Oh what’s a few germs between friends
There’s just no end to the joys of fundamentalism, is there. Health, hygiene, avoidance of untreatable illness and death, adherence to established rational medical norms? As nothing in the balance compared to what is said to be ‘a basic tenet of Islam’ – no matter how stupid, trivial, pettifogging, mindless, exaggerated, plain bloody absurd the ‘basic tenet’ is. This should (again) be something out of The Onion but apparently isn’t.
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. Women training in several hospitals in England have raised objections to removing their arm coverings in theatre and to rolling up their sleeves when washing their hands, because it is regarded as immodest in Islam.
Right. Those things between the wrists and the elbows – they’re obscene and sexual and smutty, on women, so they have to be kept wrapped up at all times or else men will run amok and start trying to copulate with them. (Never mind how, they just will.) This is a basic tenet of Islam.
Universities and NHS trusts fear many more will refuse to co-operate with new Department of Health guidance, introduced this month, which stipulates that all doctors must be “bare below the elbow”. The measure is deemed necessary to stop the spread of infections such as MRSA and Clostridium difficile, which have killed hundreds.
Yes but stopping the spread of lethal infections is not a basic tenet of Islam. So there.
[T]he Islamic Medical Association insisted that covering all the body in public, except the face and hands, was a basic tenet of Islam. “No practising Muslim woman – doctor, medical student, nurse or patient – should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow,” it said.
A thoughtful, careful, reasonable, sensible response. Never mind the health and safety of the patients (some of whom are Muslim, don’t forget), no practising Muslim doctor or nurse should be required to obey the medically necessary rules. Well done Islamic Medical Association. (Is there an alternative? A Sensible Islamic Medical Association? A Not Quite So Deranged Islamic Medical Association? A Quasi-rational Islamic Medical Association?)
If they can’t bare their arms below the elbow then they can’t practice medicine – they couldn’t scrub for a start, nor could they reasonably do any other sterile procedure.
Isn’t it a tenet of Islam that one washes ones face, neck and hands up to the elbow before praying?
Shares in manufacturers of elbow-length latex gloves are set to rocket…
Much as I would never consider the rights of supernaturalists to take precedence over reason, science, public health, etc,etc, dare I just point out one small issue:
The Telegraph doesn’t offer any actual numbers of Muslim female medics who are either:
a) not happy about it but going along with the regulations
b) not happy about it and refusing to comply in case they incite operating-theatre-based sexual harassment
or
c) not happy about it, and threatening to protest loudly / riot / strap-on an exploding vest and walk into the a&e waiting room.
:-)
Now, it could be argued that even one case is too many, but until the Torygraph stops trying to manufacture a nationwide scare story, (they’ve gone so Daily Mail these days), and offers some hard facts instead, then this story probably doesn’t merit much attention…?
Sure, Andy – that thought occurs to me with these stories often. But there is that assertion from the Islamic ‘Medical’ Association – I think that’s worth at least a little attention. And even if it is just a few people, the principle seems worth a good kicking.
‘…even if it is just a few people…’
If these are they, then even fewer.
http://www.islamicmedicine.org/imaUK.doc
I spotted this story on Dawkins’ newsfeed. I loved this quote:
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.”
I thought that perhaps it deserved the retarded comment of the week award*. Apparently, sleeves don’t get dirty.
* That was before I saw the competition.
katme has dangerous views on vaccination and has advised muslims to avoid some vaccinations in his self appointed role as Islamic medical spokesperson. The international repercussions re the re-emergence of polio in some muslim countries are totally harmful (given that gullible muslims overseas may be taken in by his pseudo orgianisation and by him being quoted so often in the british press) and it is strange that none of the other muslim doctors in the UK (there are thousands, right?)are willing to call a press conference and denounce this charlatan. They will be saving muslim lives and the good reputation of their fellow professionals if they so bestirred themselves.
>but until the Torygraph stops trying to manufacture a nationwide scare story, (they’ve gone so Daily Mail these days), and offers some hard facts instead, then this story probably doesn’t merit much attention…?< Well, they cite four University medical departments expressing concerns, and although the status of the Islamic Medical Association is difficult to ascertain, its spokesman Dr Majid Katme is a representative of the Muslim Council of Britain.
I can (for what it is worth) personally attest to some Muslim medical students refusing to be involved in sexual health medicine.
What became of said students I don’t know, I’d have kicked them out myself.
Allan,
I take it you read the original torygraph article?
And I take it you also noticed the paucity of useful detail in the reported remarks/minutes of meetings from the universities?
In fact, in the cited case from Sheffield it was exactly that, a single case.
Being serious for once, at what point does this Telegraph article provide sufficient data to merit its tone, etc?
“a number of Muslim females had difficulty in complying with the procedures to roll up sleeves to the elbow for appropriate handwashing”
But we are not told whether they DID comply, while registering objections, now are we?
As I said before, I’m as opposed to the supernaturalists undermining evidence-based practice in order to meet the bizarre demands of their belief-systems as, well, Tingey, probably [:-)], but this is as blatant a case of Torygraph tabloid-style little-england-ing (complete with rent-a-quotes from a self-selecting, non-representative ‘spokesman’) as we’re likely to see…until next week.
@ David.
You wrote
…Isn’t it a tenet of Islam that one washes ones face, neck and hands up to the elbow before praying?……
I think that’s correct, but I believe the underlying sentiment for that rule is ritualistic / magical. One is performing a SYMBOLIC PURIFICATION before approaching Allah.
One important cue is that if you don’t have water available, you can use fresh DIRT (!!!) and the prayer will still be halal, and thus “well received” :-)
I do sense some similar ideas in a recent apology for the Indonesian practice of FGM. While the spokesperson for the charity(sic) group offering free or discounted FGM’s around the prophet’s anniversary, happily gave some quasirational “arguments” WRT gential hygiene, the real reason was a worry that non-mutilated females might not have genitalia properly cleansed, and thereby risking the prayer to be HARAM.
Cassanders
In Cod we trust
Good lord now I not only have to worry about exploding moslem doctors I have got to worry about being infected as well.
Concerns about some Muslim women medics not being prepared to bare their arms were expressed by a Muslim medical student, Anisa Nasir, in an article in the Student BMJ in March 2006. That a Muslim felt the need to write an article on this suggests she does not think it a minor issue; in fact she refers to the refusal of a female medical student to bare her arm for a blood pressure demonstration (or even allow it to be done over long sleeves in the presence of males) as a “classic incident”. One point she raises specifically about such women is the following: “How would she be able to wash her hands and arms in preparation for theatre?”
The tone of the article suggests that Anisa Nasir thinks this will become a growing problem because of the activities of militant Islamic student organisations. On the subject of what she sees as increasing self-determined “alienation” of many Muslim students, she writes: “To make matters worse, freshers’ week sees the resurfacing of enthusiastic members of university Islamic societies. Recruitment of Muslims starts with the promise of study guidance through the first year, so long as this is kept between the ‘brothers and sisters’.”
Student BMJ Vol. 14, March 2006
http://student.bmj.com/search/pdf/06/03/sbmj121.pdf
Correction:
I wrote: “That a Muslim felt the need to write an article on this suggests she does not think it a minor issue…”
The article was not specifically on this issue, but on the increasing influence of militant Islamic organisations among Muslim students.
Allen,
Fair enough, but that, er, was nothing to do with my criticism of the Torygraph article, now was it?
I’m NOT SAYING there isn’t a problem with some medics, or potentially going to be a problem with more – although, hey, let’s not forget that it was a MUSLIM medical student writing in the BMJ, which actually undermines the Torygraph’s generalisations – but your reply does not address the issue of the quality of the journalism on display.
I’m surprised at you, to be honest, defending such a shoddy piece of work. Poor journalistic practice, making simplistic assertions without hard supporting data, just makes it easier to deny the reality of the underlying issues…
I mean, it’s the first rule of social science, isn’t it – attack the methodology? And if it’s as apparently poor as the Telegraph’s, then it undermines the conclusions, however valid they may be.
Andt writes:
>Fair enough, but that, er, was nothing to do with my criticism of the Torygraph article, now was it?< I didn’t say it was, as that was a separate issue. I wanted to draw attention to the fact that there seems to be a genuine, albeit not widespread, problem in regard the subject matter of the Telegraph article, as evidenced by the fact that a Muslim medical student took what was probably a rather brave step of publishing an article warning that doctrinaire Islamic student organisations are encouraging a rigid application of what she calls “hijab”. She evidently thought the implications for the practice of medicine by female student medics maintaining “hijab”, examples of which she says occur “time and time again”, were sufficiently important to warrant an article in an official students medical journal. I really didn’t see much point in getting into exchanges about the Telegraph article itself, since neither of us is in a position to know on what documentary basis the reporters wrote up the article, but since you have related it to my last posting… >I’m surprised at you, to be honest, defending such a shoddy piece of work. Poor journalistic practice, making simplistic assertions without hard supporting data, just makes it easier to deny the reality of the underlying issues…
>I mean, it’s the first rule of social science, isn’t it – attack the methodology? And if it’s as apparently poor as the Telegraph’s, then it undermines the conclusions, however valid they may be.
I concur with your deprecating irresponsible publicising of alleged occurrences either by some Muslims, or by non-Muslims supposedly to appease Muslim sentiments, but I don’t think that this article has been demonstrated to be of that ilk. If it is to be condemned on the grounds you posit, then the same would have to be said about a large number of articles in all four UK “serious” newspapers that frequently feature information obtained directly from sources that are not fully documented on the level of social science methodology. (Just think of the number of articles based on “leaked” documents, or the BBC’s Radio 4 “Today” programme telling us that “the BBC has learned…”.) Given the article in the Students BMJ from nearly two years ago, it would be surprising if there weren’t concerns in some hospitals about Muslim female medical students (albeit very few) objecting to baring their arms.
As I said, neither you nor I is in a position to know if there is “hard supporting data”, any more than we are when a Guardian article reports, as it not infrequently does, a “leaked document” from a government department. The fact that the article cites documents from three major Universities suggests, however, that the documentation does exist. (Let’s see if there are any denials from Liverpool, Leicester and Sheffield Universities before denouncing the article for not living up to social science methodology.)
I note that in her Student BMJ article Anisa Nasir writes of her concern that the rigid practice of “hijab” by some female student medics, under the influence of doctrinaire Muslim student activists, is “interfering with medical teaching”. Of course it should be kept in proportion, but I happen to think that the well-attested influence of doctrinaire Islamic student organisations is a genuine issue of concern that is likely to lead to increasing problems, not least being the self-segregation of many Muslim students that Nasir finds disturbing, and which she points out, “alienate the rest of the people around them”.
Allen,
We are completely agreed as to the possible seriousness of the religion vs. hygiene issue. :-)
BUT, the Torygraph still deserves a good kicking:
“neither of us is in a position to know on what documentary basis the reporters wrote up the article”
– irrelevant. We can deal with the article on the basis of what was presented, the manner in which it was presented, and the conclusions/associations/etc made by it.
The Telegraph makes overt claims to be a serious news provider, rather than a tabloid rumour-monger. They offer conclusions that cannot be supported by their data. They also feel the need to remind us, in case we’d forgotten, about MRSA & C.Difficile, “which have killed hundreds”. Are we all scared yet?
That, added to the vast generalisation in the headline (thanks, dear sub-editor!) ” Female Muslim medics ‘disobey hygiene rules” – not ‘radical’ muslims, ‘some’ muslims, ‘fundamentalist’, ‘an unknown number of’, ‘a few we’ve heard stories about’, etc,etc – brings this down to the standards of the Daily Mail (ie none).
“the same would have to be said about a large number of articles in all four UK “serious” newspapers that frequently feature information obtained directly from sources that are not fully documented on the level of social science methodology. “
– only 4? What about the FT? And yes, absolutely. Far too much of our supposed news journalism is relatively evidence-free, or ‘single-source’ over-reliant. “War on Iraq”, anyone?
I only brought up “social science” as a known reference point, I’m happy to drop it as an essential “standard” – all I’m asking for are basic levels of research and analytical skills, seemingly sadly lacking in these ‘Wikimpedimentia’ days…
The University documents may indeed contain numbers – but NONE ARE OFFERED. (Oh, except for Sheffield, which was, let’s see..one case). Why? It wouldn’t have taken up much room…
As I said previously, articles such as these, appearing in what are supposed to be factually-credible “news” sources, work in favour of those who want us to ignore the real problems “faith-based” practices can cause. The more pieces like this one, that can be hacked to bits & dismissed with relative ease, the harder it becomes to get a serious message across.
I know the Torygraph has a falling circulation, but it still has influence. And how many folk read it, alas, as opposed to the Student BMJ?
Finally:
“Let’s see if there are any denials from Liverpool, Leicester and Sheffield Universities before denouncing the article for not living up to social science methodology.”
eh? that’s an entirely spurious measure by which to decide whether to ‘denounce’ the article’s methodology. That would only come into play if there was any suggestion that the quotes had been in some way falsified…which I, for one, certainly wasn’t saying.
Lovely, some sense being discussed about this issue, finally! I’ve been making the same arguments as Andy (altho not so well put) over at the Devil’s Kitchen blog.
Grim,
Just went and had a look at that blog (yet another bout of insomnia)…have to say, not a very sensible place, on the whole. :-)
Whoever that anonymous ranter “Verity” is, she/he/it doesn’t live up to their name…
But that blog post, and the bulk of the comments that follow make an EXCELLENT example of why the Torygraph article was unacceptably poor reporting.
Andy, imagine how annoying (not to mention deliberately provocative and insulting to its readers) it would be if people who didn’t care for the Lefty Guardian’s “view from nowhere, moral compass that points in all four directions simultaneously” style of journalism, insisted on referring to that publication as the Lefty Guardian. I mean, each time one were to use the phrase “the Lefty Guardian” it would be expressing contempt for other readers on the same thread who didn’t possess the same dismissive attitude towards the paper, wouldn’t it?
And to then keep repeating Lefty Guardian in each subsequent reply would be like throwing down a gauntlet, “Come on all you Lefty Guardian readers if you think you’re hard enough, I think you’re twats, I spit on your politics, and on the politics of any of your family and friends who read the Lefty Guardian”.
You see what I mean, the implicit assumption that all Lefty Guardian readers are somehow morally inferior, and simply haven’t seen the light, and what’s more, don’t mind being continually provoked by playground-style name calling in public fora, would be presumptuous, wouldn’t it?
Wow, Roger, that was awesome. I am from now on going to call it the Lefty Guardian.
Roger,
I wouldn’t care what anyone called the Guardian. (I call it the ‘Grauniad’ in public forums, meself. Private Eye reader, you see – there, now feel free to take the piss out of that, I won’t mind – honest.)
But my dear chap, apart from a low-grade-play-on-words reminder that the ownership/editorial slant/readership of the Telegraph is almost entirely allied to the UK Conservative Party (which they are, or in the case of the Barclay brothers, actually a very long way to the right of the party), calling it the “ToryGraph” does none of the things you claim, unless they are occurring in your own head.
If you hadn’t noticed, my key complaint with the paper is the shoddiness of the article compared with its long-standing reputation as a reliable source of factual news. Not exactly belittling the readership, now is it?
you say:
“I mean, each time one were to use the phrase “the Lefty Guardian” it would be expressing contempt for other readers on the same thread who didn’t possess the same dismissive attitude towards the paper, wouldn’t it? “
No. You’re using a variation on the “Muslim right to be offended” argument, which is unimpressive, to say the least. I expected better from a Torygraph man – which I take it you are, yes? Not that I said there was anything wrong with being one, at any point, now did I?
“and to then keep repeating Lefty Guardian in each subsequent reply would be like throwing down a gauntlet, “Come on all you Lefty Guardian readers if you think you’re hard enough, I think you’re twats, I spit on your politics, and on the politics of any of your family and friends who read the Lefty Guardian”.”
Nope. See answer above. Why are you so scared of small, largely descriptive adjectives?
Anyway, why should I care if your prejudice filters decided to kick in, and stir up all kinds of personal angst, causing you to fail to contribute anything substantive to the ongoing subject actually under discussion?
“You see what I mean, the implicit assumption that all Lefty Guardian readers are somehow morally inferior, and simply haven’t seen the light, and what’s more, don’t mind being continually provoked by playground-style name calling in public fora, would be presumptuous, wouldn’t it?”
The temptation to simply dismiss you as a ranting idiot is so strong, I’m not sure I can control myself…however…
instead I simply refer you to the wise words of Stephen Fry:
“You’re offended? So fucking what?!”
And perhaps bother to read a little more carefully in future…?