions, anyway. Do they not find it disturbing, or at least hypocritical, to be looking at naked male patients, while they refuse to lift their sleeves enough to wash properly?
Here in the US, there’s an uproar if Christian pharmacists propose not to dispense abortifacient drugs due to their religious principles. And all they’re doing is offering a slight obstruction to health care (if you insist on calling the destruction of life health care) (and yes, this is weighted language to be using about RU-486). But it seems to be all right, at least by Muslim standards, to downright forcibly endanger your patient’s health because you’re so concerned about letting your wrists be seen in public.
I have some pretty high standards of modesty myself, but this is ridiculous and hypocritical. Let’s see whether the UK health community is able to respond appropriately, or whether the once-proud Britons have truly become slaves, the new dhimmis. (Which is the Arabic word for conquered peoples who are allowed a few protections as second-class citizens as long as they submit to all Islamic laws.)
February 5, 2008 at 8:47 pm
I think that you are a disgrace to the Ladies Against Feminism movement. A woman being a surgeon!?! You should be taking care of the needs of your father, not trying to compete in a man’s world. You should be ashamed to call yourself a conservative Christian!!! What next? Are you going to start playing non-feminine sports! I will keep you and your family in my prayers! Peace be with you.
February 5, 2008 at 9:54 pm
Wow,
A provocative post, and a demented response.
I agree with the post; sometimes religiocultural norms have to be evaluated in the light of new information (i.e. the germ theory of disease).
It is a pity that the muslim world has come to this. When my ancestors were wearing untanned hides and living in mud huts in Northern Europe, islamic doctors and scientists were the most advanced in the world, performing surgury and treating diseases.
As for your being a surgeon, you go girl!
February 5, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Why can’t they use disposable sterile sleeves, secured with sterile glove tape at the wrists?
I know all you surgeons are enamored of handwashing, but those of us who make sterile drugs for a living understand that human skin is the biggest contaminant ever created. Cover it up and seal it off is a more reliable aseptic practice. In sterile manufacturing areas, full length sleeves are required.
(This comment is coming from someone who is tested multiple times per day by a technician pressing a culture media plate against my gloves and sleeves. The “pass” criteria is no microbial growth on the plate, ever.)
February 6, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Fortunately, “Linda”, Dr. Alice isn’t trying to compete. She’s winning.
Dr. Alice, how would you respond if someone claimed that you as a Christian do the same thing as the Muslims — that is, you allow “religious scruples” to trump scientific principles, as in your own example of a Christian pharmacist refusing to dispense RU-486, or in your views on human origins?
February 6, 2008 at 3:04 pm
Another response: the article referenced in your post includes this statement: “Some fear the [sic] enforcing the rules will open the door to lawsuits charging discrimination against female Muslims working within the medical professions.” I would hope no hospital would be so mind-bogglingly insane as to accept that reasoning (but some probably will). I think I’ll sue the medical profession for discrimination because they won’t allow me to practice medicine without training or a license. Not fair!
February 6, 2008 at 6:50 pm
Linda – I agree, there’s some cognitive dissonance, to say the least, in my choices to date. But I’m not endangering anybody’s life through them, or violating scientific rules which have heretofore applied across the board.
Beach Bum – There are some good books exploring how a society’s understanding of God’s nature can promote or hinder scientific development. The argument can be made that Islam’s insistence on a remote, unknowable god who acts on his own whims, gives a less stable basis for scientific exploration of natural law than the Christian teaching of a God who makes himself known through revelation, and acts consistently.
Visitor – The sleeves sound feasible. If you patent them quickly, you could make quite a killing in the British market, it sounds like. My primary objection is to their taking a stand requiring religious exemption, rather than looking for creative alternatives.
And, although human skin can’t be completely sterilized, the amount of bacteria on it can certainly be reduced by proper washing. Also, full length cloth sleeves which are changed only daily are doubtless friendly to bacteria as well.
Wes – I tried to address that point, but I guess my rhetoric got in the way. Refusing to provide RU-486 does not actively harm anyone. Even taking the most pro-choice possible view, it merely delays service until one drives to another pharmacy. Refusing to wash properly, on the other hand, actively endangers patients who are not really in a position to avoid you to any extent. As for human origins, I don’t see how my belief in creationism, since it doesn’t conflict with any generally held beliefs about things like microbial resistance and genetic diseases, could threaten any patient.
I think your suit could have some success, either in the UK, or maybe in California. Kind of along the lines of, it’s discriminatory not to allow two men to do something that by definition only a man and a woman can do.