Doctor under investigation after asking Muslim patient to remove her veil

[Tony Montana]

More than 60,000 people have signed a petition backing a doctor who is under investigation for asking a Muslim patient to remove her veil.

Dr Keith Wolverson says he told the woman to take off her niqab so he could hear her describe what was wrong with her child.

He was reported to his bosses at Royal Stoke University Hospital after the patient’s husband complained she was upset by his “rude” request.

The freelance GP, who has been practising for 23 years, admits he is now ”rather fearful of the consequences” after finding out he has been reported to the General Medical Council (GMC) and will be the subject of a racial discrimination inquiry.

He said he would continue to “fight to the bitter end” in order to carry on working in the profession.

Speaking about the incident, the 52-year-old from Derby said: “I asked a lady to remove her face veil for adequate communication, in the same way I’d ask a motorcyclist to remove a crash helmet.
“When the letter came through, I was rather fearful of the consequences.

“I’m a little bit sad the country has been committed to depths such as this.

“But it takes more than this to knock me off my perch.”

Dr Wolverson said he was “absolutely bowled over” by the petition on change.org, which has now reached over 60,990 signatures.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/health/doctor-remove-veil-muslim-patient-niqab-petition-keith-wolverson-a8930176.html


Here's the petition
https://www.change.org/p/general-medical-council-stop-dr-wolverson-getting-fired

[Jessica.]

He's only under investigation, not facing sack.

[Tony Montana]

He's only under investigation, not facing sack.

Oops, I could've sworn it said facing sack at first.

[user104658]

She wasn't the patient and there was no medical reason to have her remove it so I'm dubious about his motivations for doing so. He also seems not to be apologetic about it in the slightest and is essentially still claiming the moral high-ground, which isn't going to go in his favour.

[MTVN]

So it describes her as a patient but then says she was there about her child. I'm sure the doctor was quite capable of hearing her through the veil so I don't think there was a need for her to remove it in this case

[UserSince2005]

Crazy, this shouldnt be happening in london.

[Ammi]

...I’m interested as to who the creator of the petition is...


“I believe he acted in the best interest of the child involved and there was no racist or religious discrimination in his actions.

“We need to ensure the General Medical Council treat this man fairly and look at all the evidence.

“Our NHS is severely understaffed and we cannot afford to lose doctors due to fabricated accusations of discrimination.”


...How could they possibly know whether something had been ‘fabricated’ or know that no discrimination had taken place..?...

[Oliver_W]

Why is this even something to be investigated? It can be hard to hear what they're saying through those things.

[Crimson Dynamo]

And she was upset why?

[Daniel-X]

Why is this even something to be investigated? It can be hard to hear what they're saying through those things.

this is just- beyond words.

[user104658]

"I’m a little bit sad the country has been committed to depths such as this."

Tells you all you need to know really. If he genuinely didn't realise that he was being insensitive he would just say so, apologise, and the GMC would send him on some sort of 2-hour training course and that would be the end of it. But that would stick in his throat because when it comes down to it, the truth is probably that he just thinks "those garments don't belong in the UK".

[Marsh.]

Why is this even something to be investigated? It can be hard to hear what they're saying through those things.

Are you for real?

It's like saying women need to move their hair out the way to be able to hear.

[Alf]

"I’m a little bit sad the country has been committed to depths such as this."

Tells you all you need to know really. If he genuinely didn't realise that he was being insensitive he would just say so, apologise, and the GMC would send him on some sort of 2-hour training course and that would be the end of it. But that would stick in his throat because when it comes down to it, the truth is probably that he just thinks "those garments don't belong in the UK".2 hour 1984 watch your thought crime indoctrination course?

[joeysteele]

Going to be controversial here.

I think he was right just as Jack Straw was years ago too.

I'm sorry but I think I and everyone have the right to see who we are talking to.
I support his stand.

[Oliver_W]

Are you for real?

It's like saying women need to move their hair out the way to be able to hear.

Not necessarily. Sometimes the material on those outfits are pretty thick, so it muffles the speech. If the lady had a strong accent, I could believe it was hard to hear her clearly.

[Marsh.]

2 hour 1984 watch your thought crime indoctrination course?

Why do you always bring up "thought crimes" in threads about people's actions?

Thoughts cease to be just that when they become words and actions.

[GiRTh]

Not necessarily. Sometimes the material on those outfits are pretty thick, so it muffles the speech. If the lady had a strong accent, I could believe it was hard to hear her clearly.:laugh::laugh::laugh:

[Alf]

Why do you always bring up "thought crimes" in threads about people's actions?

Thoughts cease to be just that when they become words and actions.Because the doctor thought it would be easier to communicate with her if he could see her. And now is being accused of some sort of a crime for that thought.

Is that an acceptable explanation?

[Twosugars]

Because the doctor thought it would be easier to communicate with her if he could see her. And now is being accused of some sort of a crime for that thought.

Is that an acceptable explanation?

Ever heard of the telephone?
You don't need to see somebody to communicate

[Amy Jade]

I mean if he was having trouble communicating with her...she could have a thick accent.

[Kate!]

Going to be controversial here.

I think he was right just as Jack Straw was years ago too.

I'm sorry but I think I and everyone have the right to see who we are talking to.
I support his stand.

This.

[Alf]

Ever heard of the telephone?
You don't need to see somebody to communicateWasn’t she in his place of work? Be a bit weird ringing her up while she's there in front of him.

[Jordan.]

The fact he tried to defend himself by comparing it to a motorcycle helmet is enough proof of how ignorant he is.

[Amy Jade]

Ever heard of the telephone?
You don't need to see somebody to communicate

In fairness if you shoved something over the phone you may have trouble hearing

[Marsh.]

Because the doctor thought it would be easier to communicate with her if he could see her. And now is being accused of some sort of a crime for that thought.

Is that an acceptable explanation?

No. Because, again, that's not a thought that is an action.

If someone gets raped, the rapist doesn't get arrested for thinking about raping her, he's arrested for the action of raping her.

Equally, this doctor is not under investigation for any thoughts he had, but for his actual treatment of this woman.

[bots]

the voice is but a small part of communication, and doctors can read facial expressions better than most. It tells far more than a few words. So, I do see the point in her removing a veil although his defense does seem a bit confrontational.

[Alf]

No. Because, again, that's not a thought that is an action.

If someone gets raped, the rapist doesn't get arrested for thinking about raping her, he's arrested for the action of raping her.

Equally, this doctor is not under investigation for any thoughts he had, but for his actual treatment of this woman.His action was to suggest she remove her face veil, because he thought it would help communication. She had the choice to say yes or no. I don't see the crime in a suggestion.

[Marsh.]

His action was to suggest she remove her face vail, because he thought it would help communication. She had the choice to say yes or no. I don't see the crime.

Of course you don't. I'm simply pointing out your "thought crime" doesn't apply whether you side with the doctor or not.

All I will say is that it seems more than simply asking her to speak with her mouth free of the veil given the comments quoted in the article.

At best he has terrible people skills for someone in such a position.

[Alf]

Of course you don't. I'm simply pointing out your "thought crime" doesn't apply whether you side with the doctor or not.But I was replying to Toy Soldiers suggestion of the Doctor being forced to attend a course.

[caprimint]

He genuinely may not have been able to hear though. :shrug:

Idk, I feel like it would be so easy for her to play the race card in a situation like this rather than her being actually offended by it.

[Marsh.]

But I was replying to Toy Soldiers suggestion of the Doctor being forced to attend a course.

A doctor being forced by his employer to attend a course in how better to handle people in his.... people focussed job doesn't really have anything to do with "thought crimes" either?

[Alf]

OK

I'm not bothered anymore.

[Oliver_W]

tbh while I'm on the doctor's side in this one, this ain't really an example of thought crimes.

If he'd have refused to speak with her at all while her face was covered, then maybe he should have been disciplined. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Ammi]

...I can’t really say I would have ‘a side’ with this because It would be impossible to know whether the doctor was justified in asking her to remove her face veil...whether he was actually being prohibited from fully hearing her voice specifically because of the covering...I find it worrying that around 100,000 signatures of people who it would also be impossible for them to know, would be put to a petition ...


Dr Paul Scott, chairman of North Staffordshire Local Medical Committee, said: “It’s a conflict between religious sensitivity and communication. Each is valid and it’s very hard [to make a judgement] unless you were there.


...and yet a judgement has being formed by the signing of a petition... and I have to wonder if such a judgement would have been formed in the same way by so many voices of people who couldn’t possibly know whether the veil was hindering his hearing or not ...if this wasn’t something which involved a Muslim religious garment...



...as is sadly often the way, the comments at the end of many newspaper articles on this story..are disgusting...

[rusticgal]

Are you for real?

It's like saying women need to move their hair out the way to be able to hear.


If a woman couldn’t hear someone because of her hair she would put it behind her ear...if a Doctor could not understand what the woman was saying because she had a veil covering her mouth what is so wrong in asking her to lift it?...and if the woman wanted the Doctor to help her child...what’s more important? Lifting her veil to help him understand...or not lifting her veil and not helping her child?

[Marsh.]

If a woman couldn’t hear someone because of her hair she would put it behind her ear...if a Doctor could not understand what the woman was saying because she had a veil covering her mouth what is so wrong in asking her to lift it?...and if the woman wanted the Doctor to help her child...what’s more important? Lifting her veil to help him understand...or not lifting her veil and not helping her child?

If you take it at face value (ha). Judging by the quotes, it clearly was not.

[hijaxers]

Do Muslim female doctors treat patients whilst wearing a veil ? I want to see who i am speaking to.

[Ammi]

..the lady wasn’t the patient so I think the thing with this is...was her face veil prohibiting the doctor from hearing her clearly when she was speaking about her child...was he completely justified in asking for it to be removed..?...and so the investigation...without witnesses which I presume there wasn’t, it’s a very difficult one tbh...

[user104658]

..the lady wasn’t the patient so I think the thing with this is...was her face veil prohibiting the doctor from hearing her clearly when she was speaking about her child...was he completely justified in asking for it to be removed..?...and so the investigation...without witnesses which I presume there wasn’t, it’s a very difficult one tbh...

I'd say the same if it weren't for his follow-up comments;

"the same way I’d ask a motorcyclist to remove a crash helmet."

"I'm a little bit sad the country has been committed to depths such as this."

"it takes more than this to knock me off my perch."

For me it adds up to a much clearer picture to be honest.

[Cherie]

He's only under investigation, not facing sack.

He is unable to work while under investigation as he is a freelancer and his agency won't send him out

[Cherie]

Difficult one to judge, on the one hand she is in his private office and with her husband and child and he may have had difficulty understanding how she was describing the childs symptoms and thought removing her veil might help him and her communicate better, why couldn't the husband have explained? was he in the room as he is the one who complained? so I'm thinking English may be a second language, on the other hand he might be a power mad pompous ass ...who knows.....its all a bit too vague, so I won't be signing the petition

[Ammi]

I'd say the same if it weren't for his follow-up comments;

"the same way I’d ask a motorcyclist to remove a crash helmet."

"I'm a little bit sad the country has been committed to depths such as this."

"it takes more than this to knock me off my perch."

For me it adds up to a much clearer picture to be honest.

...yeah I don’t disagree with you either on the comments that were made, TS...but basing my judgement on those is ..(..to me..)...similar to those who have signed the petition and are giving the doctor their full backing, not knowing anything other than ‘he said’, type thing and an opposite side of a similarish coin..?...if that makes sense...

...I do have to wonder as I said earlier...if the issue hadn’t involved a Muslim garment...would a petition have gained so many signatures so quickly...?...hmmmmm....

[Oliver_W]

...I do have to wonder as I said earlier...if the issue hadn’t involved a Muslim garment...would a petition have gained so many signatures so quickly...?...hmmmmm....

That question can work both ways. If the issue hadn't involved a muslim garment, would he be going through this pointless investigation?

[Ammi]

...but that’s the whole point ...none of us know what transpired in the hospital room...hence an investigation taking place...?...and yet all ‘support’ is with the doctor in that there is no petition defending her right to wear her cultural and religious attire...:laugh:...the support through a petition is most definitely not two ways...

[Crimson Dynamo]

"none of us know what transpired in the hospital room"

and how will an "investigation" help?

[Livia]

It mystifies me that Muslims who insist on women covering their face in a country where women have fought for freedom, would want to live here at all.

Doctors should be able to refuse to treat people rather than risk their career being marred by an investigation.

[chuff me dizzy]

He was well within his rights !! Time they were banned in the Uk

[Matthew.]

He was well within his rights !! Time they were banned in the Uk

:umm2:

[Livia]

:umm2:

Do you know that Muslim men in Whitechapel have a history of telling white women that they are inappropriately dressed in a country where women's rights have been hard fought for? No one's bothered if women want to wear other articles of faith, headscarf, for example, but women being required to cover themselves belongs waaay back in the dark ages.

[Matthew.]

Do you know that Muslim men in Whitechapel have a history of telling white women that they are inappropriately dressed in a country where women's rights have been hard fought for? No one's bothered if women want to wear other articles of faith, headscarf, for example, but women being required to cover themselves belongs waaay back in the dark ages.

Oh yeah I get that, but do we really think that’s the reason why Chuff wants them banned?

[Twosugars]

Do you know that Muslim men in Whitechapel have a history of telling white women that they are inappropriately dressed in a country where women's rights have been hard fought for? No one's bothered if women want to wear other articles of faith, headscarf, for example, but women being required to cover themselves belongs waaay back in the dark ages.

Tell that to orthodox Jews in golders green or Stamford
It's part of religious observance for some.
As long as it's not coercive I don't care

[Livia]

Oh yeah I get that, but do we really think that’s the reason why Chuff wants them banned?

I agree with Chuff that they should be banned, like they are in France. When my brother was studying he was a dispatch rider in London. He was never allowed anywhere with his crash helmet on. It's the same thing. In a religion that subjugates women like Islam does, I doubt anything is ever brought about for the sake of the women, particularly the rule that they have to be completely covered. However, this is a man-made rule, it says nothing in the Quran about the burka or any other kind of restrictive clothing for women, only that men and women should dress modestly.

[Livia]

Tell that to orthodox Jews in golders green or Stamford
It's part of religious observance for some.
As long as it's not coercive I don't care

How many Jews have you seen in Golders Green with their face covered?

Or have you only mentioned this for me? Because this thread is about the burka.

[Twosugars]

How many Jews have you seen in Golders Green with their face covered?

Or have you only mentioned this for me? Because this thread is about the burka.

Not face.
It was in reply to your comment about middle ages.
I heard that in today's Jerusalem it is not safe for women to go into orthodox neighbourhoods with uncovered arms or legs

[Marsh.]

It mystifies me that Muslims who insist on women covering their face in a country where women have fought for freedom, would want to live here at all.

Doctors should be able to refuse to treat people rather than risk their career being marred by an investigation.

Yes, because a doctor refusing to treat patients based on their race, religion or anything else isn't problematic at all.

[Livia]

Yes, because a doctor refusing to treat patients based on their race, religion or anything else isn't problematic at all.

Is that what happened, Marshy?

Are you sure?

[Marsh.]

Is that what happened, Marshy?

Are you sure?

I didn't say that's what happened, you just suggested a doctor should be able to turn patients away. Again, that's not problematic at all.

[Livia]

Not face.
It was in reply to your comment about middle ages.
I heard that in today's Jerusalem it is not safe for women to go into orthodox neighbourhoods with uncovered arms or legs

You heard that, did you? Maybe you should go and see for yourself. I think you'd be surprised. And of course, women can vote in Israel, the one democracy in the Middle East, even Palestinian woman in Israel can vote.

Again, this thread is about the burka, and it's about the UK. Not Jerusalem. Are you only dragging Jews into it because of your dislike of me? I'd find a more rewarding hobby.

[Livia]

I didn't say that's what happened, you just suggested a doctor should be able to turn patients away. Again, that's not problematic at all.

Oh ffs Marshy...

How come it's only ever men in here bemoaning the rights of women to be able to cover themselves from head to toe, while that instruction appears nowhere in the Quran?

[Marsh.]

Oh ffs Marshy...

How come it's only ever men in here bemoaning the rights of women to be able to cover themselves from head to toe, while that instruction appears nowhere in the Quran?

I'd like you to show me where I said anything about women covering head to toe being written in the Quran? To save you some time, I didn't.

[chuff me dizzy]

His action was to suggest she remove her face veil, because he thought it would help communication. She had the choice to say yes or no. I don't see the crime in a suggestion.

Thats EXACTLY what happened

[Tom4784]

I've got nothing but doubts about the doctor's story. It doesn't really add up and I reckon it's more than likely he did something inappropriate.