The Doctors' Jihad Plot continues to widen. Several people have asked me, How can doctors who swear to do no harm get involved in a mass murder plot? The answer, of course, is that a jihadist will not consider himself bound by an infidel oath taken before an infidel authority, and sees his loyalty to the Islamic umma as paramount, and allowing for the justification of virtually any act.
By Ben McConville for AP (thanks to Sparta):
...In the current case, Muhammad Haneef, a 27-year-old doctor from India arrested late Monday in Brisbane, Australia, worked in 2005 at Halton Hospital near Liverpool in northern England, hospital spokesman Mark Shone said.Another Indian doctor, 26, arrested late Saturday in Liverpool, worked at the same hospital, Mr. Shone confirmed, but refused to divulge his name.
A third suspect, Mohammed Jamil Asha, a 26-year-old doctor from Jordan of Palestinian heritage, was arrested Saturday with his wife, Marwa Asha, 27, who was identified in British press reports as a medical assistant. He worked at North Staffordshire Hospital, near the Midlands town of Newcastle-under-Lyme.
A doctor at Royal Alexandra Hospital in Paisley, near Glasgow, who refused to give his name, said he recognized Dr. Asha as a doctor who kept an office there — the same hospital where another suspect, Bilal Talal Abdul Samad Abdulla, worked.
According to friends of Dr. Abdulla's family in Iraq, the 27-year-old doctor came to Britain after graduating from medical school in Baghdad. He was a passenger in the Jeep Cherokee that rammed into the Glasgow Airport.
The Jeep's driver — identified by staff at Royal Alexandra Hospital as a Lebanese doctor named Khalid Ahmed — was in critical condition at that hospital from burns suffered in the attack. Police would not confirm his identity.
Investigators think the same men who parked the explosives-laden cars in London may have also driven the blazing SUV in Glasgow, the British security official said.
The final two suspects, ages 25 and 28, were arrested by police Sunday at Royal Alexandra Hospital.
Staff said one was a medical student and the other a junior doctor, without giving their names. The British press said they were from Saudi Arabia, but police refused to comment.
Dr. Shiv Pande, former chairman of the British International Doctors Association, said the two Indian nationals in custody were Muslims.
"It is very upsetting news," Dr. Pande said of their suspected involvement. "It is an abuse of trust and respect — everyone should be able to love their doctor."
Well, love might be a bit strong, but trust, yes.
Muslims are taught to despise Infidels. Muslims are taught to see the essential division of humanity into two: the Believers, and the Infidels. Between the two there must be a state of war, of uncompromising hostility (though feigned friendship, if it furthers the aims of Islam, is permitted), though a "state of war" does not necessarily require, at all times, a state of open warfare using military means.
Since that is the case, and since we are all by now familiar with Muhammad's emphasis on deception ("War is deception"), and the many examples of such deception offered by the life of Muhammad, the Model of Conduct ("uswa hasana"), the Perfect Man ("al-insan al-kamil") why should we assume that, for example, that Muslim doctors do indeed, always and everywhere, subscribe to the Hippocratic Oath (and is there, in the Muslim world, an equivalent?). Why should we not assume that Muslim doctors, or some of them, may not necessarily do their best, may even do their worst, for Infidel patients?
Would you, if you were, say, recognizable as a Protestant clergyman, or an Orthodox Jew, be perfectly willing to be treated by a Muslim doctor? Too suspicous, you say? Perhaps you are unaware that there is already at least one case in which the surviving son (himself a doctor) has charged that a Muslim doctor deliberately ignored, unaccountably, for hours, his father, an Orthodox Jewish patient. Would such a thing surprise you? Would it surprise you to discover that not all Muslim doctors necessarily were trying their very best to save Infidel patients, to give them the best care, to make sure that the baby was delivered properly? Why would you assume this? Because it simply must be, because any other possibilty is something you prefer not to think about? Is that it? Or do you think it hysterical to calmly note what Islam inculcates, and the attitudes naturally engendered by such inculcation, and to deduce, from that, the likelihood, among at least some, of behavior that would or should give potential patients pause.
Several people have asked me, How can doctors who swear to do no harm get involved in a mass murder plot? The answer, of course, is that a jihadist will not consider himself bound by an infidel oath taken before an infidel authority, and sees his loyalty to the Islamic umma as paramount, and allowing for the justification of virtually any act.
Infidel patients of course, are inferior to muslims according to the quaran -- that is to say, infidels are "less-human" than muslims (who are superior) according to allah and the so-called "divine text," especially if the infidel patients are Jews.
As such, a muslim doctor cannot view "infidel patients" in the same way or with the same compassion as "muslim patients," since doing so would be contrary to the basic tenets of islam and specifically, the empyrean dictates of allah.
Therefore, a muslim doctor would have few if any issues with harming or killing infidel patients.
Indeed, a muslim doctor has a moral obligation to harm and kill the infidel if the doctor is truly practicing islam.
Is this correct or not?
If this reasoning is correct, then as PM Brown has demanded, let us not call islamic murderers terrorists
OT -- Brown and the EU constitution:
The new European Union treaty will mean "transfers of sovereignty" from Britain and Gordon Brown is right to hide the fact from the public, an EU leader admitted yesterday.
GAWD! Where do you people get these PM's!? I thought the US had an exclusive monoply on morons running government!
Loyalty to Islam comes before ANTHING else. Muhammed says it in the Koran. End of story for the Islamists.
I would never knowingly let a muslim doctor touch me.
Unfortunately, in Canada we have such a shortage of doctors that now the idea of "fast tracking" immigrant doctors is gaining support. Fine by me, if they are qualified and come from any western country, or actually any non-muslim country.
After what we have learned in the past few days, will anyone ever trust a muslim doctor again ?
Would such a thing surprise you? Would it surprise you to discover that not all Muslim doctors necessarily were trying their very best to save Infidel patients, to give them the best care, to make sure that the baby was delivered properly? Why would you assume this? Because it simply must be, because any other possibilty is something you prefer not to think about? Is that it? Or do you think it hysterical to calmly note what Islam inculcates, and the attitudes naturally engendered by such inculcation, and to deduce, from that, the likelihood, among at least some, of behavior that would or should give potential patients pause.
Mr. Fitzgerald misses the point as usual.
What's really important is that the muslim doctors work cheap and are taking medical care jobs in surgery rooms and hospitals that infidel doctors don't want or are too stupid to do.
Seriously, no -- such a lugubrious scenario as described Fitzgerald has already occurred to one patient known to me personally.
The facts are as Fitzgerald describes, except this patient did not die because was taken from this particular hospital and put into another; then treated by an infidel doctor.
Unfortunately(apparent point of view of the muslim doctor) the patient made a full recovery.
This would not have happened under the neglectful watch of the original muslim doctor who incidently billed medicare services never administered.
What did Medicare do after it was reported them?
Nothing.
May I add that also by taking lives they get to play God, deciding who lives and who dies.
So the people who prescribe the medicines want to kill you.. What if the people who make the medicines also want to kill you?
Time for a new health paradigm, http://www.mercola.com
Dr. Shiv Pande, former chairman of the British International Doctors Association, said the two Indian nationals in custody were Muslims.
Shiv Pande sounds a Hindu name. Note, he immediately points out RoP factor.
Not being familiar with socialized medicine, a question for those in the UK- can a patient refuse treatment from a particular doctor or must you accept whomever is assigned to your case?
"What's really important is that the muslim doctors work cheap and are taking medical care jobs in surgery rooms and hospitals that infidel doctors don't want or are too stupid to do"
Don´t think so - there are plenty of Eastern European (those outside of EU, of from the new commer countries), well trained and inexpensive medical doctors who cannot get a job in Britain. I personally know many of them. There must be another reason why there are so many Muslim doctors in UK.
Leave Iraq Now,
From what I've read the UK has a dual system. It's because private practice doctors were established prior to the advent of socialized medicine. (Because private care practice was already in effect, the government couldn't close them down -- so they continue to operate.) Thus, if you have the money, you can go to a private clinic. If you don't have the money, then you go to the publicly-funded hospitals/clinics. (From what I've seen, the public hospitals are not great places -- they're overcrowded, under-staffed, etc.)
In Canada, we have a National health care system which does not (in theory) allow for private practioneers.
Hugh is right, being a jihadist transcends whatever oaths you swore as either as a doctor or citizen of a non-islamic country. From what I see Islam preempts any and all non-Islamic oaths and values. Hence you get Muslim doctors willing to committ mass murder.
And given that even Islamic doctors are not immune to the Jihadist call, patients ought to be exclude Muslim doctors(especially any under 40) as their physician.
They are all linked to the NHS, and 40% of the doctors are foreign trained. That's not good news, considering the islamists would have access to dangerous biological or radiological substances.
They don't want the doctors from Eastern Europe because they are likely to be wingnuts and not vote or support left parties (and just aren't multicultural enough - they'd integrate easily). And frankly, I think they should keep the policy that way, don't want them to empty/weaken Eastern Europe.
"They are all linked to the NHS" means that "they" the terrorist doctors are all linked to the NHS.
There is private health care (including private hospitals) in the UK. From what I've read a physician could work entirely in the private (independent of government) sector. There is also an over-lap. Thus, a NHS doctor could also have a private practice. (But if he/she opts for a private practice as a NHS doctor, then the physician is bound by government regulations.) I don't know what the statistical break-down is (that is, what percentage of all doctors are NHS -- I'm guessing it's pretty high or accounts for the majority of doctors, and how many are entirely "private" or not affiliated with the NHS.)
Maybe someone knows about this...Is the taking of the Hipocratic oath incumbant on all doctors everywhere, or is it a western (US) required oath only?
As far as doctors are concerned a very competant Dr once told me that Dr's cure 5% of their patients, and they kill 5% of their patients. The other ninty percent would either get well, or die, no matter what you do for them...That's what he said...I like to stay in the 'other' 5%, that stay away from Dr's because nothing is wrong...
Where in the Hippocratic Oath are genocidal attacks against innocents commanded?
Leave Iraq Now
The quality and type of care very much depends where you live but there is normally a medical practice or health centre covering your home area. If you live in a prosperous suburb you'll tend have British doctors and if you live in a poor area or inner-city it's more likely to be a foreign or an least ethnic minority doctor. These general practitioners are very well paid indeed and I believe they have the right to sell a practice for cash when they retire or move on.
British doctors did tend to dominate in the best specialisations leaving unfashionable things like geriatric medicine to Asians, both Hindu and Muslim. But there have been massive pushes against discrimination in the last 20 years and as medicine is a high prestige profession among Muslims 25 per cent of doctors under training in some medical schools are Muslims.
The reason we have so many foreign doctors is because the medical profession controls and regulates all training and has restricted the numbers entering medicine to maintain their own salaries. Consequently there were never enough British-trained doctors to staff the health service and over 40 years ago they started to bring doctors in, particularly from India to fill up the vacancies. The trend has just continued ever since.
The main problem with the British health service it that is a giant inflated bureaucracy, probably the biggest employer in Europe and everyone working in it from the floor wipers to the consultants is doing very well thank you. The politicians have been trying to bring it in order for years but as they're all BS merchants who know nothing about management and lack the guts anyway, it does soak up money.
Nevertheless it is free to all at the point of delivery and provides obstetrical services for half of Asia. It is fairly normal for our ethnic-minority citizens to bring their pregnant relatives in three months before a birth to take advantage of our facilities. For example at one east London hospital 50 per cent of the maternity beds at any time are occupied by foreign women from the Middle East, Africa or Asia on a kind of “working holiday”. Naturally we pay a fortune for interpreters in dozens of different languages to ensure they get proper treatment. In addition to this 80 per cent of all Aids cases in the UK have come from sub-Saharan Africa for treatment and we have had the reintroduction of drugs resistant tuberculosis as a result of emigration from the Third World. The influx of Aids and tuberculosis cases particularly to London area is causing serious budgetary problems to the extent that medical chiefs have told the government it has to do something. It hasn't done anything apart from try cover the problem up with the help of misleading reports on…………………the BBC.
One could write a book on the British health service but it has served me and my family well. Its main problem is the appalling waste and the power of the employees at every level.
Oh and yes you can choose your doctor if you wish and he/she can also refuse to have you as a patient. But as you know very little about them anyway you do not have much to go on.
Qualification on my last post. The head honchos do very well indeed but junior doctors in hospitals work long hours and are not that well paid. Hence the need to bring in young forign doctors.
Further qualification. So far as I know in Britain they do not take an oath, Hippocratic or otherwise.
There's a Wikipedia article on the Hippocratic Oath: here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippocratic_Oath
According to the article, in the UK the doctors adhere to a "Duties of a Doctor" and "Good Medical Practices" statement. Most medical schools in the U.S. and Canada require some form of statement with respect to ethics (to which doctors are expected to adhere). (the phrase "shall do no harm" btw isn't actually contained in the original Hippocratic Oath).
So if our own homegrown moonbats get into power and force socialized medicine upon us (as in "Sicko" by the porcine Michael Moore), then we can expect muslim doctors here in the U.S. We will not be able to go to another doctor if that is the one assigned to us. It will be either let the pig treat you and risk death at it's hand, or go home and die.
I think I will choose the latter if it comes to that.
Another aspect of socialized medicine (at least here in Canada) is that the patient can't sue individual doctors for malpractice. What happens is that you can launch proceedings, but they are filed with the provincial College of Physicians and Surgeons (this "college" is the equivalent of a doctor's union -- each province has its own oversight "college" -- they monitor doctors -- they issue the licenses -- they revoke licenses, etc.). Then, it's up to the College to assess the claim. And, if they decide that the doctor was not in any violation, then your claim is shelved (or it's file 13 time). (I recall one such horror story -- I believe it occurred in Winnipeg -- with an immigrant Doctor who performed heart surgeries on infants and children. He had an incredible death rate -- the nurses were all well aware that this "doctor" was a total incompetent. So, too, his colleagues. They repeatedly had him go back for training -- take courses -- but he seemed incapable of learning. He would repeat the same mistakes over and over. The nurses would prep children for the forthcoming operation, and secretly know that the child would probably not survive the operation -- thus, the nurses said their "good-byes" to the children. Many of the parents were absolutely devastated at losing their child due to what they had thought, assured, would be a "routine" heart operation -- the child would die on the operating table, at the hands of this "sicko." Yes, that's "socialized medicine." (eventually, if I recall correctly, this individual left the country -- but continued to practice medicine).
JS
One has to be fair and say this does not seem to be a problem with just foreign doctors or socialised medicine. There was a case a couple of years ago about a heart specialist in Bristol UK who had an appalling death rate among his patients. Everyone knew it but such was strength of the doctors “trade union” that for years nobody said anything. It was not until one of the team emigrated to Australia that he was able to go public about the situation and it caused a major scandal. Consequently comparative statistics are now collected from each hospital and health authority but whether these will be of any use or not remains to be seen.
As to this being the fault of socialised medicine, a personal friend was being treated for a heart attack in a private hospital and not doing too well. Luckily one of the medical team had the courage to telephone his wife and the conversation was as follows,
“Do you know who this is?”
“I think so I've heard your voice at a hospital.”
“Well never mind that, but get another doctor to see Ken or you’ll lose him.”
She did, and got him moved to public hospital where the consultant was appalled by the treatment he had been given. Needless to say no one was penalised but it shows the power of doctors to protect themselves - public or private.
It may not be only a problem with foreign doctors, more generally it has to do with incompetence and getting rid of those doctors who are incompetent. I wonder if having a huge bureaucracy does not enable those who are incompetent to escape notice. (?) I've also heard that if a doctor is incompetent in a private health care situation, by word of mouth, the news gets around and the doctor won't prosper or have a large clientele -- it's like a market-place -- the best providers will be the most sought after (as opposed to a more socialized system of ensuring that good, bad and indifferent are treated equally). And in the States I think you can quickly lose out if you're incompetent and the patients file crippling law suits. But, this may be just a "theory" and, as you note, in reality, the theory may not hold water (and public or private, the doctors' protection union will operate...)
Oh, and I guess, I should also add (before jumping on the College and Physicians and Surgeons) -- i have read that the Feds here want to take away their ability to assess the credentials of foreign educated doctors. Instead, the politicians want to set up a separate entity to look at degrees and determine the equivalencies (I believe such a situation would encourage bribery and cheating and corruption.) (I think the most competent to assess the credentials of potential doctors are other doctors.)
You just got to wonder...
University of Chicago Medical Center officials launched a probe last month, and now police are investigating whether three patients there, including two who died, got intentional insulin overdoses.
http://cbs2chicago.com/topstories/local_story_184094452.html
Lots of muslim doctors and medical students here; maybe connected, maybe not.
You are only partly right.
"The answer, of course, is that a jihadist will not consider himself bound by an infidel oath taken before an infidel authority, and sees his loyalty to the Islamic umma as paramount, and allowing for the justification of virtually any act."
The Oath of a Muslim Physician is clearly different from the others and suggests more than a simple disregard for a non-binding, infidel oath. It arguably allows (encourages?) them to kill (essentially) infidels and is based, in part, on "the historical...writings of physicians of (the) Islamic World," not necessarily new concepts.
This is from WhoKilledJA.com (quoting IMANA):
As IMANA states, "'This medical oath [which] is a composite from the historical and contemporary writings of physicians of (the) Islamic World.' The Oath would appear to be merely a reduction to writing while the concepts comprised by it were in play well before 1977 and wider spread in the Muslim world thereby providing justification for a sick care outcome different from that a patient might desire."
See here: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/archives/2007/07/i_told_you_so_t.html#comments
and here (copy the entire link and paste it into your browser):
http://www.whokilledja.com/Who Killed JA/Sometimes Physicians And Other Sick Care Workers May Behave Differently From What You Expect.htm
They actually tell their intentions, and yet, "Europe is burning in torpor", to quote the late Oriana Fallacci, and so is the US. When will the West snap out of torpor and act for it very basic physical survival?
Ruslan Tokhchukov, EnragedSince1999.
The Hypocratic Oath appears to have an elastic history . . .yielding language to reflect modern medicine.
This is just one example of that elacticity of that oath - from Cornell:
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/June05/Hippocratic_Oath.mh.html
June 22, 2005
From antiquity to eternity: Revised Hippocratic Oath resonates with graduates
By Melissa Hantman
NEW YORK -- Revisiting a hallowed ritual for doctors, a committee within the Weill Cornell Medical College (WCMC) convened this spring to craft an updated Hippocratic Oath, one that responds to the state of modern medicine. Originally composed in ancient Greece, the oath expresses principles still fundamental to the practice of medicine today. Over the years, it has become an emotional rite of passage in medical school graduations across the world.
On June 1, the college's new oath was unveiled at Commencement ceremonies for the WCMC and Graduate School of Medical Sciences. After Antonio M. Gotto Jr., dean of WCMC, administered the oath to the graduates, he invited the medical faculty and other physicians present to stand and recommit themselves to the oath's principles by raising their right hands. (The oath is at the end of this story.)
"With this gesture," Gotto said, "we will join our new colleagues in affirming the values that guide both our work and our lives."
The original Hippocratic Oath has been revised many times to reflect changes in medical practice, historically by individuals or professional associations. The new Weill Cornell oath is unusual because it represents a single institution's effort. Comprising faculty from both Weill Cornell campuses in New York City and Doha, Qatar, the 20-member Dean's Committee on the Hippocratic Oath included two senior associate deans, two associate deans, two student leaders and three department chairs. At Gotto's request, this representative committee was headed by Joseph J. Fins, chief of the Division of Medical Ethics and professor of medicine, public health and medicine in psychiatry.
The committee members took a scholarly, systematic and inclusive approach, enriching their knowledge with background reading and categorizing the key elements of earlier medical oaths, including the classical Hippocratic Oath; a well-known 1964 revision by Louis Lasagna; the Oath of Maimonides, a medieval Jewish philosopher; and an oath for Muslim physicians.
In addition to content, the committee examined the language of the oath. "We wanted to be respectful of the diversity of perspectives on faith and belief," explained Fins, "and to be mindful that there are a number of ways to express personal commitment." With this in mind, the members chose to replace phrases that have a religious connotation with more ecumenical expressions, such as changing "I swear" to the more secular "I vow."
The revised oath ends on a more positive note than the classical version, which threatens retribution for any doctor who transgresses the oath and swears falsely. Revised, it reads: "I now turn to my calling, promising to preserve its finest traditions, with the reward of a long experience in the joy of healing." It concludes: "I make this vow freely and upon my honor," again underscoring personal responsibility as a guidepost in one's profession.
The committee also considered the history of medicine, the enduring principles of medical practice, and the profound social and scientific changes affecting the profession today.
New emphases in the revised oath address doctors' responsibilities and duties to serve as advocates for their patients, champion social justice for the sick and forge strong bonds throughout the healing process.
The oath reaffirms a "sacred trust" between doctors and patients, reminding doctors to "use their power wisely." It also fosters trust and respect within the profession by including a pledge to help sustain colleagues in their service to humanity. In a culture preoccupied with wealth and power, the oath serves as an antidote to professional arrogance, obligating doctors to practice humility and self-awareness, accept their limitations and pursue lifelong learning to better care for the sick and prevent illness.
"It was so invigorating to have a group of colleagues together, talking about these important issues and thinking deeply about why we're here and what we're doing," Fins said. "It helped reconnect us as a group, and I hope it will encourage our broader college community to recommit to the values embodied in the oath."
The committee first met in February 2005 to discuss the core values of the oath in the context of 21st-century medicine.
"Our goal was to preserve the enduring precepts and obligations of doctoring, but also to make the oath reflective of some of the current challenges that the health-care system faces today, trying to balance the old with the new," Fins said. "We had to express the core principles in a more modern way; otherwise it becomes platitudinous."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Weill Cornell Medical College's Hippocratic Oath
I do solemnly vow, to that which I value and hold most dear:
That I will honor the Profession of Medicine, be just and generous to its members, and help sustain them in their service to humanity;
That just as I have learned from those who preceded me, so will I instruct those who follow me in the science and the art of medicine;
That I will recognize the limits of my knowledge and pursue lifelong learning to better care for the sick and to prevent illness;
That I will seek the counsel of others when they are more expert so as to fulfill my obligation to those who are entrusted to my care;
That I will not withdraw from my patients in their time of need;
That I will lead my life and practice my art with integrity and honor, using my power wisely;
That whatsoever I shall see or hear of the lives of my patients that is not fitting to be spoken, I will keep in confidence;
That into whatever house I shall enter, it shall be for the good of the sick;
That I will maintain this sacred trust, holding myself far aloof from wrong, from corrupting, from the tempting of others to vice;
That above all else I will serve the highest interests of my patients through the practice of my science and my art;
That I will be an advocate for patients in need and strive for justice in the care of the sick.
I now turn to my calling, promising to preserve its finest traditions, with the reward of a long experience in the joy of healing.
I make this vow freely and upon my honor.
we are all aware of what muhammedans value and hold most dear. . .the example of their beloved 'prophet' muhammad, an aggressive warrior who claimed that 'war is deception" - to devout followers, a model of the Perfect Man (uswa hasana, al-insan al-kamil).Nuts.