Doctor under investigation after asking Muslim patient to remove her veil
 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/h...-a8930176.html


Here's the petition
https://www.change.org/p/general-med...-getting-fired

He's only under investigation, not facing sack.

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

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.

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

Crazy, this shouldnt be happening in london.

...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..?...

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

And she was upset why?

this is just- beyond words.

"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".

Are you for real?

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

2 hour 1984 watch your thought crime indoctrination course?

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.

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.

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.

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

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

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

This.

Wasn’t she in his place of work? Be a bit weird ringing her up while she's there in front of him.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

OK

I'm not bothered anymore.

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.

...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...

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.

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

..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.

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