…and this is a 
A compromise: maybe they could operate with their feet?
Category: Kooks • Religion
Posted on: February 10, 2008 7:27 PM, by PZ Myers
So…Muslims want special foot washing stations so they can tidy up in order to pray, but at the same time, Muslim doctors don't want to have to wash their arms before they plunge them into my guts. "No practising Muslim woman — doctor, medical student, nurse or patient — should be forced to bare her arms below the elbow," they say.
A belief system that prioritizes washing up before mumbling at an invisible man over sterile technique in surgery does not require accommodation. It needs to be the target of laughter and contempt.
Comments
"Thank God I'm an atheist!" -- Aleister Crowley
Posted by: Tom Buckner | February 10, 2008 7:42 PM
These kind of people drive me nuts, take you fucking bronze age religion and shove it up your ass. If you don't like washing Mr. Surgeon, drive a fucking taxi. If you don't want to fill Birth Control or Morning After prescriptions, get a job roofing. You want to teach creationism in public schools, get a job at Starbucks and tell me to have a "blessed day."
But if you want to work in a public profession, keep your damn religiosity to yourself and take care of the people you're in the way our society demands.
Posted by: Moses | February 10, 2008 7:45 PM
Not so new rule: If hygiene is against your religion, you don't get to be a doctor.
Posted by: Escuerd | February 10, 2008 7:45 PM
Actually, that's Luis Buñuel, and originally in Spanish, of course: "Soy ateo, gracias a dios." It's from an interview he gave somewhere.
Posted by: Nullifidian | February 10, 2008 7:45 PM
Coast is a goddamn eye opener.
Posted by: danley | February 10, 2008 7:50 PM
Many moons ago I lived with a Bedouin hill tribe near Petra in Jordan. One winter I got terribly sick with pneumonia and had to receive treatment by a Muslim doctor in Petra. Whilst he was a lovely man and their training is first rate he still had to adhere to the silly requirements of his religion. As such, sick as a dog, I could only be examined from the other side of a sheet held up by his two giggling nurses. I explained that it didn't worry me to be examined and to go ahead, lift up my top and listen to my lungs, but no, still had to have that damn sheet. I was in that clinic for a week and all I remember in my delerium is that fucking sheet.
Posted by: Bride of Shrek | February 10, 2008 8:07 PM
Agreed. Muslims who demand others bend over backwards for their faith deserve only contempt. In the medical profession it's just evil, I think.
But I must be honest here and say I am yet to meet a Muslim who is so selfish in this manner. One of my English literature teachers at school was a Muslim, though besides the headscarf, you wouldn't know it. She never talked about her faith nor demanded concessions because of it. I like to think the majority of British Muslims are as moderate as her.
I still see niqabs and burqas sometimes, and I hear about the hate-filled mosques and the rabid imams that preach violence to their congregations... but I think they number a minority.
Posted by: Matt | February 10, 2008 8:09 PM
The utter stupidity of religion never ceases to amaze me. I say no more accommodation for religion when it affects other peoples lives and health.
Posted by: AlisonS | February 10, 2008 8:33 PM
Just when I think it can't possibly get any loonier.... Perhaps we could convince them to start a Muslim version of Christian Science? Sort of like the Red Crescent, only dumber.
Posted by: breakerslion | February 10, 2008 8:33 PM
OK, good point. So I hope more here will admit that some conservative critics of multiculturalism etc. have a point when the warn us about spreading of Islam and its influence. Instead of despising such sentiments as racist, jingoistic, etc., see the rational self-interest involved (and no need to agree on anything else.)
Posted by: Neil B. | February 10, 2008 8:51 PM
If I get necrotizing fasciitis or some other nosocomial infection because a Muslim with clean feet didn't wash his/her hands before treating me, I'll be just as dead as if some religious zealot drives a plane into my office building. This kind of practice should be an absolute bar from treating patients, where rule #1 is "do no harm." Moses (the poster above) had it right...get a new profession or get a different religion (or better yet, no religion at all). Unless, of course, the religionist can operate well with his/her cleanly scrubbed feet???
Posted by: woowoozy | February 10, 2008 9:03 PM
Matt (#7), they, being the minority, are irrelevent. Unless they open thier mouths, or do SOMETHING, thier oppinions/actions of moderation mean nothing.
Posted by: The Skeptard | February 10, 2008 9:04 PM
@ #3:
And right after that should be: "If giving out the morning after pill is against your religion, you can't become a pharmacist."
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 10, 2008 9:04 PM
I am almost sure they would not agree with that. They would have to scrub their feet and legs up to their knees. The exposure of calves is immoral.
Posted by: Janine | February 10, 2008 9:08 PM
I don't agree with this either, although the majority religion in this country will laugh and point fingers and mock this case and similar cases, while in turn demanding they be given deference whenever they want a public monument or prayer area or what have you. Guaranteed this will turn into another opportunity for Christians to thump their chest about how evil the Muslims are for wanting their ceremonial stuff, while simultaneously acting like self-righteous do-gooders about their own.
Posted by: BlueIndependent | February 10, 2008 9:10 PM
Absolutely.
Posted by: Moses | February 10, 2008 9:13 PM
If 50 million Muslims are moderate and don't go for such nonsense, but they tolerate the 50,000 crazy Muslims who do, then there are 50,050,000 Muslims who are proponents. Religious moderation is the true danger. Look what happened to the Republican party. At one time, there were reasonable people who called themselves Republicans. They had reasonable ideas. Then the religious right co-opted the entire party, and the moderates were too chicken-shit to say anything, and look at the now wacked-out Republican party. Same thing, different genre.
The fundamentalists are NOT the problem. It is the tolerance of the fundamentalists by the main-stream religionists that is the REAL danger.
Posted by: Rob | February 10, 2008 9:14 PM
This is going to sound cruel, but let them not wash. However they can only be treated like wise.
When insurance companies start seeing a rise in death and other infections from unclean doctors, I think they'll be told to scrub to the elbow, or have their license pulled.
People don't care enough until it effects the bottom line. In this case the insurance companies maybe a good thing :)
No I'm not really serious... Only partly. I don't think the insurance companies will stand for it, and will intervene. I also don't think the muslim doctors themselves, will let someone who hasn't scrubbed operate on them.
Posted by: chris rattis | February 10, 2008 9:17 PM
A reality check here.
One could solve the entire problem by providing sterile latex gloves that go further up the arm-- as many American hospitals here in NYC do for the orthodox Jewish hospital workers. For chrissake, if there's a simple solution then why not use it?
Long gloves are quite common and the Muslim doctor is quite correct when he says that would end the controversy right there and probably be better if everyone were required to use them.
One might also provide a separate washroom for men and women if necessary. I can think of a dozen ways to accommodate this in ways nobody would ever notice, just as we accommodate Christian practice every goddamned day. Want to park for free on Madison Avenue? Just do it on Ash Wednesday. OMG! The Catholics are asking for accommodation and bending over backwards! AAAAGGH!
As for Muslims asking for people to bend over backwards, maybe as a New Yorker I am inured to this kind of thing. The Orthodox have all kinds of rules that are rather funny to the non-Jew, in some ways, but it's a rare event when they are a bother to anyone else. Same for the mosques -- the call to prayer is no more disturbing than the bells of St. Patricks, which I happen to live near. I sometimes wonder if the people who are most concerned with accommodating people have ever met anyone from a different tradition or know any Muslims-- or Jews or Hindus -- at all.
Posted by: Jesse | February 10, 2008 9:19 PM
So I hope more here will admit that some conservative critics of multiculturalism etc. have a point when the warn us about spreading of Islam and its influence.
"I hope more here will admit that devil worshippers, Nazis, and serial murderers have a point when they warn about running red lights".
Posted by: truth machine | February 10, 2008 9:22 PM
So I hope more here will admit that some conservative critics of multiculturalism etc. have a point when the warn us about spreading of Islam and its influence.
"I hope more here will admit that devil worshippers, Nazis, and serial murderers have a point when they warn about running red lights".
Posted by: truth machine | February 10, 2008 9:24 PM
Hello TM! Man, what an edge there. Well I often don't agree with conservatives, but in this case their caution is more directly related to their typical themes ("xenophobia" and wariness of "tolerance" etc.) than being against running red lights is to the thought of Nazis, etc. It was a good enough call in principle. Of course they ran it into the ground in keeping with their proclivities. They aren't always wrong, are they?
Posted by: Neil B. | February 10, 2008 9:30 PM
if they want to do that then they should invest in private hospitals just for Muslims. Theoretically, there is a higher chance of these Muslims getting infected and dying, and when they notice that happening, what are they going to say? "Women weren't meant to be doctors"
or will they learn to use Occam's razor, start washing their hands, and stop believing in deities?
Posted by: the_Astrocreep | February 10, 2008 9:31 PM
Are these Muslims just stupid or something?
Posted by: Alex | February 10, 2008 9:42 PM
Another possible solution...many hospitals here publish infection rates following surgeries or other invasive procedures. Have the infectious disease monitor for the hospital publish the data on post-op infections. If a trend becomes apparent for higher infection rates after instituting this non-washing practice, the hospital or the doctors practicing this way could lose business. That is bound to prompt a reassessment. Also, as any ID doc will tell you, gloves, even longer gloves, are no substitute for good hand washing.
Posted by: woowoozy | February 10, 2008 9:47 PM
Another solution:
Tell the stupid Muslims to join the 21st century.
Religious tolerance is stupid. If they're so unhappy and pissed-off by Western culture, and if they feel they can't survive unless their 10th century mores are implemented in a society that has long since emerged from the darkness, then why don't they form their own countries where they can do as they wish?
Oh, sorry. They have, and these countries are shitholes.
Sorry, I'm so sick of this that I want to move to the Yukon.
Unfortunately, that's way north of Minnesota, where only crazy hosers live.
Posted by: Rob | February 10, 2008 10:01 PM
#19 -
"One could solve the entire problem by providing sterile latex gloves that go further up the arm"
yeah! why shouldnt the hospitals spend money out of their budget to buy an additional product at (likely) higher expense, to appease the small minority who could just keep their private beliefs out of their public employment and wash their damn hands like everyone else?
i dont know. maybe extra long gloves wouldnt be too much of a financial hit for a hospital, but why should they even have to bother? not to mention that wouldnt a muslim doctor presumably have to roll up their sleeves anyways to get the glove on? and aren't latex gloves um.... translucent/transparent? what exactly is the difference?
not to mention that it does'nt solve the problem of hygeine. in the same way that i wouldnt rely on just a condom to prevent pregnancy, i wouldnt feel as safe having a doctor touch me with an unwashed gloved hand than with a washed gloved hand. if the glove makes you perfectly hygenic, why are doctors washing their hands at all?
Posted by: w1lp33 | February 10, 2008 10:01 PM
"Your right to swing your fist stops at my nose."
if i were in control of british medical schools, id vote to kick them out of med school if they refuse to follow hygienic practices
sometimes, my way or the highway, is the reasonable path
Posted by: brightmoon | February 10, 2008 10:04 PM
#19
We wash our hands before gloving...washing is half the process, latex the rest. Both are important. The hands more so because they will be in the body.
As to the rest...I live in a very arabic area, and work with tons of muslim doctors and have never seen a problem....most of them would think it ridiculous.
Posted by: PalMD | February 10, 2008 10:13 PM
"Look what happened to the Republican party. At one time, there were reasonable people who called themselves Republicans. They had reasonable ideas. Then the religious right co-opted the entire party"
Not entirely true. The Republicans courted the religious right in order to win the Southern vote. In other words, they sold their soul to the devil. How reasonable were they after all?
Posted by: Rick T. | February 10, 2008 10:14 PM
Neil B,
I wouldn't call substituting one Sky Fairy-based practice of medicine (refusal to scrub properly) for another (refusal to prescribe/dispense ECP) rational self-interest.
Posted by: ema | February 10, 2008 10:14 PM
#19 Jesse: "Same for the mosques -- the call to prayer is no more disturbing than the bells of St. Patricks, which I happen to live near."
This works better as an indictment of the bells than a defense of the adhaan. Maybe I should open a store that plays a tornado siren every time we have a sale. Hey, it won't be any more irritating than church bells, after all.
More seriously, if there are restrictions on noise, let them apply to churches and mosques too. At the very least have a system for granting licenses that can weight the costs and benefits in each case. Speaking as someone who grew up next to a drag-racing track and has lived with someone whose computer played the call to prayer five times a day, I can see some utility in having some noise restrictions.
Posted by: Escuerd | February 10, 2008 10:15 PM
A whole lotta Muslim surgeons gonna be sued. Big time.
Posted by: shrimplate | February 10, 2008 10:15 PM
Any belief system that teaches doctors and nurses to follow unsanitary practices that may endanger their patients' lives needs to be treated with a lot more than just laughter and contempt. We need to immediately make a rule which says any medical worker who will not follow basic procedures for preventing the spread of nosocomial disease will lose their license to practice until they agree to comply. If they're students and they won't comply, then they need to be expelled from medical school. If you want to practice science-based medicine, you need to come and live in reality with everyone else.
Posted by: Ebonmuse | February 10, 2008 10:19 PM
I thought surgeons wore gloves and washed their hands and arms before putting the gloves on? Therefore the point of using longer gloves is moot.
Posted by: Shane | February 10, 2008 10:22 PM
"One could solve the entire problem by providing sterile latex gloves that go further up the arm-- as many American hospitals here in NYC do for the orthodox Jewish hospital workers. For chrissake, if there's a simple solution then why not use it?"
You mean like soap? And sanity? (Well, maybe sanity isn't that simple.)
Posted by: craig | February 10, 2008 10:22 PM
Infection control (Semmelweiss) discovered the utility to hand-washing many decades ago. The idiocy of allowing long latex gloves is only as good as the pre-donning washing. Want to bet that Orthodox don't? Not me.
If you can't conform to the proven dictates of the medical sciences, do as Moses stated and find another profession. And don't give me any s**t that it's your conscience. The patient comes first.
Posted by: Mold | February 10, 2008 10:25 PM
The otiose stylings of Neil B.:
They aren't always wrong, are they?
If it's anything written by Neil B., it's the way to bet.
Hey, Neil B.: what makes you think that you're different, in principle, with your magic pixie dust explanation for consciousness, from people who reject the germ theory of disease?
Posted by: Ken Cope | February 10, 2008 10:44 PM
Hey look, I was just saying that accommodations to religious beliefs happen all over the place and nobody says anything.
In hospitals,as others have noted, I honestly have never heard before this of any Muslim doctors refusing to wash their hands, and this bit about modesty -- well, let's just say there are some things about the story that are a little weird, but I'll get to that in a minute.
As to hospitals having to purchase anything at additional cost to accommodate people, well, they put a whole stack of money in to having separate men's and women's bathrooms, which are dollar for dollar a crapload more expensive given what they add to construction and water costs. But hey, I think that's a stupid distinction. Unisex crappers for all, dammit!
More seriously, it was not clear to me from the piece linked whether someone had asked a Muslim doctor about refusal to wash hands or refusal to wash hands in front of other people or what. I ask this because in most Islamic cultures hand-washing (as it is for Jews, by the way) is an important and frequent thing to do.
Something tells me something is getting lost in translation here. I'm not saying various religions don't have silly precepts sometimes. But if a non-Jew who knew zero about Judaism were to ask me about the separation of sexes, for example, or the practice by Orthodox women of wearing wigs I can see a lot of weird answers appearing in the local paper.
Posted by: Jesse | February 10, 2008 10:55 PM
The core piece of this is:
"But the 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."
I have two problems with this:
1) As far I know the "basic tenet" isn't a specific dress-code, but an admonition to dress modestly. Baring one's forearms in a clinical setting is hardly immodest.
2) Isn't it odd how this purported "basic tenet" only applies to women, and that the IMA artfully skips over this element?
Posted by: Hrafn | February 10, 2008 11:29 PM
And how will Islamic doctors and nurses answer to their God and their fellow human beings for the patients who die from infections contracted from the medical staff who are supposed to care for and treat them?
Posted by: Ian H Spedding FCD | February 10, 2008 11:38 PM
More seriously, it was not clear to me from the piece linked whether someone had asked a Muslim doctor about refusal to wash hands or refusal to wash hands in front of other people or what.
It's about a refusal to wash hands according to some new UK ID control guidelines (instituted because of a rise in nosocomial infections, if I remember correctly)--forearms must be uncovered.
Posted by: ema | February 11, 2008 12:11 AM
And what about those healthcare workers (or patients) allergic to latex? Now we need long latex free gloves? Get over your damn selves and wash.
Posted by: Michele | February 11, 2008 12:19 AM
They aren't always wrong, are they?
Nor are devil worshippers, Nazis, and serial murderers always wrong. Nonetheless, we don't take that as a reason to pay attention to them. Regardless of whether serial murderers or "conservative critics of multiculturalism etc." have some pony buried in their shit, we don't need to look to them for ponies. And the pony here is not about "spreading of Islam and its influence", but about treating religion as some sort of trump card that overrides civil liberties.
Instead of despising such sentiments as racist, jingoistic, etc.
But in fact the sentiments of "conservative critics of multiculturalism etc." are racist and jingoistic. Their views are a lot closer to those of the practitioners of Sharia law than to mine.
Posted by: truth machine | February 11, 2008 12:47 AM
I often don't agree with conservatives
As opposed to not often agreeing with conservatives.
Posted by: truth machine | February 11, 2008 1:00 AM
unless I missed something in the article (and it's possible I did) all I see is some people making a ridiculous demand, and the the authorities saying "no fucking way"
sounds like a tempest in a teapot at this point - maybe when it actually becomes an issue in practice I'll think it's worth this much discussion...
(personally, I suspect that if the issue was any group other than muslims, there wouldn't be a news story about it at all...)
Posted by: CanadianChick | February 11, 2008 1:03 AM
I guess that my practice of spitting into the body cavities of the people I operate on before closing them up is next venerable tradition on the chopping block?
I can't believe you people. Bigots, the lot of you.
Posted by: Troublesome Frog | February 11, 2008 1:14 AM
Wow, that is basically the epitome of stupid.
Posted by: sacredchao | February 11, 2008 1:31 AM
As has been said elsewhere, if they can find a way to comply with their personal religious preference and the requirements of their chosen occupation without affecting the convenience or safety of anyone else, more power to them. Male Sikh members of Canadian police departments found a way to wear turbans while still meeting departmental guidelines. Public safety wasn't affected and everyone got what they wanted.
Even with long gloves, the defense-in-depth approach of both washing and wearing gloves is compromised if female Muslims avoid washing to comply with their chosen religious beliefs. Public safety is compromised.
I'm having a hard time mustering any sympathy for people who expect to be exempted from basic job requirements (hygiene, customer service) due to their religious beliefs, Catholic, Muslim, Scientologist, Zoroastrian, Pastafarian -- whatever. If Muslim women aren't willing to roll up their sleeves, then maybe they should choose careers that don't involve arm washing or, for that matter, rotating machinery. Life is too short to suffer these sorts of fools.
Posted by: Bob | February 11, 2008 1:37 AM
"But I must be honest here and say I am yet to meet a Muslim who is so selfish in this manner. One of my English literature teachers at school was a Muslim, though besides the headscarf, you wouldn't know it."
Didn't you read the initial post this isn't "some Muslims" this is "Muslims". all of them.
You know, like all Jews are money-grubbing and all blacks can't be trusted around white women.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 11, 2008 1:56 AM
If your medical practitioner does not know to practice basic hygiene - then I highly doubt they are qualified to be giving you any medical advice whatsoever.
Posted by: JoSummertime | February 11, 2008 1:57 AM
Oh and the source for all this?
The Daily Telegraph a far right, racist, bigoted xenophobic British tabloid.
So it must be true.
Posted by: Ian Gould | February 11, 2008 2:01 AM
As a Muslim, I just want to chip in my few cents here in support of the poster @ 39.
Before those five daily prayers, Muslims--including women--must perform ablutions, which require washing the arms all the way up to the elbows. So it's not as if the notion of washing is foreign to Muslims. As for why the tenet of modesty is only arising for women, that's because the concept of "hijab" (the dress code requiring long sleeves, skirt, head scarf) doesn't apply to men (although they're not supposed to dress flamboyantly, either).
However, the article doesn't make clear what the scope of these changes are: parts of the report seems as if this change will apply to all physicians, regardless of setting, while other parts make it seem as if it applies only to surgery settings.
I have no issues with requiring those changes in surgeries--it's too critical a situation to insist on less. When surgery isn't involved, I don't see why a doctor can't scrub up in a bathroom or other environment where men aren't around (which is when the dress code rules apply). So a blanket rule strikes me as overkill: is a radiologist, for instance, supposed to have bare forearms while reading X-ray results? Is a psychiatrist required to scrub up before meeting with a patient?
I really would like to know what the actual changes are, and then draw conclusions about how rational the response is. (Without knowing all the facts, it just becomes a rush to judgment.)
Posted by: EWG Gestalt | February 11, 2008 2:10 AM
I'm not sure how seriously you should take the "Islamic Medical Association". Whenever I hear this name it always involves the same single lunatic who comes on the radio and says stupid things that have no connection to any muslim medic that I have ever met. I honestly suspect that he is the only one in the organization. I think its like what Kathy Griffin said about the Catholic League - "its just one guy and a computer".
Posted by: Sigmund | February 11, 2008 2:50 AM
What was cleanliness next to again....?
Posted by: James | February 11, 2008 3:46 AM
I'm a nursing student in Washington and all of the Muslim women in my class (mostly from Iran) don't wear a headscarf or long sleeves. @ #53 Wearing long sleeves while practicing medicine is a bad idea in general. You can wash your arms many times a day but unless you change your shirt between patients (like with surgical gowns) you will be carrying around more bacteria on your sleeves than you would on your bare arms. This is why doctors should not wear ties because they brush up against things and become vectors for infection.
p.s. Proper technique while scrubbing in (AKA washing from fingertips to elbows) is an essential part of maintaining surgical asepsis regardless of glove use.
Posted by: Klayton | February 11, 2008 4:28 AM
Uh-oh. Expect a fatwa against PZ any day now........
Posted by: Kat | February 11, 2008 4:33 AM
My religion requires me to wear copius amounts of body piercing.
Seing as I want to work with an MR scanner they'd better turn of the magnetic field.
Posted by: Ernst Hot | February 11, 2008 4:37 AM
Ian (@52), the Telegraph would be very upset at being described as a tabloid. They are a broadsheet, and proud of it. The rest of the comment still applies, but to a lesser extent than it would apply to, say, the Daily Mail, compared to which they are only moderately right.
Posted by: Spike | February 11, 2008 4:45 AM
So we have Catholic pharmacists who want the right to refuse giving people the morning after pill or contraception, and Muslim doctors who want the right to refuse to scrub.
What's next? Quakers joining the Marines, and then wanting the right to refuse to have any part in it because they're pacifists?
If you're unable to comply with the requirements of your job, get yourself another job. It's not that hard. Hundreds of people do it every day for non-spiritual reasons.
Posted by: Darwin's Minion | February 11, 2008 4:52 AM
OK, good point. So I hope more here will admit that some conservative critics of multiculturalism etc. have a point when the warn us about spreading of Islam and its influence.
This isn't necessarily a multiculturalism issue. Multiculturalism as I understand it deals with culture or ethnicity---we're dealing with religion, which is not the same as culture (though it can sometimes influence it).
Posted by: Brandon P. | February 11, 2008 4:57 AM
Question for EWG Gestalt, the Muslim commenter. I know very little about Islam, but do know that it is essentially a religious legal system, meaning it is a lot more like Judaism than either is like Christianity.
Jewish law has a principle called pikuach nefesh, which not only permits but requires an observant Jew to break almost any other commandment of Jewish law if somebody's life or health is at stake. There is a tiny number of exceptions: I believe the pikuach nefesh principle does not permit violation of the prohibitions against murder or idolatry. But otherwise, all bets are off: if someone's life or health require you to feast on pork chops while juggling coins on the sabbath, you do it. (I am not Jewish, let alone a rabbinical authority, so if I have got this wrong I would welcome correction from any of the hasidic grand rebbes who frequent Pharyngula. But I'm pretty sure that's the way it works.)
So my question is, does Islam have a similar principle? Especially given that exposure of a woman's forearm has got to be a relatively trivial infraction, wouldn't health concerns outweigh the very minor loss of "modesty"? (I recognise that there are several competing schools of Islamic jurisprudence and that some might take a more lenient view than others.)
Whether or not there is some form of Islamic rule that would permit or require medical personnel to bare their arms, it seems from comments here and from my own observations that most Muslim physicians, nurses etc. simply ignore any requirement about keeping the forearm covered. BTW, while I would not be surprised to learn that there are some Muslim physicians who act stupidly for religious reasons, I share Ian Gould's scepticism; the Torygraph is a source that needs deep discounting.
Posted by: Mrs Tilton | February 11, 2008 5:04 AM
EWG Gestalt,
The policy is supposed to be that anyone - doctors, nurses, allied professions - who is in physical contact with the patient or in a situation where physical contact may occur, as with a student observing who may be asked to touch the patient, should be bare below the elbow. Bare and thoroughly washed.
So your radiologist while reading x-ray results may wear anything he chooses from a space suit to a diamond-encrusted thong. While positioning the patient for x-ray, though, he will be expected to follow the rules.
I seem to remember - no source available to check - that one of Semmelweis' problems in enforcing his hygiene rule was that his colleagues refused to believe that they - middle-class, respectable and male - could possibly transfer infection TO one of those poor, smelly and female creatures in the maternity ward!
Just google the phrase "bare below the elbow" for more on both implementation and reaction.
Posted by: maureen | February 11, 2008 5:06 AM
Avicenna, or Ibn Sina, a Muslim, is credited by many as one of the discoverers of the germ theory of infectious diseases, over a thousand years ago.
Is it possible that religious people are simply getting stupider with each generation of their idiocy?
Posted by: melior | February 11, 2008 5:15 AM
The Islamic Medical Association seems to be a one man and a dog operation which holds some pretty extreme views. I suspect that the real issue for the IMA is that women are practicing as doctors in the first place.
Posted by: Duvelman | February 11, 2008 5:18 AM
As an associate professor I find that you have some reading comprehension problems as your post wreaks of Islamophobia. No one said they aren't scrubing before procedures. The outcry is on a new NHS policy that all persons must be exposed from the elbow down in the hopes of stopping the spread of MRSA. They would do well to require doctors to forego ties as well. The point is that you must be careful when you start posts like this because you fan the flames of hate against Muslims. You sir are nothing more than a bigot hiding behind the shield of science.
Posted by: Tom | February 11, 2008 5:48 AM
Seems duvelman is right. There is very little net presence for any IMA UK organisation (in contrast to the US IMA). Seems their main spokesman is a homophobe too.
Caution should always be exercised when reading a statement from a muslim (or any other religion/special interest) group - we should not assume that the person making the statement is representing anyone other than themselves.
Posted by: Iain George | February 11, 2008 6:28 AM
SOME Republicans did that. Many of us, who were moderate Republicans, went "Oh, no! Not them! We didn't like them when they were DEMOCRATS. They're horrible people!" We eventually left the party as our socially moderate-to-liberal views were no longer tolerated and we couldn't stand what the "conservatives" were doing.
Posted by: Moses | February 11, 2008 6:46 AM
Tom, while I wouldn't go so far as that, I would say that there are a couple of observations that make this story not pass the smell test.
1. Nobody here in the medical profession has run into this before.
2. The Islamic Medical Association is in Illinois. I googled a bit and didn't see one in London. Mehtinks something is amiss.
3. THe only other mentions of the IMA in England come from the Daily Mail. There was a piece they did about Muslim students refusing to take courses in sexuality or learn about alcohol. Could the reporters find the students? No.
4. When you wash hands you have to roll up your sleeves anyway to keep them from getting wet. EWG explained the ablutions.
5. The reporter nowhere interviewed anyone who said "I refuse to wash my hands in this manner" he only got an explanation of modesty from Dr. Majid Katme. The reportes could find no actual refusenik students. I'm a reporter. That is basic. If I ran a stroy like that by my editor it would get spiked.
PZ, I love reading your blog. But I think you dropped the ball on this one.
Before I lived in London I wouldn't have recognized the Independent or the Daily Mail as the rags they are either-- they are like the New York Post more than the New York Times. The London Times or the Guardian, or my personal favorite, the Financial Times seem to be more serious than a lot of others and don't get things so blatantly wrong.
Posted by: Jesse | February 11, 2008 6:48 AM
I find the story title a little misleading (for the Telegraph, I can hardly believe it!). A few students getting all uppity about their daft religious constraints does not a new general medical policy make.
The huge number of muslim doctors in this country don't seem to have any problem with evidence based medicine and evidence based hygiene procedures as far as I can see. It's a pity they can't bring this clarity of thought to some evidence based philosophy as well, though.
Media hate-and-fear story, IMHO.
Posted by: Scrofulum | February 11, 2008 6:50 AM
Great write-up. The issue is exactly as simple as you make it out to be.
Posted by: koloman | February 11, 2008 7:12 AM
Wow. Haven't heard that in years. Not a bad summary. There's a bit about kosher food, too. The aunt of a girl I dated for years came from a kosher, but not Orthodox, family. She had to, in best medical practice of the 30's, eat a highly enriched diet which included non-kosher organs.
Can't answer the rest of your questions because when I went from being a Denominational Christian to a General Christian to reformed Jew to an Atheist, I didn't pass through a Muslim phase as it was clear that Islam was at least as made up from bull-crap as my religion of origin.
Posted by: Moses | February 11, 2008 7:15 AM
I'm beginning to think that multiculturalism is OK, as long as Muslims aren't involved.
Posted by: The Atheist Jew | February 11, 2008 7:21 AM
Whoops.
This: She had to, in best medical practice of the 30's, eat a highly enriched diet which included non-kosher organs.
Should have said this: She had to, in best medical practice of the 30's, eat a highly enriched diet which included non-kosher organs, which was permissible under pikuach nefesh.
Edited out too much when I found myself rambling about how her mother had to cook separate meals, get the Rabbi in to explain how to make the kitchen kosher before each family meal, etc...
Posted by: Moses | February 11, 2008 7:21 AM
I'll agree with other commentators here, this post basically takes the view of one tiny group of people whom no one has heard of and assumes that they represent the views of the majority of Muslim doctors. They do not (far from it in fact).
Given the tenuous position of Muslim communities here in the West, such carping without cause is simply picking on an already dangerously exposed and frequently demonised group and comes perilously close to unacceptable race-baiting. A post that is distinctly unworthy of you PZ.
Posted by: Lilly de Lure | February 11, 2008 7:55 AM
Only in a very abridged dictionary.
Posted by: maxi | February 11, 2008 7:58 AM
People who don't want their beliefs laughed at shouldn't have such funny beliefs
Posted by: Foster Foskin | February 11, 2008 8:00 AM
"Given the tenuous position of Muslim communities here in the West, such carping without cause is simply picking on an already dangerously exposed and frequently demonised group and comes perilously close to unacceptable race-baiting. A post that is distinctly unworthy of you PZ."
Islam is not a race. What do a black person from Northern Nigeria, a white person from the Balkans, an Arab from Egypt, a person from Turkey, a Persian from Iran, an Asian from Pakistan and an Asian from Indonesia have in common other than all might be Mulisms ?
Posted by: Matt Penfold | February 11, 2008 8:25 AM
Wait...the same brand of Islam that prioritizes footwashing and forbids the exposure of women's skin from wrist to shoulder actually allows women to be doctors?! I think you people may be missing a great leap forward, here! /snark
Seriously...why can't the female doctors just scrub up in private, if it's such a BFD?
Posted by: Brian | February 11, 2008 9:00 AM
Posted by: Steve LaBonne | February 11, 2008 9:11 AM
One thing I'm curious about after reading that article (and I don't think it has been mentioned yet) is how medical procedures are performed on Muslim women! Obviously they must make some exceptions to the requirement of 'modesty' when, for example, an appendectomy is being performed. You couldn't operate through a sheet! So why allow an exception there, as they simply must, and forbid it here when it is no less necessary? Operating on a woman fully clothed makes no sense, and not taking serious precautions to ensure cleanliness during surgery makes no sense either.
Posted by: abb | February 11, 2008 9:16 AM
What Lilly de Lure in post #75 fails to understand is that while no one here thinks (nor ever even states) that the insane freaks mentioned in the article represent ALL the deluded humans who 'believe' islam, if ANY college, medical school, etc, EVER gives in to ANY of these disgustingly idiotic demands, ALL muslims will have an excuse to whine and cry for ALL to receive them.
NO demand, by ANY deluded human, for ANY religious reason, can EVER be given precedence over evidence.
And Lilly, I would seriously counsel your getting out of whatever hole you molder in and learning about reality. "Muslim communities here in the West," are NOT "dangerously exposed and frequently demonised." Would that they were. But due to mush heads like you, they are quite safe and gaining much firmer ground every day. Just several years ago if some deluded human asked for a foot washing station they would have been laughed out of the office, which is much, much better treatment than the scum deserve.
Now, they are not only given audience, they are given the chance to keep petitioning until they get what they want.
Thank you, mush head Lilly and all your ignorant ilk.
Posted by: Strakh | February 11, 2008 9:33 AM
Personally I think that religion is a crutch for the weak minded and weak willed. But because I believe in the idea of freedom of expression I am willing to tolerate a lot from religious people. I will respect their beliefs in so much as they do not attempt to cram them down my throat or rule my life with their superstitious nonsense. You wanna wear a big black sack over your whole body except your eyes? Go to town. Set yourself on fire, I don't give a damn. Your body is your own business.
But your right to religious expression ends the moment it places the life of another in danger. You don't want to wash your hands? Then don't fucking become a doctor. You don't have the right to put my life on the line because of your religious beliefs any more than I have the right to shoot you in the head for being a dumbass.
Posted by: E in MD | February 11, 2008 9:36 AM
To mushy head Lilly :)
here's a link to the same controversy at Med schools;
http://islamineurope.blogspot.com/2008/02/uk-medical-students-refusing-to-follow.html