NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3940505a12.html

do you think this guy should have be arrested? I'm not sure because there shouldn't have been a male doctor there in the 1st place. I would also like to know why his wife would allow something like this to happen.

The guy was an idiot, and deserved to be arrested. His wife was having a medical examination. If it was such a huge deal, he could have asked his wife to wait for a female OB to be on duty, or have taken his wife elsewhere. Otherwise, it is time for the guy to sit down and shut up. It wasn't his examination, but his wifes. A patient can refuse treatment, and pretty clearly, the woman didn't think that was necessary.

Not to mention, if you hit anyone unprovoked you DID assult them, regardless of your reason for hitting them, and you do deserve the consequences.

And why, exactly should there have not been a male OBGYN on duty? Amazingly, we don't have gender requirements for becoming a certain type of doctor. I personally see a male genprac because I like him. Before that, however, my pediatrician was female, because I liked her. Having a penis doesn't mean you can't, or even shouldn't, be an OBGYN

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3940505a12.html

do you think this guy should have be arrested? I'm not sure because there shouldn't have been a male doctor there in the 1st place. I would also like to know why his wife would allow something like this to happen.

If he assaulted the doctor sure he should be arrested. I mean you don't have the right to go around hitting people.

maybe his wife didn't say anything because where she comes from you don't say "no" to a man?

Six months seems to be a fairly hars sentence for an attack that doesn't seem to have been very serious in the first place... In fact, if all he did was push the doctor and slap him, that, to me, doesn't even sound worth calling the police over.

With that said, it doesn't mean the guy had much of a legitimate gripe unless the doctor forced the examination without the wife's consent. It sounds like they have a system where they make an effort to be accomodating where possible, and it doesn't sound like this guy was willing to be flexible in return.

And if his religion is that strict, then the wife shouldn't have consented to the examination, since it's her decision in the first place.

*Edit: The guy even apologized. Why isn't that good enough?

Ben Moussa, a 23-year-old lorry driver, apologised for the attack and said he had requested a female doctor. French state hospitals comply with such requests when staffing permits but say patients must accept treatment from the doctors on duty.

"When staffing permits."

And if they had said, "Okay, well, we'll just let your wife bleed out if the female doctor doesn't get here in time," that would have been okay, I suppose?

:rolleyes:

But you're right, the wife should have sent the doctor away. I mean, how out of it could she have been, giving birth isn't all that stressful. She probably started to say something, but like that guy in the video a week or so explained, her female brain went off on a tangent, she probably ended up talking about the price of tea in China and how nice a cup of tea would be right now and I hope the other children are okay at home and why is my husband hitting you, doctor?

do you think this guy should have be arrested?

Yes. He assaulted someone.

I'm not sure because there shouldn't have been a male doctor there in the 1st place.

Of course there should have been, if no female doctor was available, as the article states. I prefer seeing a female gynecologist myself, but I'd hardly refuse necessary treatment after giving birth because of it.

I would also like to know why his wife would allow something like this to happen.

Something like what? Giving birth? Well, see, when a man and a woman love each other very much...

*Edit: The guy even apologized. Why isn't that good enough?

I walk up to you while you are at work, meeting with a client. I start to slap and hit you. I say I'm sorry. I should be allowed to just walk away clear?

No, he assulted someone. He deserves his punishment. He could probably also use some anger management classes.

Of course he's sorry now. He got caught and is being punished for it. That doesn't mean he's actually sorry for his crime.

If he assaulted the doctor sure he should be arrested. I mean you don't have the right to go around hitting people.

maybe his wife didn't say anything because where she comes from you don't say "no" to a man?

That or the fact she was in a difficult labour.She probably would have said yes to a rabbi if she thought is would help.

The title is a little much given the article.

A shove, slap, and insult does not a 6-month jail sentence make. The most he should've gotten is a fine and community service with a year probation. But instead they are making an example of him because he is Muslim and
French media have reported cases in recent years of Muslim men barring male doctors from treating their wives, sometimes resorting to violence, but legal cases against them are rare.

But that's me in America, I don't know if French courts are over the top in sentencing handouts or they are just being racist and/or making an example of him, both because they are tired of the outspoken conservative Muslims' shit.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3940505a12.html

do you think this guy should have be arrested?

For sure. Muslim AND French? Can't get much worse than that.
*runs very far away*

Six months seems to be a fairly hars sentence for an attack that doesn't seem to have been very serious in the first place... In fact, if all he did was push the doctor and slap him, that, to me, doesn't even sound worth calling the police over.

I disagree. You don't lay your hands on anyone. He apparently also wouldn't leave, the hospital had no choice but to call the police. I think the man should have been given probation though, with some anger management classes instead of jail time but the police were needed to remove him, with that part I have zero issue with.

And if his religion is that strict, then the wife shouldn't have consented to the examination, since it's her decision in the first place.

She clearly consented, it was her jerk of a husband who went nuts. I guess her opinion didn't matter to him, eh?

*Edit: The guy even apologized. Why isn't that good enough?

Nope, its not good enough. You do something wrong, an apology doesn't neccessarily cover it.

I disagree. You don't lay your hands on anyone. He apparently also wouldn't leave, the hospital had no choice but to call the police. I think the man should have been given probation though, with some anger management classes instead of jail time but the police were needed to remove him, with that part I have zero issue with.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. But to clarify, do you feel 6 months is reasonable considering the level of severity of the assault?


She clearly consented, it was her jerk of a husband who went nuts. I guess her opinion didn't matter to him, eh?

Apparently not. That's between them though.


Nope. You do something wrong, an apology doesn't neccessarily cover it.
Which seems to be true, and I find that sad. I grew up raised to believe that an apology meant something. If he had actually injured the doctor then he should make ammends in some wy, but a couple slaps, shoves and harsh words are nothing in the grand scheme of things.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3940505a12.html

do you think this guy should have be arrested? I'm not sure because there shouldn't have been a male doctor there in the 1st place. I would also like to know why his wife would allow something like this to happen.

Of course he should have been arrested. He assaulted a doctor who was trying to treat his wife. He acted like an idiot.

Should he have been jailed for 6 months? Probably not. The doctor doesn't seem to have been seriously harmed by the attack. Should he receive some sort of punishment? Absolutely. This guy is quite obviously a dangerous person. This time, it was a doctor examining his wife when she needed medical attention. What is this man going to do if her clothing slips a little and he thinks another man was looking at her "the wrong way"?

And why shouldn't a male doctor be there? Is gynecologist a gender-specific job now? Considering that the types of countries in which such a rule would be imposed generally won't let women even have jobs, does this mean that women should never receive medical care?

As for what his wife should or should not have let happen - she apparently had complications during pregnancy, for which she required extra care. She may or may not have even been conscious, much less fully aware of what was going on. And, if there were no qualified female doctors currently on duty, what was she supposed to do? Refuse to be examined and just hope that she's ok?

That or the fact she was in a difficult labour.She probably would have said yes to a rabbi if she thought is would help.

And if she needs medical assistance that badly, it doesn't matter what gender she gets it from.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. But to clarify, do you feel 6 months is reasonable considering the level of severity of the assault?

I don't agree with it. As i said, probation and anger management classes would have sufficed in my opinion. I'm not sure about the size of French jails but I'm sure any country can use the space that this guy is going to fill. Ridiculous, really.

Apparently not. That's between them though.

Sure it is between them. But she is her own person and clearly she had no issue with a male OB-GYN. The husband just has to deal.

Which seems to be true, and I find that sad. I grew up raised to believe that an apology meant something. If he had actually injured the doctor then he should make ammends in some wy, but a couple slaps, shoves and harsh words are nothing in the grand scheme of things.

I don't know about you but I don't see myself attacking my wife's doctor. The man at least has some anger issues to work out. I will say again though that jail was not needed in this case. That is simple overreaction on the part of the French legal system.

I don't agree with it. As i said, probation and anger management classes would have sufficed in my opinion. I'm not sure about the size of French jails but I'm sure any country can use the space that this guy is going to fill. Ridiculous, really.
Agree on the ridiculousness. Definitely.


Sure it is between them. But she is her own person and clearly she had no issue with a male OB-GYN. The husband just has to deal.

Agreed.


I don't know about you but I don't see myself attacking my wife's doctor. The man at least has some anger issues to work out. I will say again though that jail was not needed in this case. That is simple overreaction on the part of the French legal system.
Oh I don't condone the attack at all. And yeah, maybe it's an anger issue. Maybe the guy was just emotionally on edge, since the article did say it was a difficult birth. Maybe he's just hideously jealous. Who knows? I just think it could have been a lot worse, and I doubt I'd have called the police if I had been that doctor, especially if the apology came quickly.

The article doesn't say how badly the doctor was assaulted, just "shoved and slapped". I could shove someone over a table and slap them unconscious. It also doesn't say whether the husband had a criminal record.

I could shove someone over a table and slap them unconscious.
You theoretically could, but would it be described like that? No. It would be described like "Kecibukia threw the doctor over the table and beat him until he was unconscious." And even if you could shove some one over a table and slap them unconscious, journalism would be required to print that because it makes for a far more interesting story.

And if she needs medical assistance that badly, it doesn't matter what gender she gets it from.
QFT.Besides from what I can recall most french hospitals are understaffed but are covered by the social welfare system.I really don't think anybody is in a position to make demands in an emergancy under those circumstances.

Oh I don't condone the attack at all. And yeah, maybe it's an anger issue. Maybe the guy was just emotionally on edge, since the article did say it was a difficult birth. Maybe he's just hideously jealous. Who knows? I just think it could have been a lot worse, and I doubt I'd have called the police if I had been that doctor, especially if the apology came quickly.

The bolded is precisely why the government has to at least do *something* about this guy. If he'll attack a doctor who is performing a medical examination, simply because he doesn't think other guys should be able to see his wife exposed, what is he going to do if the wind blows her skirt up and there's a man looking in that direction? Or his wife trips and falls, and another man tries to help her? Or any number of possible situations in which another man might see some part of his wife that would normally be covered?

Anyone else ever notice how Soviestan will post his mysogenistic crap and never show up in the thread again to defend his views? Of course the guy should've been arrested. His wife needed a doctor, not after the birth, but after what the article described as a difficult birth. Women die from difficult births. I guess it was more important for his wife's vagina to never be seen by another man than it was for her to be alive in this guy's eyes.

The bolded is precisely why the government has to at least do *something* about this guy. If he'll attack a doctor who is performing a medical examination, simply because he doesn't think other guys should be able to see his wife exposed, what is he going to do if the wind blows her skirt up and there's a man looking in that direction? Or his wife trips and falls, and another man tries to help her? Or any number of possible situations in which another man might see some part of his wife that would normally be covered?

That's what probation is for. You break the law again, you go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 euros.

Anyone else ever notice how Soviestan will post his mysogenistic crap and never show up in the thread again to defend his views? Of course the guy should've been arrested. His wife needed a doctor, not after the birth, but after what the article described as a difficult birth. Women die from difficult births. I guess it was more important for his wife's vagina to never be seen by another man than it was for her to be alive in this guy's eyes.
The guy should have been thanking the doc for saving his wifes life.Instead he behaved like an animal and got what he deserved.

Anyone else ever notice how Soviestan will post his mysogenistic crap and never show up in the thread again to defend his views? Of course the guy should've been arrested. His wife needed a doctor, not after the birth, but after what the article described as a difficult birth. Women die from difficult births. I guess it was more important for his wife's vagina to never be seen by another man than it was for her to be alive in this guy's eyes.

He does sort of hit and run, though I have seen him come back in and debate. His conversion to Islam made him more prone to setting up these fairly obvious threads about how badly Muslims are treated these days.

That's what probation is for. You break the law again, you go directly to jail, do not pass go, do not collect 200 euros.

Indeed. But NB seems to think that they should have just ignored it and let it go with a simple apology - that the authorities never should have been involved at all.

If he assaulted the doctor sure he should be arrested. I mean you don't have the right to go around hitting people.

No...of course you don't...

The bolded is precisely why the government has to at least do *something* about this guy. If he'll attack a doctor who is performing a medical examination, simply because he doesn't think other guys should be able to see his wife exposed, what is he going to do if the wind blows her skirt up and there's a man looking in that direction? Or his wife trips and falls, and another man tries to help her? Or any number of possible situations in which another man might see some part of his wife that would normally be covered?

Like I said, I don't think it was worth calling the cops for in the frist place, but once they are called, and the facts are clear, they are obligated to take action. In this case, the action was way over the top, but everybody here seems to agree that the 6 month sentence was excessive.

And please don't mistake my meaning. When I said it could be worse, that was meant in general. Usually when you hear about an assault it involves some serious fighting that can easily result in somebody at least getting some stitches. A couple of slaps and shoves? heck, most of us have gotten worse than that in a schoolyard. That's nothing. The article tells us nothing about this guy other than he's Muslim, married and is a new daddy. Has he had a history of this sort of anger management trouble? We don't know. Is he a wife beater? We don't know. Does he have a criminal record? We don't know. Maybe he does and thats' why the sentence was so harsh. We haveno way of knowing just from what's presented here.

Any way you slice it, the incident was minor and blown out of proportion.

Indeed. But NB seems to think that they should have just ignored it and let it go with a simple apology - that the authorities never should have been involved at all.

I said they shouldn't have been called. I never called upon the authorities to ignore a reported incident once involved.

Do you have some personal issue with me? You seem to frequently distort my posts in order to dismiss what I said. Maybe you don't do it on purpose, but I'm starting to see a pattern tha goes beyond simply disagreeing.

Like I said, I don't think it was worth calling the cops for in the frist place, but once they are called, and the facts are clear, they are obligated to take action. In this case, the action was way over the top, but everybody here seems to agree that the 6 month sentence was excessive.

And please don't mistake my meaning. When I said it could be worse, that was meant in general. Usually when you hear about an assault it involves some serious fighting that can easily result in somebody at least getting some stitches. A couple of slaps and shoves? heck, most of us have gotten worse than that in a schoolyard. That's nothing. The article tells us nothing about this guy other than he's Muslim, married and is a new daddy. Has he had a history of this sort of anger management trouble? We don't know. Is he a wife beater? We don't know. Does he have a criminal record? We don't know. Maybe he does and thats' why the sentence was so harsh. We haveno way of knowing just from what's presented here.

Any way you slice it, the incident was minor and blown out of proportion.

I don't agree that the six months in Le Slammer is excessive. Depends on how the French law reads, anyway. Maybe that's the minimum.

Like I said, I don't think it was worth calling the cops for in the frist place, but once they are called, and the facts are clear, they are obligated to take action. In this case, the action was way over the top, but everybody here seems to agree that the 6 month sentence was excessive.

And please don't mistake my meaning. When I said it could be worse, that was meant in general. Usually when you hear about an assault it involves some serious fighting that can easily result in somebody at least getting some stitches. A couple of slaps and shoves? heck, most of us have gotten worse than that in a schoolyard. That's nothing. The article tells us nothing about this guy other than he's Muslim, married and is a new daddy. Has he had a history of this sort of anger management trouble? We don't know. Is he a wife beater? We don't know. Does he have a criminal record? We don't know. Maybe he does and thats' why the sentence was so harsh. We haveno way of knowing just from what's presented here.

Any way you slice it, the incident was minor and blown out of proportion.

What about the message that needs to be sent? Namely, a hospital's duty is to protect the life and health of anyone admitted with no regards to political ro religious ideology. It would be excessive, in my estimation, if the guy had shoved and slapped some guy on the street, but this guy attacked a doctor in a hospital who was tending to a woman who had just had a difficult birth and it required the police to remove him from the hospital. I think when it comes to attacking doctors who are tending to patients you just kinda don't tolerate it under any circumstances.

We do the same here. Hit me and you'll get a fine and probabtion. Hit a cop and you're going to jail. There are certain people and situations that society has a vested interest in demanding people to respect. I think an on duty doctor whi is tending to patients falls into that catagory.

I don't agree that the six months in Le Slammer is excessive. Depends on how the French law reads, anyway. Maybe that's the minimum.

If that's the legal minimum, then that scares me even more. It would suggest that even the most monir incident is punishable by a jail sentence that could easily fall into the felony range in the US.

I said they shouldn't have been called. I never called upon the authorities to ignore a reported incident once involved.



Shouldn't have been called? This guy was interupting a doctor's abilities to fulfill his duties at a hospital!

What about the message that needs to be sent? Namely, a hospital's duty is to protect the life and health of anyone admitted with no regards to political ro religious ideology. It would be excessive, in my estimation, if the guy had shoved and slapped some guy on the street, but this guy attacked a doctor in a hospital who was tending to a woman who had just had a difficult birth and it required the police to remove him from the hospital. I think when it comes to attacking doctors who are tending to patients you just kinda don't tolerate it under any circumstances.

We do the same here. Hit me and you'll get a fine and probabtion. Hit a cop and you're going to jail. There are certain people and situations that society has a vested interest in demanding people to respect. I think an on duty doctor whi is tending to patients falls into that catagory.

I see your point, but in the grand scheme of things i just can't see it as being that enormous. I mean, sometimes we hear about assaults where there's real injury, real harm, maybe a life threatened. This sounds to me like the guy let his emotional state get away with him and reacted poorly. Very poorly.

Maybe in my mind the line is drawn at a closed fist or something. Slaps and shoves are acts meant to intimidate or dominate someone. If you want to actually cause harm, you lose your fist and punch or you kick or whetever. So this guy was being a jackass. BFD. Like I said if it had been me as the doc, I probably wouldn't have called the cops. Had hospital security drag the guy out, probably... But pressed charges no. Especially if he apologized.

That's the part that people keep forgetting. An apology really does mean something. At least, it used to.

Shouldn't have been called? This guy was interupting a doctor's abilities to fulfill his duties at a hospital!

That's what security is for.

I see your point, but in the grand scheme of things i just can't see it as being that enormous. I mean, sometimes we hear about assaults where there's real injury, real harm, maybe a life threatened. This sounds to me like the guy let his emotional state get away with him and reacted poorly. Very poorly.

Maybe in my mind the line is drawn at a closed fist or something. Slaps and shoves are acts meant to intimidate or dominate someone. If you want to actually cause harm, you lose your fist and punch or you kick or whetever. So this guy was being a jackass. BFD. Like I said if it had been me as the doc, I probably wouldn't have called the cops. Had hospital security drag the guy out, probably... But pressed charges no. Especially if he apologized.

That's the part that people keep forgetting. An apology really does mean something. At least, it used to.

Just clear the rest of the story and read what's important here. Imagine you're a doctor on duty at a busy maternity ward and this happens:

Fouad ben Moussa burst into the delivery room at a Paris hospital last November and shoved, slapped and insulted Dr Jean-Francois Oury as he examined the woman after a complicated birth, the prosecution said in court on Wednesday.

Police had to intervene to remove him.

That's what security is for.
Obviously security wasn't adequate. That doesn't change what the guy did, though. Security shouldn't be needed. People should behave. If he wanted the conditions under which his wife was going to give birth he should have driven her to Turkey where they have hospitals with Islamic sensabilities. He's in France and when a woman has difficulties during childbirth they don't care about the gender of the doctor who saves her life and the life of the child.

Any way you slice it, the incident was minor and blown out of proportion.

The sentence seems blown out of proportion. I don't think the involvement of the authorities, however, is. A man who reacts like this in this situation is most likely a danger to others as well. At the very least, the authorities need to know to keep an eye on him.

I said they shouldn't have been called. I never called upon the authorities to ignore a reported incident once involved.

That's why I said you thought "that the authorities should not have been involved at all."

Do you have some personal issue with me? You seem to frequently distort my posts in order to dismiss what I said. Maybe you don't do it on purpose, but I'm starting to see a pattern tha goes beyond simply disagreeing.

What distortion? My post never suggested that you thought the authorities should have ignored it. It quite clearly states that you think they should not have been involved at all.

I see your point, but in the grand scheme of things i just can't see it as being that enormous. I mean, sometimes we hear about assaults where there's real injury, real harm, maybe a life threatened. This sounds to me like the guy let his emotional state get away with him and reacted poorly. Very poorly.

And the next time he reacts poorly, he could cause serious harm. Ignoring him until then isn't going to help anyone.

That's the part that people keep forgetting. An apology really does mean something. At least, it used to.

Sure, if it is sincere and there is good reason to believe the person won't do it again. Perhaps neither the doctor nor the authorities saw that as being the case?

Just clear the rest of the story and read what's important here. Imagine you're a doctor on duty at a busy maternity ward and this happens:

Obviously security wasn't adequate. That doesn't change what the guy did, though. Security shouldn't be needed. People should behave. If he wanted the conditions under which his wife was going to give birth he should have driven her to Turkey where they have hospitals with Islamic sensabilities. He's in France and when a woman has difficulties during childbirth they don't care about the gender of the doctor who saves her life and the life of the child.

I have to agree with Dan on this. Look, the husband crossed the line, he laid hands on the doctor. If it had been me, and he'd screamed and yelled and danced a jig, but kept his hands to himself, I might not have pressed charges after security removed him (assuming I was a male doctor). But as soon as he touched me, that's assault. And if the police had to drag him out, it could very well be the hospital, not the doctor, prefering charges because he resisted the security guards.

Just clear the rest of the story and read what's important here. Imagine you're a doctor on duty at a busy maternity ward and this happens:

Obviously security wasn't adequate. That doesn't change what the guy did, though. Security shouldn't be needed. People should behave. If he wanted the conditions under which his wife was going to give birth he should have driven her to Turkey where they have hospitals with Islamic sensabilities. He's in France and when a woman has difficulties during childbirth they don't care about the gender of the doctor who saves her life and the life of the child.

I hear ya, I really do. I just don't see it as being such a severe incident that it takes a 6 month sentence to punish it.

And yeah if it took the cops to get him to leave because security was inadequate, then that's another failure of the system. It still doesn't elevate the severity of the incident. He didn't come in and start pummeling the doc. he didn't come in shooting. He didn't some in with a baseball bat. He was angry, emotional, and it got away with him. I've been slapped, and I've been hit with a fist. I vastly prefer the slap.

By that logic, my ex should have served a 6-month sentence for one really big blowout argument we had where she did basically the same stuff the guy in the article did. (No, I didn't hit back.) Did I call police? No. Why? Because I didn't feel it was necessary. I'm just applying the same logic here. Maybe I'm more laid back than some. Maybe I have more faith in forgiveness.

But that is how I feel about it. To say more would be putting too fine a point on it.

Sure, if it is sincere and there is good reason to believe the person won't do it again. Perhaps neither the doctor nor the authorities saw that as being the case?

Also, and this isn't pointed out in the story but is implied by the fact that the police had to remove him, it seems to me that the apology came after the arrest and probably on the advice of his lawyer, not in the delivery room at the hospital after he suddenly realized what he did was wrong.

Obviously security wasn't adequate. That doesn't change what the guy did, though. Security shouldn't be needed. People should behave. If he wanted the conditions under which his wife was going to give birth he should have driven her to Turkey where they have hospitals with Islamic sensabilities. He's in France and when a woman has difficulties during childbirth they don't care about the gender of the doctor who saves her life and the life of the child.

I wonder if, in Turkey, they have guaranteed female OB/GYNs on duty?

Truth be told, I find this guy's attitude to be very odd. Even in the societies that are the most restrictive of women, examination by a male doctor is generally seen as being ok.

The guy committed assault and battery, he should be tried as such.

I have to agree with Dan on this. Look, the husband crossed the line, he laid hands on the doctor. If it had been me, and he'd screamed and yelled and danced a jig, but kept his hands to himself, I might not have pressed charges after security removed him (assuming I was a male doctor). But as soon as he touched me, that's assault. And if the police had to drag him out, it could very well be the hospital, not the doctor, prefering charges because he resisted the security guards.

Well you make an interesting point: maybe it WAS the hospital administration, not the individual doctor who pressed charges... Doesn't change my opinion though, and either way I'd certainly hop ethe hospital admin would take the doctor's feelings on the matter into consideration.

I wonder if, in Turkey, they have guaranteed female OB/GYNs on duty?

Truth be told, I find this guy's attitude to be very odd. Even in the societies that are the most restrictive of women, examination by a male doctor is generally seen as being ok.

Heck, even in the decadent US of A, it's generally considered bad form for another man to be gazing upon a woman's genitals, whether she be married or not, and yet male OB/GYNs were long the norm and may still be the majority.

By that logic, my ex should have served a 6-month sentence for one really big blowout argument we had where she did basically the same stuff the guy in the article did. (No, I didn't hit back.) Did I call police? No. Why? Because I didn't feel it was necessary. I'm just applying the same logic here. Maybe I'm more laid back than some. Maybe I have more faith in forgiveness.



You were also not an on duty OB/GYN at a busy maternity ward treating women and infants who could die if you aren't able to perform your duties because some asshat is slapping you around in the delivery room of just such a patient. Like I said, I'd agree if he got this sentence for slapping some guy on the street.

Well you make an interesting point: maybe it WAS the hospital administration, not the individual doctor who pressed charges... Doesn't change my opinion though, and either way I'd certainly hop ethe hospital admin would take the doctor's feelings on the matter into consideration.

I don't know about France, but here in the US the only time whether someone is going to press charges or not matters is when the cops don't have enough evidence of their own to do it and need you as a witness. If the cops show up at your house and see you with their own eyes beating teh crap out of your wife then they don't need your wife to press charges and will try you for spousal assault even if your wife begs them not to.

I'm going to do my best to reply to this without repeating myself too much.

The sentence seems blown out of proportion. I don't think the involvement of the authorities, however, is. A man who reacts like this in this situation is most likely a danger to others as well. At the very least, the authorities need to know to keep an eye on him.

We don't know that. His wife just came through a tough delivery. He's probably tired, emotional and just lost it. You can't say he's likely to do anything unless you know more about the man. The article does not clarifythis.


That's why I said you thought "that the authorities should not have been involved at all."

As long as you realize I say that from the point of view of the doctor. When you mentioned this in response to me and to others, you seemed to think I meant that the authorities should have ignored it, which I never said.


What distortion? My post never suggested that you thought the authorities should have ignored it. It quite clearly states that you think they should not have been involved at all.

See above.


And the next time he reacts poorly, he could cause serious harm. Ignoring him until then isn't going to help anyone.

Assuming there's a next time. And we can't know that unless there's a pattern.


Sure, if it is sincere and there is good reason to believe the person won't do it again. Perhaps neither the doctor nor the authorities saw that as being the case?

Maybe, but we don't know that from the article.

Haven't any of you guys ever done something in your life in anger or from emotional exhaustion that you regret? More than likely, it was a one time incident that never happened again. I think most, if not all people have had an experience like that. I honestly think the only reason this particular incident is getting the level of attention that it is, is because he's a Muslim.

Yes. He assaulted someone.

many people in his position would have done the same thing. I'm not sure I would actually hit the guy but I certainly would have been very, very upset.

Of course there should have been, if no female doctor was available, as the article states. I prefer seeing a female gynecologist myself, but I'd hardly refuse necessary treatment after giving birth because of it.
You are not Muslim. His wife should have waited til she could see a woman doctor.


Something like what?

Allowing her to be seen by a man who wasn't here husband, she should know better.

By that logic, my ex should have served a 6-month sentence for one really big blowout argument we had where she did basically the same stuff the guy in the article did. (No, I didn't hit back.) Did I call police? No. Why? Because I didn't feel it was necessary. I'm just applying the same logic here. Maybe I'm more laid back than some. Maybe I have more faith in forgiveness.

Maybe the situation was different. The two of you were having, as you put it, a "really big blowout argument." In such a situation, the idea of it getting a little physical is not unusual. It's still technically assault, but the two of you are close and you were having a huge argument. She's unlikely to be a danger to other people. You wouldn't expect her to start hitting and shoving a random guy on the street.

This guy, on the other hand, reacted to a male doctor who he did not know - who was simply doing his job by examining the man's wife - with immediate violence. The doctor did nothing to provoke the violence.

Your comparison would make more sense if you had been sitting at work, talking to a female client, and your wife had burst into the room and immediately become violent.

You were also not an on duty OB/GYN at a busy maternity ward treating women and infants who could die if you aren't able to perform your duties because some asshat is slapping you around in the delivery room of just such a patient. Like I said, I'd agree if he got this sentence for slapping some guy on the street.

Seems to me the best solution here is to get better hospital security.

I have to agree with Dan on this. Look, the husband crossed the line, he laid hands on the doctor. If it had been me, and he'd screamed and yelled and danced a jig, but kept his hands to himself, I might not have pressed charges after security removed him (assuming I was a male doctor). But as soon as he touched me, that's assault. And if the police had to drag him out, it could very well be the hospital, not the doctor, prefering charges because he resisted the security guards.

What if it had been you and your wife had just given birth and needed immediate attention due to difficulties and this was going on in the hospital?

I don't know about France, but here in the US the only time whether someone is going to press charges or not matters is when the cops don't have enough evidence of their own to do it and need you as a witness. If the cops show up at your house and see you with their own eyes beating teh crap out of your wife then they don't need your wife to press charges and will try you for spousal assault even if your wife begs them not to.

I don't see that as a good thing.

Seems to me the best solution here is to get better hospital security.

I agree. That way they could have jut tackled the guy and held him until the cops got their to arrest him and take him to jail to await trial.

Maybe the situation was different. The two of you were having, as you put it, a "really big blowout argument." In such a situation, the idea of it getting a little physical is not unusual. It's still technically assault, but the two of you are close and you were having a huge argument. She's unlikely to be a danger to other people. You wouldn't expect her to start hitting and shoving a random guy on the street.

This guy, on the other hand, reacted to a male doctor who he did not know - who was simply doing his job by examining the man's wife - with immediate violence. The doctor did nothing to provoke the violence.

Your comparison would make more sense if you had been sitting at work, talking to a female client, and your wife had burst into the room and immediately become violent.

Your point still seems to assume this guy is a danger to others, which has not, as far as we can tell from the article, been established.

Why are you saying he didn't know the doctor? He may not have, but then again, he may have.

Suppose, just suppose for the sake of hypothetical fun, that he had previously made his feelings known to the hospital staff. Maybe his wife felt he same was as he. So far a lot of people seem to be assuming thst this just came out of left field but we don't know that. Maybe the hospital (inapropriately) gave him assurances about who would provide this care and then went against them. None of that would justify his reaction, mind you, but it would make it seem, at least to me, a lot easier to understand why he might have gotten so upset so quickly.

many people in his position would have done the same thing. I'm not sure I would actually hit the guy but I certainly would have been very, very upset.That doctor may have saved his wife's life. The article stated very clearly that this was a difficult delivery and she needed attention.


You are not Muslim. His wife should have waited til she could see a woman doctor.There obviously wasn't one on duty so that implies that she couldn't wait until one was. According to the article this was a problem birth. Both her and the child may hve been at risk.




Allowing her to be seen by a man who wasn't here husband, she should know better.

I know. What a filthy whore. He should light her on fire.

I agree. That way they could have jut tackled the guy and held him until the cops got their to arrest him and take him to jail to await trial.

I wonder when, exactly, he apologized for his outburst. Was it at the hospital as he calmed down? Was it in court? Was it somewherein between? Who knows?

I'd like to think that in an ideal version of this story, the guy comes in, goes ballistic, smacks the doc, shoves him yells at him whatever. The security team takes him outside. If he calms down and doesn't resist or attack the guards, or threaten to go back in, maybe they don't call the police, at least not right away. If he apologizes right then and everybody is cool, then it need go no further.

I don't see that as a good thing.

Are you kidding me? Do you know how many womens' lives that may have saved? The reason the law is enforced that way is because to many women were getting pummelled by their abusive husbands and boyfriends.

You are not Muslim. His wife should have waited til she could see a woman doctor.


So your saying she should have risked her life and the life just for the sake of modesty?

You really need to straighten out your priorities.

Are you kidding me? Do you know how many womens' lives that may have saved? The reason the law is enforced that way is because to many women were getting pummelled by their abusive husbands and boyfriends.

Alright relax. I meant that remark as being a generalization on the police being able to press charges even when the victim doesn't want them to. I know that spousal abuse is a special case because of emotional and psychological issues involved.

many people in his position would have done the same thing. I'm not sure I would actually hit the guy but I certainly would have been very, very upset.

If he had been very, very upset, but not hit anyone, he would not have been arrested. Being upset is fine, if not particularly logical or sensible under the circumstances. Assaulting people is not.

You are not Muslim. His wife should have waited til she could see a woman doctor.

Even Muslims generally prefer not dying or suffering unduly, as well they should. If her husband would honestly rather see her go without needed medical care than have a male doctor provide that care, then he is a poor excuse for a husband.


Allowing her to be seen by a man who wasn't here husband, she should know better.

Why? No one in their right mind believes a gynecological examination is sexual, and given that the woman had just gone through a difficult birth, I seriously doubt the gender of the person taking care of her was the most important thing on her mind - that's assuming, of course, that she was even conscious at the time.

I wonder when, exactly, he apologized for his outburst. Was it at the hospital as he calmed down? Was it in court? Was it somewherein between? Who knows?

I'd like to think that in an ideal version of this story, the guy comes in, goes ballistic, smacks the doc, shoves him yells at him whatever. The security team takes him outside. If he calms down and doesn't resist or attack the guards, or threaten to go back in, maybe they don't call the police, at least not right away. If he apologizes right then and everybody is cool, then it need go no further.

If he had calmed down at the hospital then it wouldn't have required the police to remove him from the delivery room. It also occurs to me that in france the police may be the security for the hospital. They may not have private security guards and having actual police provide security may be the norm.

many people in his position would have done the same thing. I'm not sure I would actually hit the guy but I certainly would have been very, very upset.


You are not Muslim. His wife should have waited til she could see a woman doctor.




Allowing her to be seen by a man who wasn't here husband, she should know better.
Of course she should.She should have just crossed her legs and held it in and been a good muslim wife. *Offers troll a carrott*

many people in his position would have done the same thing. I'm not sure I would actually hit the guy but I certainly would have been very, very upset.


You are not Muslim. His wife should have waited til she could see a woman doctor.




Allowing her to be seen by a man who wasn't here husband, she should know better.

Then why did he apologize?

We don't know that. His wife just came through a tough delivery. He's probably tired, emotional and just lost it. You can't say he's likely to do anything unless you know more about the man. The article does not clarifythis.

And what made him lose it? Oh, yeah, a man seeing his wife in a state of undress. A man who can't control himself in that situation is a danger to other people.

As long as you realize I say that from the point of view of the doctor. When you mentioned this in response to me and to others, you seemed to think I meant that the authorities should have ignored it, which I never said.

How could it have meant that when I clearly stated that your viewpoint was that the authorities should not have been involved? In order to ignore it, they would have first needed to be involved in some way.

Assuming there's a next time. And we can't know that unless there's a pattern.

This level of jealousy is extremely likely to have a next time.

Maybe, but we don't know that from the article.

Haven't any of you guys ever done something in your life in anger or from emotional exhaustion that you regret? More than likely, it was a one time incident that never happened again. I think most, if not all people have had an experience like that. I honestly think the only reason this particular incident is getting the level of attention that it is, is because he's a Muslim.

Of course we have. But that anger wasn't generally provoked by a doctor examining a patient. It was provoked, for instance, by someone being rude, causing me to say something mean I shouldn't have. Or perhaps by a fight with a friend, resulting in mean statements. Or something along those lines.

But I've never hauled off and attacked a doctor for examining a patient, and I would be fearful of anyone who had.

As for it having to do with the fact that he's a Muslim, I can tell you right now that I have been one of the most vocal people on this board decrying the treatment of Muslims in France. But I don't think arresting a man who flies into a rage at the very thought that his wife be examined by a male doctor - Muslim or not - is out of line.


many people in his position would have done the same thing. I'm not sure I would actually hit the guy but I certainly would have been very, very upset.

Because they would prefer their wives to die?

You are not Muslim. His wife should have waited til she could see a woman doctor.

Ridiculous. If they had no female OB/Gyn on duty, it would probably be 8-24 hours before she is examined. If she's just gone through childbirth with complications, missing that exam could mean the difference between life and death.

Does your version of Islam really dictate that a woman should die rather than let competent medical professionals examine her? If so, this will be one of the few times that I will come right out and say that your religious views are idiotic.

Allowing her to be seen by a man who wasn't here husband, she should know better.

Yes, it is better that her husband be left without a wife and her child be left without a mother than that a male doctor, who is not going to be sexually aroused in any way by this exam (he sees vaginae* all day, for crying out loud), provide medical treatment. :rolleyes:

*Apparently, this is the proper plural of vagina. I always assumed it was an "s"

Of course she should.She should have just crossed her legs and held it in and been a good muslim wife. *Offers troll a carrott*

That was stupid. He's not a troll he's the OP. Not everybody that doesn't see it your way is a troll.

[QUOTE=Dafft;12268886]Of course she should.She should have just crossed her legs and held it in and been a good muslim wife. QUOTE]

Alright relax. I meant that remark as being a generalization on the police being able to press charges even when the victim doesn't want them to. I know that spousal abuse is a special case because of emotional and psychological issues involved.

It's not just for domestic violence. If someone robs yoru house when you're not home you cannot bare witness so the only people who can bring charges are the police who investigate the robbery and identify the culprit. Or, what happens if you're murdered with no witnesses? The DA can't rely solely on victims to bring charges for crimnal acts.

That was stupid. He's not a troll he's the OP. Not everybody that doesn't see it your way is a troll.

Edit below.

And what made him lose it? Oh, yeah, a man seeing his wife in a state of undress. A man who can't control himself in that situation is a danger to other people.

For all we know, there may have been assurances that were broken. Feeling betrayed would certainly add fuel to the fire. Can you honestly say after having to deal with is wife going through a difficult delivery he coudln't possibly have beenin a distressed state of mind?


How could it have meant that when I clearly stated that your viewpoint was that the authorities should not have been involved? In order to ignore it, they would have first needed to be involved in some way.

:rolleyes: I'm not going to belabor this. You either get it or you don't.


This level of jealousy is extremely likely to have a next time.

You don't know that it was jealousy. If his religious convictions were threatened then jealousy need not be a factor.


Of course we have. But that anger wasn't generally provoked by a doctor examining a patient. It was provoked, for instance, by someone being rude, causing me to say something mean I shouldn't have. Or perhaps by a fight with a friend, resulting in mean statements. Or something along those lines.

But I've never hauled off and attacked a doctor for examining a patient, and I would be fearful of anyone who had.

I think to make that sentence more accurate, based on what I"ve seen here, I'd remove the word "fearful" and insert the word "judgmental."


...I will come right out and say that your religious views are idiotic.

In all the times I've debated with you, this is the first thing I've ever seen you type that has caused me to lose respect for you. Sorry. I'm no fan of Islam, but I don't presume to judge people like that.

It's not just for domestic violence. If someone robs yoru house when you're not home you cannot bare witness so the only people who can bring charges are the police who investigate the robbery and identify the culprit. Or, what happens if you're murdered with no witnesses? The DA can't rely solely on victims to bring charges for crimnal acts.

That's beside the point. If someone robs my house and for whatever reason I don't want charges to be pressed, then they shoudn't be pressed. I idnd't say the cops SHOUDLN'T be able to press charges. I said they shouldn't be able to override the victim's wishes. (With a nod to special circumstances)

Your point still seems to assume this guy is a danger to others, which has not, as far as we can tell from the article, been established. [/qutoe]

It seems pretty clear to me. A person who ends up pushing and shoving someone in the heat of an argument? Probably not a big danger to others. A man who bursts into a hospital room and accosts a doctor simply because that doctor is male? Probably dangerous to others.

[quote]Why are you saying he didn't know the doctor? He may not have, but then again, he may have.

Highly unlikely, and largely irrelevant as well.

Suppose, just suppose for the sake of hypothetical fun, that he had previously made his feelings known to the hospital staff.

He probably had. And they did what they could to accommodate him, just as it says in the article.

Maybe his wife felt he same was as he. So far a lot of people seem to be assuming thst this just came out of left field but we don't know that. Maybe the hospital (inapropriately) gave him assurances about who would provide this care and then went against them. None of that would justify his reaction, mind you, but it would make it seem, at least to me, a lot easier to understand why he might have gotten so upset so quickly.

Even if all of that were true, this would still "just come out of left field." Like you said, nothing justifies his reaction here.

When we can justify someone's reaction, or at least understand it - ie. the case of your wife - that is one thing. When someone flies off the handle at something like this, that is an entirely different thing.

That's beside the point. If someone robs my house and for whatever reason I don't want charges to be pressed, then they shoudn't be pressed. I idnd't say the cops SHOUDLN'T be able to press charges. I said they shouldn't be able to override the victim's wishes. (With a nod to special circumstances)

I understand what you meant, but the point is that society at large has an iterest that overrides. If someone is given to robbing houses and he robs yours then we have a vested interest in prosecuting him lest he rob mine next. If there are mitigating circumstances then they can be taken into account at trial or sentencing.

Then why did he apologize?

being sorry that it had to come down to that doesn't mean he was in the wrong.

being sorry that it had to come down to that doesn't mean he was in the wrong.

Assault=Wrong

Period.

being sorry that it had to come down to that doesn't mean he was in the wrong.

She had a difficult delivery. Should the doctor have let her die or let her condition worsen?

It seems pretty clear to me. A person who ends up pushing and shoving someone in the heat of an argument? Probably not a big danger to others. A man who bursts into a hospital room and accosts a doctor simply because that doctor is male? Probably dangerous to others.

Maybe he is. Or maybe he's just emotionally exhausted after coming off an ordeal that had him afraid that he might lose his wife and newborn child. Why is that so irrelevant to you?


Highly unlikely, and largely irrelevant as well.

Not irrelevant at all. You're the one who introduced the idea of pushing a stranger as opposed to someone you know, as a way of deflecting my analogy of my argument with my wife.


He probably had. And they did what they could to accommodate him, just as it says in the article.

Good. Maybe someone overpromised. Maybe he misunderstood that being subject to availability of female doctors. In any case, a misunderstanding like that can easily add fuel to the fire.


Even if all of that were true, this would still "just come out of left field." Like you said, nothing justifies his reaction here.

When we can justify someone's reaction, or at least understand it - ie. the case of your wife - that is one thing. When someone flies off the handle at something like this, that is an entirely different thing.

I don't see it as different at all. I could apply the exact same logic you did to justify calling the cops on my wife after she got physical on me by saying that once she did that, she has proven that it could happen again. Someone who can get so angry as to physically attack their spouse is somsone to be wary of, by your logic.

Tell me, if the situation had been reversed, would you still see it the same way? If it had been me slapping her instead of the other way around? be honest.

being sorry that it had to come down to that doesn't mean he was in the wrong.

An apology, by definition, is to admit wrong and express regret.

being sorry that it had to come down to that doesn't mean he was in the wrong.

So now you absolutely know the nature of the apology or do you just assume?

Maybe he is. Or maybe he's just emotionally exhausted after coming off an ordeal that had him afraid that he might lose his wife and newborn child.

So his reaction is to assault her attending physician... ;)

I understand what you meant, but the point is that society at large has an iterest that overrides. If someone is given to robbing houses and he robs yours then we have a vested interest in prosecuting him lest he rob mine next. If there are mitigating circumstances then they can be taken into account at trial or sentencing.

I guess we'll agree to disagree. I see your point, but as long as the crime took place on my property and with my property and has involved no one else, then it's my perogative, as the victim, to decide whether or not to press charges.

So his reaction is to assault the her attending physician... ;)

irony.

Because they would prefer their wives to die?

I doubt she would have died


Ridiculous. If they had no female OB/Gyn on duty, it would probably be 8-24 hours before she is examined. If she's just gone through childbirth with complications, missing that exam could mean the difference between life and death.

Does your version of Islam really dictate that a woman should die rather than let competent medical professionals examine her? If so, this will be one of the few times that I will come right out and say that your religious views are idiotic.
Again I hardly think she would have died if they waited. her husband requested a female doctor in advance, the hospital should have had one ready.


Yes, it is better that her husband be left without a wife and her child be left without a mother than that a male doctor, who is not going to be sexually aroused in any way by this exam (he sees vaginae* all day, for crying out loud), provide medical treatment. :rolleyes:

*Apparently, this is the proper plural of vagina. I always assumed it was an "s"
it doesn't matter if the doctor considers it sexual or not, he is still doing something that he doesn't have a right to do.

irony.

No, I don't believe so. I think it was anger and an inability to control himself. I'd be buying gifts for the doctor who attended my wife after a difficult delivery because if her life or the life if my new child was in danger the only thing I'd be concerned about would be their health and anyone who intervened to help them would earn my eternal gratitude, not my insults and an assault.

This guy was more concerned with his machismo than with his wife's health so he endangered the health, not only of his wife, but of other women in the ward who may have had needed attention delayed by this asshole.

I doubt she would have died

So now you are a medical professional and know all the details.


Again I hardly think she would have died if they waited. her husband requested a female doctor in advance, the hospital should have had one ready.

Why? To compensate for bigots and religious nutcases? Would you accept it if someone insisted on having a doctor of a particular religious faith/ethnicity/etc. and assaulted the staff if they didn't get it?


it doesn't matter if the doctor considers it sexual or not, he is still doing something that he doesn't have a right to do.

You mean his job of caring for patients in a public hospital?

It was right to arrest him, but 6 months seems very harsh.

That's the problem with some religious people. I have a friend whose father is a surgeon, and who early on in his career faced an almost identical situation, with a devout Christian man threatening violence if he operated on his (the Christian guy's) wife - an operation he (the surgeon) considered necessary to save both the woman and the baby.

"Her life is in God's hands", was the guy's reasoning, therefore any kind of operation would be wrong.

They argued, and the guy actually threatened to kill him. Whether or not he meant it I have no idea, but it was rather more serious than just hitting him. My friend's father took it seriously and eventually decided to try and deliver the baby without the operation. Miraculously, he did succeed in saving them both. But it was a very difficult situation. Which doesn't exactly incite me to think favourably of religious men endangering their wives' lives...

I doubt she would have died


Again I hardly think she would have died if they waited. her husband requested a female doctor in advance, the hospital should have had one ready.


it doesn't matter if the doctor considers it sexual or not, he is still doing something that he doesn't have a right to do.

Are you a doctor? Were you there in the hospital? Unless you are and were, you have no right to pontificate on something you know none of the details. The hospital says it will provide a female OB/GYN as staffing permits. Hospitals are busy places where a patient's condition may change in a moment, calling doctors away to deal with the problem.

But hey, it's only a woman, after all. She should have not allowed the male doctor in there in the first place, so it's her fault.

Are you a doctor? Were you there in the hospital? Unless you are and were, you have no right to pontificate on something you know none of the details. The hospital says it will provide a female OB/GYN as staffing permits. Hospitals are busy places where a patient's condition may change in a moment, calling doctors away to deal with the problem.

But hey, it's only a woman, after all. She should have not allowed the male doctor in there in the first place, so it's her fault.

More to the point, an immediate examination is necessary to determine exactly what danger she is in. She may not have been in danger of dying, but until she is examined there is no way to know.

It was right to arrest him, but 6 months seems very harsh.

That's the problem with some religious people. I have a friend whose father is a surgeon, and who early on in his career faced an almost identical situation, with a devout Christian man threatening violence if he operated on his (the Christian guy's) wife - an operation he (the surgeon) considered necessary to save both the woman and the baby.

"Her life is in God's hands", was the guy's reasoning, therefore any kind of operation would be wrong.

They argued, and the guy actually threatened to kill him. Whether or not he meant it I have no idea, but it was rather more serious than just hitting him. My friend's father took it seriously and eventually decided to try and deliver the baby without the operation. Miraculously, he did succeed in saving them both. But it was a very difficult situation. Which doesn't exactly incite me to think favourably of religious men endangering their wives' lives...

I think the situations are different. In the case you're talking about, the guy objected to medical intervention of any kind. In the French case, the husband objected to some strange man looking at and perhaps touching his wife's intimate parts. There's a considerable difference. The French guy was perfectly happy to have medical care for her, if it was delivered by a woman. Otherwise, no.

No, I don't believe so. I think it was anger and an inability to control himself. I'd be buying gifts for the doctor who attended my wife after a difficult delivery because if her life or the life if my new child was in danger the only thing I'd be concerned about would be their health and anyone who intervened to help them would earn my eternal gratitude, not my insults and an assault.
Yeah, but what do you get for the doctor who has everything? :p


This guy was more concerned with his machismo than with his wife's health so he endangered the health, not only of his wife, but of other women in the ward who may have had needed attention delayed by this asshole.

In seriousness, I don't think it's fair to categorize this as being a simple issue of machismo or jealousy. Could it possibly have been? Yeah, but he states that his reasoning was religious, and in the absence of evidence to the contrary we must take his word for it.

I doubt she would have died


Again I hardly think she would have died if they waited. her husband requested a female doctor in advance, the hospital should have had one ready.


it doesn't matter if the doctor considers it sexual or not, he is still doing something that he doesn't have a right to do.

Two questions for you. I doubt you'll answer, but I will keep hounding you to answer so people can see the real you.

1. Would you have allowed your wife's condition to worsen or for her to possibly die in the absence of an available female doctor?

2. Is it up to you to decide if your wife is seen by a male doctor? In other words, if she was afraid she was worsening or even dying and wanted to see whatever doctor was available, even if it was a male doctor, do you believe that your wish to not have her seen by a male doctor overrides her desire for immediate medical care while in pain and suffering?

Just to point out that:
- The guy was a violent man who had already been convicted 4 times, including once for rebellion and violence against law enforcement officers. (AFP via Yahoo! News (fr) (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/24012007/202/six-mois-ferme-pour-avoir-agresse-le-gynecologue-ayant-soigne.html))
- Apparently, the guy only stopped slapping the doctor because hospital security intervened.
- He apologised, but only in court. One might doubt his sincerity. (Reuters via Yahoo! News (fr) (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/24012007/290/prison-ferme-pour-agression-a-l-hopital-sur-fond-d.html))

For all we know, there may have been assurances that were broken. Feeling betrayed would certainly add fuel to the fire. Can you honestly say after having to deal with is wife going through a difficult delivery he coudln't possibly have beenin a distressed state of mind?

No, I can't. But people end up in distressed states of mind all the time. If they quickly jump to violence, that makes them dangerous to society.

:rolleyes: I'm not going to belabor this. You either get it or you don't.

I'm more worried about what you get. You seem to be intent on reading something into my posts that simply isn't there and not seeing things that are explicitly stated.

You don't know that it was jealousy. If his religious convictions were threatened then jealousy need not be a factor.

Those religious convictions essentially amount to jealousy. He believes that no other man, even in a medical setting, should see his wife undressed.

I think to make that sentence more accurate, based on what I"ve seen here, I'd remove the word "fearful" and insert the word "judgmental."

No, the proper term is fearful. I can certainly forgive a person who flies off the handle and gets violent, but I will still be afraid of them. I wouldn't, for instance, leave a child alone with such a person. I wouldn't want to be alone with them.

In all the times I've debated with you, this is the first thing I've ever seen you type that has caused me to lose respect for you. Sorry. I'm no fan of Islam, but I don't presume to judge people like that.

I'm sorry you feel that way. But I do think that any religious belief that would suggest a woman should die before allowing a doctor to examine her simply because he is male is idiotic.

And thank you ever so much for leaving off the qualifier, as if I were calling just any religious belief idiotic. Nothing like trying to twist things. I made it clear that it takes something pretty extreme for me to say something like that, and you just went and pulled it completely out of context.

I have no problem at all with Islam. In fact, I think that, in the hands of many, it is a beautiful religion. But suggesting that God would rather a child be left motherless than a woman be seen by a male doctor is ridiculous - plain and simple, and I do have a problem with any belief that amounts to that. In fact, I would say that such a belief would be incompatible with what I have read of the Qur'an and the writings of Muhammad, which state that the rules laid out by Allah are not meant to be an undue burden upon the believer, or to put their health in danger. Even days of fasting can be put off if someone is sick or greatly physically exerting themselves. Knowing that, I think "medical necessity" is a pretty good reason to break the rules.

I think the situations are different. In the case you're talking about, the guy objected to medical intervention of any kind.

No, he objected to a specific operation, not to my friend's father delivering the child. Of course, by objecting to the operation, he put his wife and child at extreme risk.

Another difference, of course, is that in the case I mentioned the guy actually threatened to kill the doctor. Probably just words, but...

Just to point out that:
- The guy was a violent man who had already been convicted 4 times, including once for rebellion and violence against law enforcement officers. (AFP via Yahoo! News (fr) (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/24012007/202/six-mois-ferme-pour-avoir-agresse-le-gynecologue-ayant-soigne.html))
- Apparently, the guy only stopped slapping the doctor because hospital security intervened.
- He apologised, but only in court. One might doubt his sincerity. (Reuters via Yahoo! News (fr) (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/24012007/290/prison-ferme-pour-agression-a-l-hopital-sur-fond-d.html))

Well, I guess that settles it then. His sentence was too lite. He should have gotten a couple years, at least. This guy is a menace.

Just to point out that:
- The guy was a violent man who had already been convicted 4 times, including once for rebellion and violence against law enforcement officers. (AFP via Yahoo! News (fr) (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/24012007/202/six-mois-ferme-pour-avoir-agresse-le-gynecologue-ayant-soigne.html))
- Apparently, the guy only stopped slapping the doctor because hospital security intervened.
- He apologised, but only in court. One might doubt his sincerity. (Reuters via Yahoo! News (fr) (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/24012007/290/prison-ferme-pour-agression-a-l-hopital-sur-fond-d.html))

Good find. 6 months was generous then.

Just to point out that:
- The guy was a violent man who had already been convicted 4 times, including once for rebellion and violence against law enforcement officers. (AFP via Yahoo! News (fr) (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/24012007/202/six-mois-ferme-pour-avoir-agresse-le-gynecologue-ayant-soigne.html))
- Apparently, the guy only stopped slapping the doctor because hospital security intervened.
- He apologised, but only in court. One might doubt his sincerity. (Reuters via Yahoo! News (fr) (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/24012007/290/prison-ferme-pour-agression-a-l-hopital-sur-fond-d.html))

Well thats why he got 6 months in Le clinque.

Maybe he is. Or maybe he's just emotionally exhausted after coming off an ordeal that had him afraid that he might lose his wife and newborn child. Why is that so irrelevant to you?

People go become emotional all the time. All sorts of things can happen in life that would put you in an emotional state. You still need to be able to control yourself and not assault someone. If you cannot, you are a danger to society.

Not irrelevant at all. You're the one who introduced the idea of pushing a stranger as opposed to someone you know, as a way of deflecting my analogy of my argument with my wife.

Actually, I pointed out that you and your wife are close, not that you just happen to know one another. When we are with someone we love and trust, our guard is let down. This means, in a good sense, that we are more likely to open up, to allow ourselves to cry, to share personal experiences, etc. However, unfortunately, it also means that we are more likely to lash out in ways that we would not with acquaintances or people we don't know - precisely because we have let our guard down.

If the doctor were a close friend or family member, I'm fairly certain that little tidbit would have been reported.

Good. Maybe someone overpromised. Maybe he misunderstood that being subject to availability of female doctors. In any case, a misunderstanding like that can easily add fuel to the fire.

....but still doesn't explain or justify violence.

I don't see it as different at all. I could apply the exact same logic you did to justify calling the cops on my wife after she got physical on me by saying that once she did that, she has proven that it could happen again. Someone who can get so angry as to physically attack their spouse is somsone to be wary of, by your logic.

She has proven that it could happen again - if the situation were to repeat itself. I hardly think you'll be surprised if you guys get in a big blowout fight and she starts shoving and slapping you. You already know that she has done it. You have chosen to stay in that situation.

The situation in which this guy flew off the handle was that another man was seeing his wife in a state of undress. If she goes out in public, there are any number of ways this might happen - even completely accidentally. And, based on his past behavior, we cannot be surprised if he flies off the handle and attacks a man who he feels is looking at his wife inappropriately.

Tell me, if the situation had been reversed, would you still see it the same way? If it had been me slapping her instead of the other way around? be honest.

Yes. If you shoved her and slapped her, but did no lasting harm, I would see it the same way as her doing it to you.

I doubt she would have died

Why? Complications during childbirth quite often kill women. He was examining her to make sure that she was ok - that she didn't need immediate treatment.

Again I hardly think she would have died if they waited. her husband requested a female doctor in advance, the hospital should have had one ready.

Why? They will provide a female doctor if one is on staff and on duty. There is no reason that their entire schedule should revolve around one patient. And, unless it was an induced childbirth, they wouldn't have known exactly when she would go into labor anyways.

it doesn't matter if the doctor considers it sexual or not, he is still doing something that he doesn't have a right to do.

Like providing her with medical treatment? So women shouldn't get medical treatment? After all, countries that institute the kind of religion you espouse usually don't even let women become doctors.

many people in his position would have done the same thing.

And ALL those people should be put in jail if they assault the doctor.


Allowing her to be seen by a man who wasn't here husband, she should know better.

The nerve of her to allow a non-mahram to see her. How can the poor oppressed man regain his honor? Oh I know....honor killing !!!

being sorry that it had to come down to that doesn't mean he was in the wrong.

If he was not in the wrong then why be sorry that it had come down to that ?

Violence isn't the answer...... but it is my general policy to keep Frenchmen away from my wife's hoo-haw.

I'd just like to point out two things.

First, it's highly likely the woman couldn't refuse the examination. After a difficult birth, she would be so exhausted, and so doped up on pain meds, as to be basically unconscious. The gynecologist would be checking her over for tearing and haemorrhage - SOP for any birth in a hospital, so he didn't need special permission.

Second, French law and culture are much less permissive of minor violence than most english speaking countries. There have been cases of people receiving ten year sentences for assault. Under their culture, a six month sentence for minor assault is a slap on the wrist.

Just to point out that:
- The guy was a violent man who had already been convicted 4 times, including once for rebellion and violence against law enforcement officers. (AFP via Yahoo! News (fr) (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/24012007/202/six-mois-ferme-pour-avoir-agresse-le-gynecologue-ayant-soigne.html))
- Apparently, the guy only stopped slapping the doctor because hospital security intervened.
- He apologised, but only in court. One might doubt his sincerity. (Reuters via Yahoo! News (fr) (http://fr.news.yahoo.com/24012007/290/prison-ferme-pour-agression-a-l-hopital-sur-fond-d.html))

NOW we have some facts to work with. With this added information, 6 months seems much more reasonable. Maybe even a little light.

Makes one question the slant on the article, no?

Two questions for you. I doubt you'll answer, but I will keep hounding you to answer so people can see the real you.

1. Would you have allowed your wife's condition to worsen or for her to possibly die in the absence of an available female doctor?

2. Is it up to you to decide if your wife is seen by a male doctor? In other words, if she was afraid she was worsening or even dying and wanted to see whatever doctor was available, even if it was a male doctor, do you believe that your wish to not have her seen by a male doctor overrides her desire for immediate medical care while in pain and suffering?

Soveistan? Answer, please! You should not be ashamed of your religious beliefs. If it is Allah's will, then you should proclaim it from the mountain. I'm sure many of the women you respect here would like to here your answer to these questions and I'm sure the Prophet (PBUH) wouldn't want you to hide your convictions. :)

there shouldn't have been a male doctor there in the 1st place.

Ummm...Why shouldn't there have been a male doctor?

do you think this guy should have be arrested? I'm not sure because there shouldn't have been a male doctor there in the 1st place. I would also like to know why his wife would allow something like this to happen.

He assaulted the doctor, and as such he should be jailed for assault. I don't care what the "circumstances" are, it is clearly not self defense, and the court should therefore not allow him any leniency.

He assaulted someone. Assault is a criminal act. Criminal acts get you in jail.

That's how things work in a civilized society.

That's how things work in a civilized society.

Something most muslims don't understand.

He assaulted someone. Assault is a criminal act. Criminal acts get you in jail.

That's how things work in a civilized society.

She wears a blindfold (http://www.susaneppsward.com/images/Lady-Justice.jpg) afterall.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3940505a12.html

do you think this guy should have be arrested? I'm not sure because there shouldn't have been a male doctor there in the 1st place. I would also like to know why his wife would allow something like this to happen.

There was no female doctor available. Should he have allowed her to hemmorhage to death because no one could check to see if she was ok from the "complicated birth' she just had?

Her husband committed assault. Damned straight he should have been arrested. You can't go around beating people because you don't agree with them.

Soveistan? Answer, please! You should not be ashamed of your religious beliefs. If it is Allah's will, then you should proclaim it from the mountain. I'm sure many of the women you respect here would like to here your answer to these questions and I'm sure the Prophet (PBUH) wouldn't want you to hide your convictions. :)



Two questions for you. I doubt you'll answer, but I will keep hounding you to answer so people can see the real you.

1. Would you have allowed your wife's condition to worsen or for her to possibly die in the absence of an available female doctor?

2. Is it up to you to decide if your wife is seen by a male doctor? In other words, if she was afraid she was worsening or even dying and wanted to see whatever doctor was available, even if it was a male doctor, do you believe that your wish to not have her seen by a male doctor overrides her desire for immediate medical care while in pain and suffering?

He does sort of hit and run, though I have seen him come back in and debate. His conversion to Islam made him more prone to setting up these fairly obvious threads about how badly Muslims are treated these days.

Perhaps then he should not select articles in which idiots confirm the stereotypes that people believe about Islam as a whole?

Something most muslims don't understand.

Could you get more prejudiced?

If that's the legal minimum, then that scares me even more. It would suggest that even the most monir incident is punishable by a jail sentence that could easily fall into the felony range in the US.

Except it didn't happen in the US.

Something most muslims don't understand.

Umm...Why do you hate muslims so much?

Seems to me the best solution here is to get better hospital security.

Or to hold a man who assaulted another person for treating a patient responsible for his actions?

Why does it sound like people are trying to get him a "pass" simply because he is Muslim and trying to make it sound like the only reason he got in trouble for assault is because he is Muslim? (yes, Sovietsan, I am looking at you.) I'm sure we'd all prefer if his wife died because there were no female ob-gyns available. I'm equally sure that if an atheist, a Christian, or a Zen Buddhist (LOL) had reacted in the same way, they would have gotten the same treatment.

Your point still seems to assume this guy is a danger to others, which has not, as far as we can tell from the article, been established.

Why are you saying he didn't know the doctor? He may not have, but then again, he may have.

Suppose, just suppose for the sake of hypothetical fun, that he had previously made his feelings known to the hospital staff. Maybe his wife felt he same was as he. So far a lot of people seem to be assuming thst this just came out of left field but we don't know that. Maybe the hospital (inapropriately) gave him assurances about who would provide this care and then went against them. None of that would justify his reaction, mind you, but it would make it seem, at least to me, a lot easier to understand why he might have gotten so upset so quickly.

Those are an awful lot of assumptions you're plucking from thin air there, Tex. Why not deal with the facts rather than making up a whole scenario about how assault could be appropriate?

France isn't a muslim country, so I don't see why French hospitals should be forced to bend over backwards because of a pathetic irrational superstition. If scum like him don't like it then there are plenty of muslim countries that they can move to where hospitals are sex segregated.

Aside from this, I think the guy deserved prison regardless. Assaulting medical staff in the line of duty must never be tolerated and should be punished to the full extent of the law. Especially considering his previous criminal behaviour, I think he should have gotten a much longer sentence.

Could you get more prejudiced?

Sure, just not on NS.

France isn't a muslim country.

It will be.

It will be.

Can you predict my stocks with that magic crystal ball of yours?

I doubt she would have died
That could probably be ascertained with a degree of certainty one way or the other after the examination at issue had occured. Prior to the examination, it could not, hence the need for the examination...


Again I hardly think she would have died if they waited. her husband requested a female doctor in advance, the hospital should have had one ready.
Unless (and in such case until) you can demonstrate otherwise, I will not believe that you would have been able to give accurate odds on her surviving prior to the examination, nor do I believe that the medical staff present could have done so - hence the need to examine the woman.
As for the male doctor, neither the patient nor her husband have any right to make such a demand. There was absolutely no law or rule that required the patient utilise the publically funded health system. The patient and her husband must either make do with what is being offered at taxpayers' expense, or not avail themselves of the service. If the patient (or indeed her husband) objected so strongly to potential outcomes under the public health service (such as a male doctor attending to a pelvic exame), then they shouldnt have taken up the offered privledge. I suggest if the husband were able and willing to provide for his preferences the problem wouldnt have arisen, but for whatever reason, as a beggar he expected to be a dictator backed up by threat of violence.

So far as I know the traditional role of a Muslim husband is to provide for his wife's/wives' needs. That there was no female doctor provided by the husband for the wife, is the husband's failing, no one else's.

it doesn't matter if the doctor considers it sexual or not, he is still doing something that he doesn't have a right to do.
No mention is made of the doctor's arrest which would be very odd in this case had such an arrest occured. There is no evidence whatsoever that the doctor was not acting in full accordance with the law and his rights therein.

If people wish to dictate who may attend to their medical needs, they need to make their own provisions (ie attend to the costs). If instead of providing for themselves, they chose to take up the offered privledge of publically funded/subsidised care, they must make do with any consequential limitations on the service itself, and on their own capacity to enforce their demands/preferences.

So far as I know the traditional role of a Muslim husband is to provide for his wife's/wives' needs. That there was no female doctor provided by the husband for the wife, is the husband's failing, no one else's.

pwnage. :)

Shouldn't have been called? This guy was interupting a doctor's abilities to fulfill his duties at a hospital!I dont know..

Do they call 911 when the Jehovas-witness husband/father ask the hospital.. NOT to perform any blood transfusion?

I dont know..

Do they call 911 when the Jehovas-witness husband/father ask the hospital.. NOT to perform any blood transfusion?

Is the Jehovas witness physically attacking the doctor in question?

I dont know..

Do they call 911 when the Jehovas-witness husband/father ask the hospital.. NOT to perform any blood transfusion?

If the said Jehovah's witness is assaulting a doctor, you betcha.

Is the Jehovas witness physically attacking the doctor in question?In the US.. if they force a blood transfusion against the wish of the relatives.. I as a jury.. would vote to give the husband/father a fine+probation.. and at the same time I would vote on the side of the JWs against the malpractice Insurance on the million-dollars civil suit..

but like someone said.. US and French jurisprudence are not equal.. those frenchies are crazy sometimes.

and at the same time I would impose the Doctors/Hospital malpractice Insurance with a multimillionaire dollars suit.

You sure love humanity, don't you?

You sure love humanity, don't you?If they dont want my blood.. why force them?

He should be put in jail, he's a dangerous, violent criminal.

In the civilized world, it is not acceptable to attack doctors.

In the civilized world, it is not acceptable to attack doctors.who is it acceptable to attack.. in the "civilized" world?

a person who makes less than 100000$?
a person who makes less than 80000$?
a person who makes less than 60000$?
a person who makes less than 20000$?
a beggar?

Two questions for you. I doubt you'll answer, but I will keep hounding you to answer so people can see the real you.

1. Would you have allowed your wife's condition to worsen or for her to possibly die in the absence of an available female doctor?

2. Is it up to you to decide if your wife is seen by a male doctor? In other words, if she was afraid she was worsening or even dying and wanted to see whatever doctor was available, even if it was a male doctor, do you believe that your wish to not have her seen by a male doctor overrides her desire for immediate medical care while in pain and suffering?

When that day comes I will make sure there is female doctor ready, so your questions don't apply.

When that day comes I will make sure there is female doctor ready, so your questions don't apply.

and when that doctor gets called away, or the pregnant woman changes her mind? Or the woman goes into premature labor a week in advance and the female doctor is still on vacation?

who is it acceptable to attack.. in the "civilized" world?

a person who makes less than 100000$?
a person who makes less than 80000$?
a person who makes less than 60000$?
a person who makes less than 20000$?
a beggar?

This has to be one of the most random strawmen I've seen in a while.

Since when does "you can't attack doctors" mean the same thing as "you can only attack poor people"? :confused:

When that day comes I will make sure there is female doctor ready, so your questions don't apply.

Nice dodge. So it's the guy's fault afterall in this case because he did not make enough money to care for his family in teh proper, Muslim way. On to you, though.

In his shoes. You don't make enough money to afford your own doctor so you have to use the publically funded hospital. There is no female doctor at hand and your wife just had a difficult delivery. Do you let her condition worsen or let her die if there is no female doctor available? If she wants to see any doctor because she is in pain and feels like she needs immediate medical attention - all things that happened in thsi case - does your wish for her not to be seen by a male OB/GYN supersede her need for medical attention? There is NO FEMALE doctor available and she needs attention now. Does a woman who is married to you have the right to make decisions about her own medical treatment or do you step in and prevent her from making those kinds of decisions for herself? If you do step in, do you let her die or get worse rather than let her see a male doctor?

who is it acceptable to attack.. in the "civilized" world?

a person who makes less than 100000$?
a person who makes less than 80000$?
a person who makes less than 60000$?
a person who makes less than 20000$?
a beggar?

absent the necessity of defense, all of the above.

who is it acceptable to attack.. in the "civilized" world?

a person who makes less than 100000$?
a person who makes less than 80000$?
a person who makes less than 60000$?
a person who makes less than 20000$?
a beggar?

No one. Most of all not a doctor on duty in a busy maternity ward.

When that day comes I will make sure there is female doctor ready, so your questions don't apply.

Because you are GOD and you can make ABSOLUTELY SURE that there is a female doctor ready?

No car accidents happen in your world?
Vacations don't happen in your world?
Traffic jams don't happen in your world?
Emergencies don't happen in your world?

It's a simple question: would you rather let your wife die if the ONLY doctor available to attend to her after a difficult and complicated birth was a male doctor?

who is it acceptable to attack.. in the "civilized" world?

a person who makes less than 100000$?
a person who makes less than 80000$?
a person who makes less than 60000$?
a person who makes less than 20000$?
a beggar?

In the civilized world, people do not attack others. And madmen attack those who are trying to render medical assistance.

Since when does "you can't attack doctors" mean the same thing as "you can only attack poor people"? :confused: what about "you cant attack nurses".. lets pass another special rule like that...

and also "you cant attack paperboys"..
dont forget "you cant attack mariachis"

what about "you cant attack nurses".. lets pass another special rule like that...

and also "you cant attack paperboys"..
dont forget "you cant attack mariachis"

perhaps you should learn the difference between inclusive and exclusive statements.

what about "you cant attack nurses".. lets pass another special rule like that...

and also "you cant attack paperboys"..
dont forget "you cant attack mariachis"

I think those are already rules. :confused:

...and madmen attack those who are trying to render medical assistance.so.. if You attack the AAA driver working on your car.. You are not a madwoman?

I think those are already rules. thank you for making my point.

what about "you cant attack nurses".. lets pass another special rule like that...

and also "you cant attack paperboys"..
dont forget "you cant attack mariachis"

Um, you can't attack nurses, or paper boys, or mariachis. I don't believe anyone suggested otherwise.

It's a simple question: would you rather let your wife die if the ONLY doctor available to attend to her after a difficult and complicated birth was a male doctor?

Of course he would, he's muslim.

what about "you cant attack nurses".. lets pass another special rule like that...

and also "you cant attack paperboys"..
dont forget "you cant attack mariachis"

OcceanDrive2, is there a point to this hijack? Is there any POSSIBLE reason for bringing car mechanics into this? Or are you just having fun trying to divert people from the bad behavior of this single idiot?

Yes, certain jobs carry with them an elevated punishment for attacking the person holding that job. If you punch some random person, you'd probably get arrested and a fine. If you punch a bus operator while he is engaged in his job in NYC, you also get a seven year mandatory jail sentence. Why? because if you're attacking a busdriver while he is driving, you pose a danger to the rest of the passengers on the bus, pedestrians, and other motorists.

Punch your buddy, then punch a cop. See what the respective punishments are.

so.. if You attack someone towing your car.. You are not a madwoman?

You seem to be having real difficulty with basic logical thought.

If I say, "I do not like being punched in the stomach," do you really think that it logically follows from this that I absolutely love being punched in the head? Likewise, when one says, "Attacking doctors trying to help your family members is insane," do you honestly and truly believe that this statement is meant to exclude all other possible actions in the universe from being insane?

Of course he would, he's muslim.

Don't put words into his mouth; he can answer for himself.

Don't put words into his mouth; he can answer for himself.

I don't think he's been answering anything for himself since he converted.

If you punch a bus operator while he is engaged in his job in NYC, you also get a seven year mandatory jail sentence. #1 I think that NYC law is extremely unfair... and should be unconstituonal.

#2 is there such a law for Doctors in NYC.. or elsewhere in the US?
#3 I am not even going to comment France's laws.

.. OcceanDrive2, is there a point to this hijack? hijack?.. I am just replying the posts and following the flow...

but if that is an un-official warning.. please let me know.. so I can comply with your ruling.

thank you for making my point.

maybe I'm missing your point. :confused:

If you're saying that attacking a doctor is no worse than attacking a mailman, I'd agree as long as the doctor is not on duty and rendering medical attention. If you're saying that that still doesn't make it any worse then I would say that moral relevancy is inescapable and is in all our laws because we recognize that some crimes are just worse than others.

For example, I grew up with a guy named Martin who ended up driving a car to and ATM hold up where the guy they robbed grabbed the gun and was killed in the struggle. Martin has been in prison ever since - 20 years now - but he will be out in the next couple years.

David Westerfield also killed someone. What he did was he went into this couple's home and kidnapped their ten year old daugter and raped and murdered her and left her body on the side of the road. He will never get out and has received the death penalty.

What's the difference? The difference is that in martin's case you have mitigating circumstances. He was driving and was not the shooter. He did not go there to kill anyone he went there to rob someone.

David Westerfield went into the house for the sole purpose of raping and killing an innocent child. That is an aggravating circumstance.

Both people took actions that resulted in a person's death, but society recognizes a difference in their intent and the depravity of their crimes so the sentances handed to them were very different.

In this case, the guy didn't just assault someone, he assaulted an on duty doctor who was attempting to render vital, post natla care to his wife after a difficult delivery and was at the hospital to care for any number of women who were giving birth that night and this guy also interfered with his ability to do that so he put other people at risk as well. That's very different than starting a brawl at a bar.

who is it acceptable to attack.. in the "civilized" world?

a person who makes less than 100000$?
a person who makes less than 80000$?
a person who makes less than 60000$?
a person who makes less than 20000$?
a beggar?

Unacceptable to attack any of those people, obviously.

Why post this stupid shit? Honestly?

#1 I think that NYC law is extremely unfair... and should be unconstituonal.

On what grounds?

#1 I think that NYC law is extremely unfair... and should be unconstituonal.

#2 is there such a law for Doctors in NYC.. or elsewhere in the US?
#3 I am not even going to comment France's laws.

hijack?.. I am just replying the posts and following the flow...

but if that is an un-official warning.. please let me know.. so I can comply with your ruling.

Well, let's see, you're making nonsensical parallels to divert people from the topic of the thread -- yes, that'll be an unofficial warning, since you requested it. Oh, heck, let's make it an official one for hijacking.

I don't think he's been answering anything for himself since he converted,

QFT

You seem to be having real difficulty with basic logical thought.

If I say, "I do not like being punched in the stomach," do you really think that it logically follows from this that I absolutely love being punched in the head? No but If you say "I should not be punched in the stomach because I am a doctor".. you would get a reaction (reply) from me.


Likewise, when one says, "Attacking doctors trying to help your family members is insane," do you honestly and truly believe that this statement is meant to exclude all other possible actions in the universe from being insane?no statement of yours will ever exclude insanity in the universe.

...since you requested it. ...we are allowed to ask for clarification..

and clarification has been given.
I stand by all my previous post.
But I will no longer defend my opinion.

on one hand the guy is muslim and deserves to be put in jail. on the other the doc was french so he deserves to be beaten. sounds like a win win situation to me.


(if you want to take this seriously go ahead and start complaining about nothing. )

no statement of yours will ever exclude insanity in the universe.

That doesn't even begin to respond to what he asked.

What the fuck is up with this pointless raving shit tonight?

On what grounds?I cannot answer.. I been given an official warning.

No but If you say "I should not be punched in the stomach because I am a doctor".. you would get a reaction (reply) from me.


You're missing the difference between "I should not be attacked because I am a doctor" and "I should not be attacked because I am a doctor in the middle of a delicate medical procedure."

maybe I'm missing your point. :confused: I cannot explain further.. I been given a warning.

You're missing the difference between "I should not be attacked because I am a doctor" and "I should not be attacked because I am a doctor in the middle of a delicate medical procedure."

Not to mention the rather important difference between "Doctors should not be attacked" and "Doctors, and only doctors, should not be attacked." :p

Unacceptable to attack any of those people, obviously.thanks for making my point.

I am going AFK.. >> logging off.

thanks for making my point.

If you had actually been decent at this whole communication thing you could have made it yourself without all the nonsensical derailing and obfuscating.

Was there a point, other than to prevent people from focusing on "do people have a right to assault doctors in the carrying out of their duties, even if that might cost someone her life, because of their religious beliefs", and on awaiting Soviestan's response?

Was there a point, other than to prevent people from focusing on "do people have a right to assault doctors in the carrying out of their duties, even if that might cost someone her life, because of their religious beliefs", and on awaiting Soviestan's response?

probably not, because the answer should be so glaring self evident to everyone but Soviestan that any further discussion would be sorta silly, and that would deprive oceandrive from being the center of attention...

If you had actually been decent at this whole communication thing you could have made it yourself without all the nonsensical derailing and obfuscating.look.. the husband is an idiot..
the police should have been called .. and the guy should have been handcuffed and driven to jail..
that is the obvious part.
that is the easy part.
___________________________________

My point is.. Governments/ Hospital-Admins should accept it.. if some people do to NOT want to receive (some kind of) medical service.

If I was nonsensical, derailing and obfuscating (whatever that means).. I will try to explain my point in a more simple way. (in future threads)

My point is.. Governments/ Hospital-Admins should accept it if they do to NOT want to receive medical service.

By law, they must. NO doctor may administer treatment to a patient who has manifested an intent to refuse treatment.

In this instance the woman did not refuse treatment, her husband did. Her husband does not have the right to refuse treatment for her in this context, ergo noboy was treated when they did not want to be.

Do you have something on topic to add to this discussion?

By law, they must. NO doctor may administer treatment to a patient who has manifested an intent to refuse treatment.then it is all good.

Perhaps then he should not select articles in which idiots confirm the stereotypes that people believe about Islam as a whole?

I think the article shows the prejudices and obstacles Muslims face in the west more than anything.

I think the article shows the prejudices and obstacles Muslims face in the west more than anything.

Yeah, bullshit. It shows that muslims are unwilling to intergrate in the West, and are willing to resort to violence if we do not bend over for them.

then it is all good.

A doctor (or any medical professional) may only perform a medical procedure on someone in four situations:

1) The individual gives express consent

2) The individual is a minor and his or her legal gaurdian gives consent

3) The individual is disabled in such a way as to be unable to give consent and someone with power of attorney gives consent

4) The individual is disabled in such a way as to be unable to give consent and nobody with power of attorney is available, and there is no evidence that the individual would decline, consent is assumed (IE if you're brought into the hospital unconscious and you have nothing on you that suggests that you would decline treatment, it is presumed that you consent).

I think the article shows the prejudices and obstacles Muslims face in the west more than anything.

losing your temper and attacking a doctor treating your wife that your wife consented to doesn't show any prejudices to muslims in the west.

It shows that this muslim is a hotheaded asshole and deserves to be in jail for assaulting someone.

Nice dodge. So it's the guy's fault afterall in this case because he did not make enough money to care for his family in teh proper, Muslim way. On to you, though.

In his shoes. You don't make enough money to afford your own doctor so you have to use the publically funded hospital. There is no female doctor at hand and your wife just had a difficult delivery. Do you let her condition worsen or let her die if there is no female doctor available? If she wants to see any doctor because she is in pain and feels like she needs immediate medical attention - all things that happened in thsi case - does your wish for her not to be seen by a male OB/GYN supersede her need for medical attention? There is NO FEMALE doctor available and she needs attention now. Does a woman who is married to you have the right to make decisions about her own medical treatment or do you step in and prevent her from making those kinds of decisions for herself? If you do step in, do you let her die or get worse rather than let her see a male doctor?

Those are difficult questions to answer. Though I would do everything I could to make sure she was seen by a female doctor. However if and only if it was either she and/or the baby die or be seen by a male, I may allow such an exam. That is an extremely rare case and I don't see that happening and I'm not sure it was the case in the case the article refered to.

Those are difficult questions to answer. Though I would do everything I could to make sure she was seen by a female doctor. However if and only if it was either she and/or the baby die or be seen by a male, I may allow such an exam. That is an extremely rare case and I don't see that happening and I'm not sure it was the case in the case the article refered to.

you may allow such an exam?

YOU MAY ALLOW such an exam?

How in hell is it YOUR choice how she gets treated? she may allow for such an exam, or she may not. What you want is pretty much irrelevant.

Because you are GOD and you can make ABSOLUTELY SURE that there is a female doctor ready?
While I am most certainly not God, I would do absolutely everything in my power to make sure a female doctor was ready.


It's a simple question: would you rather let your wife die if the ONLY doctor available to attend to her after a difficult and complicated birth was a male doctor?

No I wouldn't. Though a case of absolute life or death would be the only time I would allow it to happen.

... a doctor treating your wife that your wife consented to doesn't show any prejudices to muslims in the west.wait a minute.. a doctor his wife consented?

I think his wife dis-consented.

While I am most certainly not God, I would do absolutely everything in my power to make sure a female doctor was ready.




No I wouldn't. Though a case of absolute life or death would be the only time I would allow it to happen.

I'll ask again, what kind of absolute arrogance makes you believe you have the right to decide what kind of treatment a competant adult receives?

A doctor (or any medical professional) may only perform a medical procedure on someone in four situations:

1) The individual gives express consent.in this case it looks to me like: express NON consent

wait a minute.. a doctor his wife consented?

I think his wife dis-consented.

read the article. Show me at one point it suggests at any time that the woman did not want the treatment.

you may allow such an exam?

YOU MAY ALLOW such an exam?

How in hell is it YOUR choice how she gets treated? she may allow for such an exam, or she may not. What you want is pretty much irrelevant.

Bullshit. I am the husband, I have a say in what happens to my wife.

in this case it looks to me like: express NON consent

no. Read the article. the HUSBAND expressed his desire that a male not treat HIS WIFE. He doesn't get to make that choice. He doesn't get to decide. He doesn't get to dictate what treatment his wife receives.

His wife does. Show me at what point his wife withdrew consent.

Bullshit. I am the husband, I have a say in what happens to my wife.

Provided she is not incapacitated and is capable of making her own rational decisions...no. No you don't.

She may choose to listen to you, or she may not. But you have no say what so ever in what medical treatment your wife receives. As long as she's conscious, mentally competant and sane, she does, not you.

Legally you have no say what so ever. None. Zero. Nada. Ziltch. She may receive whatever medical treatment she decides and there's jack shit all you can legally do to stop her.

Provided she is not incapacitated and is capable of making her own rational decisions...no. No you don't.

She may choose to listen to you, or she may not. But you have no say what so ever in what medical treatment your wife receives. As long as she's conscious, mentally competant and sane, she does, not you.

Legally you have no say what so ever. None. Zero. Nada. Ziltch. She may receive whatever medical treatment she decides and there's jack shit all you can legally do to stop her.

your a funny guy.

your a funny guy.

do you have a single shred of proof to back up your assertions? No?

So then you're just talking out of your ass, yes?

The fact is that a mentally competant, sane adult may make whatever medical choice he or she wishes.

She can be treated by a male doctor, and there's nothing you can do to stop her.
She may get a tattoo, and there's nothing you can do to stop her.
She may get an abortion, and there's nothing you can do to stop her.
She may get breast implants, and there's nothing you can do to stop her.
She may get a sex change operation, and there's nothing you can do to stop her.

Bullshit. I am the husband, I have a say in what happens to my wife.

Welcome to the West. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

do you have a single shred of proof to back up your assertions? No?

So then you're just talking out of your ass, yes?

The fact is that a mentally competant, sane adult may make whatever medical choice he or she wishes.

She can be treated by a male doctor, and there's nothing you can do to stop her.
She may get a tattoo, and there's nothing you can do to stop her.
She may get an abortion, and there's nothing you can do to stop her.
She may get breast implants, and there's nothing you can do to stop her.
She may get a sex change operation, and there's nothing you can do to stop her.

A good wife won't choose to be seen by a male doctor anyway so your point is basically void.

Welcome to the West. Don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out.

at the end of the day, that's the point. No adult may make a choice for another competant and capable adult.

You just don't have that right. You can't do it. You may suggest, you may attempt to influence, you may complain, but if that competant and capable adult decides to go ahead and do whatever he or she wants to do over your objections...guess what?

You lose.

no. Read the article. the HUSBAND expressed his desire that a male not treat HIS WIFE. He doesn't get to make that choice. Are you saying he decided to ask that "in secret".. and that his wife was not aware he was going to ask for that?

it was probably asked weeks before the birth.. and 99.99% his wife was fully aware of the request.
BTW the article says.. Muslims always ask that.

A good wife won't choose to be seen by a male doctor anyway so your point is basically void.

a good wife does whatever it takes to ensure her own health and the health of her baby.

in general, a good wife is one not married to you.

Are you saying he decided to ask that "in secret".. and that his wife was not aware he was going to ask for that?

it was probably asked weeks before the birth.. and 99.99% his wife was fully aware of the request.
BTW the article says.. Muslims always ask that.

no, I'm saying it doesn't matter what he asks for. Not at all, not even a bit. Not in the slightest. Not one iota.

It matters only what SHE asks for, what SHE wants, and if SHE wanted to be seen by that doctor, than what HER HUSBAND wanted is absolutly and totally irrelevant.

He doesn't get to make that choice, so what he wants is not, and should not, be the concern of the doctor. Only the wishes of the patient need be honored. Nobody elses.

in general, a good wife is one not married to you.WOW..
are you saying Muslims women are bad wives?

You lose.

...

I'm on your side. If I lose, you lose.

WOW..
are you saying Muslims women are bad wives?

no, not at all. I am saying the expectations that fundamentalist muslim culture has for women, and the pressure it exerts on women to conform to those expectations, are bad.

And in general, I would hope that any smart, self assured, self confident, wise woman, all the qualities I ascribe to being "good" would avoid Soviestan like the plague.

...

I'm on your side. If I lose, you lose.

I was using your point to reinforce the argument. I quoted you to follow through, not to argue with.

Only the wishes of the patient need be honored. Nobody elses.I am saying She wished to have a female Doctor..
I know a few female Muslims.. I know how they feel about this.

If the Husband says "A female doctor please".. (if the hospital is not sure the Wife understand English/French or for whatever reasons) the hospital could ask the Wife for confirmation.. If the Hospital does NOT ask for confirmation.. they better take the Husband word for it.

I am saying She wished to have a female Doctor..
I know a few female Muslims.. I know how they feel about this.

I don't care about "what you know about muslims". I want you to back up your claim. Show me where in the article it says that.

Go ahead, show me. I don't care what people you know would have done, I care about what SHE did. You want to make claims about what she consented to? Prove it.

this article only mmade the news because the dude was muslim. if he was any other religion, it wouldn't have been such a big deal.

regardless, he shouldn't have hit the doctor.

no, not at all. I am saying the expectations that fundamentalist muslim culture has for women, and the pressure it exerts on women to conform to those expectations, are bad.

And in general, I would hope that any smart, self assured, self confident, wise woman, all the qualities I ascribe to being "good" would avoid Soviestan like the plague.the other muslims consider soviestan to be a liberal muslim.

the other muslims consider soviestan to be a liberal muslim.

then they're wrong too.

I was using your point to reinforce the argument. I quoted you to follow through, not to argue with.

Oh, cool.

I'm curious as to what kind of husband/man/person would place more importance on the writings in an 1800 year old manuscript, than on the well-being of his wife.

I've no problem dying for my beliefs but it's not my place to make someone else die for my beliefs.

Yes, I realise the woman was also a Muslim, but again it's not stated in the article that she didn't consent so I'm guessing there was a difference of opinion... if she's allowed to have an opinion.

the other muslims consider soviestan to be a liberal muslim.

*ba-dum-pish*

I don't care about "what you know about muslims". I want you to back up your claim. Show me where in the article it says that.like I said..

the article says he asked for a female doctor..
there is no proof she knew he was going to ask for that.. and there is no proof she did not know..

at that point you must ask you brain and use you logic.

My brain says most probably "she knew"
My brain tells me Muslim women do want a Female doctor.

What does your brain tells you?? use your logic.

like I said..

the article says he asked for a female doctor..
there is no proof she knew he was going to ask for that.. and there is no proof she did not know..

at that point you must ask you brain and use you logic.

My brain says most probably "she knew"
My brain tells me Muslim women do want a Female doctor.

What does your brain tells you?? use your logic.

my brain tells me not to make assumptions without proof. My brain tells me "she knew her husband wanted a female doctor" does not, in any way equal "she wanted a female doctor".

My brain, in short, tells me that since the article does not state one way or the other I can not make assumptions.

My brain also tells me that according to the article, in France at a public hospital you apparently can't selectively choose. You can not demand a female over a male, you may either accept treatment with whatever they have, or refuse treatment all together.

like I said..

the article says he asked for a female doctor..
there is no proof she knew he was going to ask for that.. and there is no proof she did not know..

at that point you must ask you brain and use you logic.

My brain says most probably "she knew"
My brain tells me Muslim women do want a Female doctor.

What does your brain tells you?? use your logic.

I don't know what your point is, but a hospital isn't an ice cream parlour. Be thankful with what you're given.

then they're wrong too.well we all know Muslims are wrong. and ebil [/sarcasm]

the bottom line is: why the hospital did not tell her "Your Husband asked for a female Doctor.. is that what you want?"

I don't know what your point is..*hint* follow the green arrows

well we all know Muslims are wrong. and ebil [/sarcasm]

Any religion, practice, society or culture that treats individual people the way fundamentalist islam treats women is wrong.

It doesn't matter if it's fundamentalist islam, or orthodox judaism, or evangelical protestantism, or god damned shinto budhist.

Any culture that deprives individuals for any reason of their fundamental human rights is wrong. Period. It's wrong. No debate, no moral relativism, no "we must consider other cultures".

It's wrong.

Period.

the bottom line is: why the hospital did not tell her "Your Husband asked for a female Doctor.. is that what you want?"

It might have. We don't know it didn't.

If there were legitimate staffing concerns, whether the wife requests a female doctor is moot, IMO. If the hassle of getting a female doctor is too much and affects the hospital's ability to treat other patients, then they should have to put up with a guy.

Any culture that deprives individuals for any reason of their fundamental human rights is wrong. Period. It's wrong. I would say refusing blood transfusions is a civil right..

If there were legitimate staffing concerns, whether the wife requests a female doctor is moot, IMO. If the hassle of getting a female doctor is too much and affects the hospital's ability to treat other patients, then they should have to put up with a guy.so you do not agree with "the Law" ??
By law, they must. NO doctor may administer treatment to a patient who has manifested an intent to refuse treatment.

I would say refusing blood transfusions is a civil right..

It is. I have the right to refuse it. You have the right to refuse it. You do not have the right to refuse it for me.

The right is for me to make it FOR MYSELF. Islam does not allow women to make that choice for themselves. Ergo it is wrong.

so you do not agree with "the Law" ??

if you are going to quote me, quote me properly. ONe has the right to refuse treatment. One may not have the right to selectively refuse treatment. In other words, if you want treatment you may have to settle with what you got.

You may refuse treatment all together, you are not always able to refuse treatment by one doctor over another.

You may, if you wish, refuse treatment from a male doctor, that is your right. But if all they have on hand are male doctors, and you don't want a male doctor you have two options:

1) accept the male doctor

2) refuse treatment in its entirety

She, it would appear, chose to accept the male doctor. There is no proof that it was forced upon her, she COULD have chosen to refuse all treatment. It seems she didn't.

so you do not agree with "the Law" ??
Requesting a female doctor =/= refusing treatment from a male doctor, if that's all that is provided.

Ben Moussa, a 23-year-old lorry driver, apologised for the attack and said he had requested a female doctor. French state hospitals comply with such requests when staffing permits but say patients must accept treatment from the doctors on duty.


This Moussa guy is an idiot.
1.The state hospital policy seems perfectly reasonable to me, given that the health of a woman is WAY more important that religious matters, expecially after a troubled birth. There are no differences between a female and a male doctor.
2.He's not the master of his wife. He's not the master of the hospital either.
3.If he wants to live in a place where only female doctors can cure female patients, he is excused to another country - not any country in the EU, anyway, since any EU country is forbidden to make ANY difference between male and female workers.

On the guy's side, a 23-year-old truck driver can't be expected to have a very high cultural standard, so I guess that French state schools could do with more education about sex/gender issues. But nothing more.

Are you saying he decided to ask that "in secret".. and that his wife was not aware he was going to ask for that?

it was probably asked weeks before the birth.. and 99.99% his wife was fully aware of the request.
BTW the article says.. Muslims always ask that.
You fail to understand the legal facts. In France it is illegal to force medical proceedures on someone. The woman would had to have signed a consent form signalling what proceedures she did and did not consent to (prior to treatment). If the possibility of a male performing the proceedure did not prevent her from consenting then she consented. If she hadnt consented then the doctor was committing a crime against her.

Under French law there is a 'good samaritan' requirement. People are obliged to render assistance to others if they are in danger (for instance a crime is being committed against them).

It is necessarily true that the woman consented if her husband's attack on the doctor resulted in him being convicted of asssault because without the consent the doctor was committing a crime against the patient and the husband's attack wouldnt be an assault under French law. Rather than interupting the doctor being a crime in such a case, not interupting him (and forcibly stopping him) would be criminal. There is no way the husband could have been convicted of assault in this case if at the time the doctor was committing a crime against his wife because the assault could reasonably be construed as potentially interupting or preventing the crime from proceeding if the doctor were acting criminally.

Because the husband was convicted of assault we can determine he wasnt interupting a crime through his actions, thus we can conclude the act he interupted wasnt a crime and since it would be a crime for the doctor to perform the proceedure without consent, we can conclude that the patient did give her consent.

That could probably be ascertained with a degree of certainty one way or the other after the examination at issue had occured. Prior to the examination, it could not, hence the need for the examination...


Unless (and in such case until) you can demonstrate otherwise, I will not believe that you would have been able to give accurate odds on her surviving prior to the examination, nor do I believe that the medical staff present could have done so - hence the need to examine the woman.
As for the male doctor, neither the patient nor her husband have any right to make such a demand. There was absolutely no law or rule that required the patient utilise the publically funded health system. The patient and her husband must either make do with what is being offered at taxpayers' expense, or not avail themselves of the service. If the patient (or indeed her husband) objected so strongly to potential outcomes under the public health service (such as a male doctor attending to a pelvic exame), then they shouldnt have taken up the offered privledge. I suggest if the husband were able and willing to provide for his preferences the problem wouldnt have arisen, but for whatever reason, as a beggar he expected to be a dictator backed up by threat of violence.

So far as I know the traditional role of a Muslim husband is to provide for his wife's/wives' needs. That there was no female doctor provided by the husband for the wife, is the husband's failing, no one else's.


No mention is made of the doctor's arrest which would be very odd in this case had such an arrest occured. There is no evidence whatsoever that the doctor was not acting in full accordance with the law and his rights therein.

If people wish to dictate who may attend to their medical needs, they need to make their own provisions (ie attend to the costs). If instead of providing for themselves, they chose to take up the offered privledge of publically funded/subsidised care, they must make do with any consequential limitations on the service itself, and on their own capacity to enforce their demands/preferences.


perfect!

the assault aside,your 100% on point,and something i failed to consider,the simple fact that if he has religous or particular needs...either go to the hospital prior to the day of need for service,and insure the appropriate services are available(female ob in this case)or arrange for the services he needs on his own.
which means on his dime...you cant demand on the spot...for a hospital to cater to every religous or ethnic need,and then go mental when you don't automatically have your needs catered too.
especially when he had ample time to make arrangements prior(about 9 months i think?)
as for the assault...the whole muslim issue of a man seeing his wife aside,you deserve to be punished for assaulting anyone,let alone a doctor in a busy hospital enviroment..he not only endangered his wife,but others that may have needed attention.
say hypothetically,when he just shoved and slapped the doctor...the doctor tripped and banged his head on a desk or something?
either rendering him unconscious,or potentially worse(a friend died from getting punched and falling,hitting his head on a curb,the guy that punched him got 10 years for manslaughter...rightly)
now we have an incompacitated doctor,now another doctor needs to tend to him,2 doctors are now out of circulation,and people that need help are sitting on their hands or worse,while 2 doctors are tied up over this jerks behaviour.
with the system streched as it is,i seriously doubt they can afford to have 2 doctors off the floor.
assault(even pushing and slapping is a serious offense)as the repercussions are not always minor,thats why it is frowned upon by society.
the guy belongs in jail..for punishment,then therapy for his anger,and some more therapy to figure out why he thinks the world revolves around him.

Er, the only problem with that is that he has no way of knowing exactly what day she'll give birth. So it was impossible for the the hospital to make 100% sure that a female doctor was there when the woman needed one. The hospital did it's best.

Er, the only problem with that is that he has no way of knowing exactly what day she'll give birth. So it was impossible for the the hospital to make 100% sure that a female doctor was there when the woman needed one. The hospital did it's best.

i"m pretty confident the hospital did everything they could.nobody or org. is perfect,but they dont intentionally not try to help or do their jobs.

i realize they have no way of insuring that a female doctor would be on duty,on that particular day(i do wondor why they dont always have a male and female doctor always available..but that may be due to staffing issues)
my point was,he had 9 months to see to his specific needs..hire his own midwife or somesuch thing.
he has no right to demand specialized consideration in a public/generic enviroment.
an then attack someone thats caring for HIS wifes health....the guy is a bonehead,plain and simple.
well he has 6 months to think about it i suppose.

According to the article the policy is to accomodate the preference for a female doctor if it is possible to do so. Obviously cost is an issue (you cannot have double the doctors needed in a publically funded system just to cater to a preference). But so probably are discrimination laws.

In order to maintain a constant presence of one particular gender across hospitals and hospital departments, it would be likely necessary to discriminate on the basis of gender when hiring. Even if the hospital knew when a patient was coming they cannot schedule all their staff rotation around one particular patient, since then they need do the same for all patients. It's not just Muslim women who might prefer female doctors when it comes to tendng to their more private bodily parts.

The birth of the child is of course exceptional to the parents, but for a maternity ward, it's business as usual. Ensuring there was always a female doctor available where patients preference it, would require that there be a constant female presence. Where only one doctor is needed, the hospital either can adhere to non-discrimination against male applicants, or constantly prefer female candidates. The latter would be illegal under French law, so the hospital is constrained in its ability to ensure female doctors can always attend to proceedures where the patient prefers a female.

A private hospital would be a different issue. If the hospital could prove that meeting their contractual obligations, or providing a particular service that forms part of their day to day business operations, renders some applicants more suitable than others then they could substantiate that they are choosing the more suitable applicant for their specific purposes, rather than discriminating on the basis of sex - much as the Moulin Rouge can argue that female dancers are more suitable applicants for female dance roles than male applicants are (and vice versa). A public hospital conversely cannot make the same claim because they are not a business and do not contract with patients to provide services, but rather contract with the state who has no legally recognisable interest in discriminating on grounds of sex or gender in the hiring of obsteotricians.

So I expect if they (the prospective parents) were prepared and able to finance the proceedures themselves they could have contracted with a private hospital to have the proceedures done only by females but in choosing to rely on a publically funded service, contracted and paid for by a third party (the state), they need must settle for service as it is contracted by the third party, ie without any assurance as to the gender of the particular doctors attending.

Yes, patients do have the right to choose their treatment and how it will be delivered provided they are properly informed. However, this is beside the point. Moussa wasn't the patient, and therefore he had no right to decide for his wife (another person), unless she specifically said that her husband would make decisions.
The husband deciding for the wife could have been the norm in his country, but certainly not in France.

But the prosecution lawyer is also wrong. Even if the hospital is a secular place, that does not mean that your freedom of religion won't be respected.

Also, he could have protested in a more civil manner. That is the bottom line. We cannot make excuse religion or beliefs as a justification for actions like that; add to that, the husband was on the wrong side in the first place.

But the prosecution lawyer is also wrong. Even if the hospital is a secular place, that does not mean that your freedom of religion won't be respected.

The prosecutor never suggested otherwise, so in what way was the prosecutor wrong?

Yeah, bullshit. It shows that muslims are unwilling to intergrate in the West, and are willing to resort to violence if we do not bend over for them.

Given that I provided a situation in which the same (nay, worse) happened with a Christian, would you like to revise that statement? Or would you prefer to argue that Christians are unwilling to integrate in the West?

I think the article shows the prejudices and obstacles Muslims face in the west more than anything.

You selected an article in which a a man committed violence against a medical professional in the carrying out of his duty. That he was a Muslim is very nearly beside the point. I don't see how arresting someone for assault = prejudice. I see arresting someone for assault as the normal consequence anyone must pay for committing a crime.

If YOU see it as discrimination, do you then believe (as you seem to) that Muslims deserve a different set of laws from the society that they choose to live in?

wait a minute.. a doctor his wife consented?

I think his wife dis-consented.

Source?

your a funny guy.

You're obviously ignorant of patients' rights.

WOW..
are you saying Muslims women are bad wives?

Not at all. What he's saying is that violent men who keep their wives from proper medical care in an emergency are bad husbands.

like I said..

the article says he asked for a female doctor..
there is no proof she knew he was going to ask for that.. and there is no proof she did not know..

at that point you must ask you brain and use you logic.

My brain says most probably "she knew"
My brain tells me Muslim women do want a Female doctor.

What does your brain tells you?? use your logic.

My brain tells me that regardless of Muslim or not Muslim he assaulted a doctor and put his wife's life at risk.

Really, it's not such a difficult question. Did he burst into the exam room? Yes. Did he shove, hit and insult the doctor? Yes. Was the woman being examined because her health was in danger from a difficult birth? Yes.

Should a different set of laws apply to this man because of his religious beliefs? No more than if he were Christian, Jedi, Jainist or Atheist.

Given that I provided a situation in which the same (nay, worse) happened with a Christian, would you like to revise that statement? Or would you prefer to argue that Christians are unwilling to integrate in the West?

Christians ARE the West. It's like saying the British are failing to integrate.

well we all know Muslims are wrong. and ebil [/sarcasm]

the bottom line is: why the hospital did not tell her "Your Husband asked for a female Doctor.. is that what you want?"

The bottom line is one was not available and her life was at risk.

I would say refusing blood transfusions is a civil right..

Which is not the case here and has no relevance. She did not refuse treatment.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/3940505a12.html

do you think this guy should have be arrested? I'm not sure because there shouldn't have been a male doctor there in the 1st place. I would also like to know why his wife would allow something like this to happen.

Absolutely, last I checked battery and assault are illegal.

Assaulting a civil servant in France, which includes teachers, physicians and surgeons, advocates, and other professionals working for the public service, is considered a serious offence; indeed, it is considered an direct affront to the State.

the only conclusion I have reached regarding this article is...I want to marry a muslim

All I can say is, that poor kid. Growing up with a dad like that should be reeeeal fun.

You and I will have to agree to disagree on this one. But to clarify, do you feel 6 months is reasonable considering the level of severity of the assault?
I think it is. Why. Response to come after the next quote.

I grew up raised to believe that an apology meant something. If he had actually injured the doctor then he should make ammends in some wy, but a couple slaps, shoves and harsh words are nothing in the grand scheme of things.
This guy is a doctor. The woman may die due to the actions of this religious nutjob.There are a couple of ways this can happen. The slap,push, etc means the careful, delicate, procedure the doctor was doing, becomes a botched medical procedure. If the woman was haemhorraging(sp?) or something similar that needs Immediate attention, it can mean she doesn't get it.

A real solid message needs to be sent. Leave your religious prejudices at the door, or Piss Off. Don't mess with emergency services, ever.

Just to show that it's not just a bias against thing, I think the Jehovah's Witnesses with their stupid blood thing, should be prosecuted for manslaughter, if a blood tranfusion could save their child and they refuse it.

That or the fact she was in a difficult labour.She probably would have said yes to a rabbi if she thought is would help.

If the rabbi had a medical license and was providing necessary health care what would it matter?

Terminally stupid. The medical profession, which, I might add, existed in France long before Maghrebain immigration, should be under no obligation to temper its practices to placate a few uppity retards. Frankly, if the accused was sufficiently myopic to not foresee any post-natal analysis and treatment, and sufficiently anachronistic and regressed so as to assualt a professional on grounds of mysogynistic fear, he deserves whatever sentance he recieves.

I think the article shows the prejudices and obstacles Muslims face in the west more than anything.

I think it demonstrates that Islam, as a faith, is irreconcilable to the west. Why on earth should we change to accomodate Islam?

Throw the book at the bastard. Medical staff has to put up with tonnes of abuse already without having to worry about more religious wackos.

the other muslims consider soviestan to be a liberal muslim.

that is the scary part.

I bet he would of kicked up a fuss if the docter had not examined her snd his wife died of complications.

Frankly I think he got what he deserved.

I bet he would of kicked up a fuss if the docter had not examined her and his wife died of complications.

Frankly I think he got what he deserved.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/GrammarTime.gif It's HAVE! Or 've. Never, never ever "of". :rolleyes::headbang::mad: (Yes, I'm a grammar nazi. So?)

I think it demonstrates that Islam, as a faith, is irreconcilable to the west. Why on earth should we change to accomodate Islam?

http://www.cnn.com/US/9810/24/abortion.violence/index.html

How is it irreconcilable to the west? we seem to have a history of assaulting health care workers...

http://www.cnn.com/US/9810/24/abortion.violence/index.html

How is it irreconcilable to the west? we seem to have a history of assaulting health care workers...
Ooooohhhhhh....

Nice one!

Ooooohhhhhh....

Nice one!

Zing :)

A good wife won't choose to be seen by a male doctor anyway so your point is basically void.

You seriously need to move to a place more consistent with your views. Understand something here. The West will only take so much. We've pretty much welcomed Muslims into our societies and cultures and, for the most part, particularily here in North America, they've not had any problems fitting in with the general population and working and living with us. Recently there seems to be an attempt on the part of many Muslims to reform our ideals and our laws regarding democracy, free will, freedom of speech and just the overriding ideals of live and let live and the free exchange of ideas.

The West has bent over backwards to accomodate Muslims but if you continue to push and continue to try to limit our freedoms there will be a backlash. We quite enjoy the freedom to do things like argue on message boards, draw political cartoons, publish books and make films critical of ANY religion including Islam, and to look at half naked chicks at the beach. Women who live here like to have control over their own lives and bodies and most of us men generally like it that way because it makes them much more interesting and sexy.

None of that is going o change and if you try to change it violently we will defend it violently. BTW, so will a lot of Muslims here in the US who happen to like the freedom they have here.

;)

http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?page=2007/01/25/story_25-1-2007_pg3_2
The same writer also complains that, in the town where he lives, there is a hospital called Islamic Hospital, where only male nurses serve male patients. Often, there are no nurses to serve the patients as they disappear for their five daily prayers or the Friday prayers. “No one dares to question such predicaments; as the excuse is religion, everyone bears this silently and patiently.” He asks, “Does Islam teach this behaviour? As a layman I am really at a loss.”
..
Many Muslims of today only physically exist in the 21st century. Mentally, they belong to the 17th century or earlier, putting ritual before spiritual and form before substance in matters concerning religion.