Daily Mail photograph and read the article by clicking on the photo.
In the summer of 1999 Dr Helen Bright raised the issue of religious uniforms in mental health setting but Department of Health DoH) not only failed to act on her whistleblowing but continued with willful blindness to present day.
DoH has been informed that at least eight more died in Harrow (since their decision to do nothing about prevention) where a uniformed Christian nun was employed as a Community Mental Health Team Leader for four years. Eight more people committed suicide than on average for the area. Research findings resulted in no creation of National policy for workwear in mental health nor adequate revision of the National policy for workwear as applicable to surgical and some medical wards. To present day England has problems with poorly thinking individuals being permitted to rule from DoH. Killing people is acceptable in NHS as it reduces the demand on services, perhaps. Out of sight, out of mind too.
Like a greedy person England wants to have it all. But that is not possible. Accepting religious privileges costs lives. It decreases quality of life for many and over a very long time.
From the psychodynamic point of view, the inadequate persons can become hostile (and greedy) in order to defend themselves from feelings of inferiority. Inadequate administrators attacks can be very successful in causing misery for many and even deaths. Doctors and their patients are sacrificed as are tons of public money raised through taxes which are squandered by the incompetents protecting their ego. For example: " You cannot come to this country and tell me what to do" is not said but it is practised against ethnic minority doctors, (clearly, both Dr Bright and Dr Rogozov are from ethnic minority and therefore, have no freedom of speech). Like Roman slaves surgeons/physicians are expected to be smart, but slaves whose lives are to be disposed off when ego demands. Intelligent people are expected to perform super magic, through silent magic communications, not heard by administrators.
Although, Dr Rogozov worked hard he may have missed it that where he works people are into ghosts and power. Mr Matt Barry, yes, another foreigner had this to say about GHOSTS.
Another behavioural pattern in inadequates is avoidance to deal with relevant issues. Department of Health refused to revise their policy of workwear and the way they produced is biased.
Department of Health suggested false allegations against doctors. In Dr Bright's case they wrote "mental illness" on her pleading letter to them and sent the copy to the incompetent NHS trust management at Northwick Park Hospital so they know how to build up the false allegations against her at GMC (General Medical Council).
Dr Bright had no mental illness but DoH with their friends at GMC relentlessly, to the bitter end, pursued this avenue of psychiatric examinations which revealed no mental illness. When there was no mental illness and independent Assessors at GMC panel protested at the way the GMC disciplinary panel was conducting themselves, then invention was made of disruptive behaviour problem that would need psychiatric monitoring through educational supervision by Consultant Psychiatrist. Dr Bright already had years of experience of being Education Supervisor herself since she was appointed as NHS Consultant. One of the wicked GMC panellists, Dr Gwen Adshead, a lay preacher (did not declare this interest to GMC as required) is now publishing a book on evil. She described her patients at Broadmoor Hospital as unloved and evil. One of her interests was building a private business charging doctors for disruptive behaviour correction by her and her team. Another interest was doing business with NCAS (National Clinical Assessment Service), the right arm organization of Department of Health who invent allegations against doctors and do not assess them when political execution through GMC is faster and effortless. She also sat at The Royal College of Psychiatrists Public Policy Committee when they were asked to discuss the wearing of religious uniforms. The Public Policy Committee was meant to advise the government in their policy making but they refused because to them patients are nothing. The Chief Executive Vanessa Cameron refused to investigate the religious loading of the ethics committee and to comply with Data Protection Act 1998. Of course, if one can support the policy that leads to loss of life, why should not one fail to comply with law too?
So, now we have Dr Vladislav Rogozov, a surgeon in England, from the excellent surgical family. He, like Dr Bright is right in objections to the wearing of religious gear, but the guns are pointed at him. Dr Vladislav Rogozov used workwear policy on hygiene but that is not enough. Now he is suspended by National Health Service Trust. Greed in persecution. Too difficult to look at the intelligent man for some.
Surgeons not only operate but actually, take history from their patients. It is already very hard for them when patients are in pain, want quick resolution, are perhaps, rather irritable too. How does one form good rapport and trust with patients by wearing of religious uniforms which complicate the matters seriously. Read HERE how it sabotages the best efforts. If religious beliefs are private matter why push it in somebody's mind, and in this case the mind of the ill persons? Of course, provocation is the name of the game along with gaining power over others. And those who do not respect the boundaries of private and public victimize others. Sometimes, themselves too. But what good is it?
1 comment:
I believe this case made the news last year, I have to say I'm only looking into it as a matter of an essay on religious wear in the NHS.
Having read this gentleman's blog on the matter (which I believe the actual suspension is for i.e. whistle blowing as he was acquitted of any islamophobia by the trust). It does seem that religious privilege exists and by his own words people are afraid to challenge it. I also get the impression he has his own religious/cultural agenda.
The other issue is that the hijab is reality is not mandatory scripturally in Islamic texts, neither by Quran or Hadiths. Much like the Sikh Daastar, I guess my question is, does it matter on the intention of the individual? If they believe it to be for religious reasons (when it isn't) does that change anything or does it matter what everyone else believes it to mean (i.e. the patients and other staff)? The hijab in this case is polysemic.
One would have the right to wear it where it wasn't deemed a infection control or patient safety issue as it would be a cultural item - therefore direct discrimination if someone was told not to wear it otherwise. Although in the case of this surgeon either way she should have taken it off. I mean other Trusts have the rule you have to have a separate hijab specific for theatres (cleaned like scrubs) and it is to be covered by a surgeon's hood.
Post a Comment