MEDICAL schools have started restricting the admission of Muslim students after complaints that they are forcing doctors to abandon the teaching of certain subjects on religious grounds. The action comes after an increase in the proportion of medical students coming from the ethnic minorities from 10 per cent to 33 per cent over the past two decades.
The refusal of Muslim students to learn about some procedures, such as abortion, has become a cause for concern, according to the Council of Heads of Medical Schools. Academics say that some tutors have started to manipulate admissions after complaints that students who wanted to follow traditional medical syllabuses were becoming an "endangered species".
One academic, who did not wish to be identified, said that some doctors had complained that "a vocal minority" of Muslim students were making it hard to teach the traditional syllabus. "Many of the students oppose abortion, while others have said that they would refuse to treat venereal diseases because they are a punishment for immorality."
He said that he had personally faced problems over the marking of examination papers. One Muslim student complained that he had been penalised for writing an answer on contraception that was compatible with his belief, rather than the syllabus.
A second academic said: "Most doctors hope that the surge in Muslim numbers will just go away as an issue. Only a few are prepared to talk about it."
Under guidelines released by the General Medical Council, medical schools have discretion to tailor their examination requirements to match the religious sensitivities of their students.
Jafer Qureshi, executive member of the Muslim Doctors' and Dentists' Association, said that many tutors at medical schools "had still not got the message" that there were things that Muslim students would refuse to do. "We will not carry out abortions for non-medical reasons, and we do not agree with fertility procedures such as donor sperm and surrogacy," he said yesterday. "We have also fought tooth and nail against the British Medical Association (BMA) on the subject of euthanasia, which is taught in the schools as part of medical ethics courses."
Dr Qureshi wrote recently to Lord Irvine of Lairg, the Lord Chancellor, about euthanasia, stating: "Muslim doctors will not be led by the present BMA. We will be doing everything in our power to ensure that the Muslim community in Britain are made fully aware of the situation and of developments in this field."
Michael Powell, executive secretary of the Council, denied that quotas had been introduced, but admitted tutors were concerned about the pattern of applications. "You could reasonably say that a medical profession that was drawn 100 per cent from one ethnic minority would not serve the needs of the whole population," he said. Research carried out by Christopher McManus, Professor of Psychology and Medical Education at University College London, has been interpreted by some doctors as an indication that admissions are being manipulated. It shows that applicants to medical schools from ethnic minorities are more than two times less likely to be accepted than white applicants.
Professor McManus said that the move to manipulate entry figures had provoked furious debate among doctors: opponents have pointed to evidence that, apart from their lower chance of being accepted, ethnic students also stand a lower chance of promotion.
If anyone refuses to treat various things in this country they shouldn't be allowed to be doctors.
Regardless of race, religion, political beliefs etc.
Don't like abortion? Tough ****. There's the door, get the **** out this university.
I agree with that, what if you're a muslim doctor and an aetheist comes in asking about treatment for his STI... you really can't be a doctor and be on your moral high horse at the same time.
Yep, if you're gonna become a doctor you should be prepared to serve your patient, with respect to their religion but yours as a doctor should not interfere.
I'm never in favour of religious screening in selection programmes, but it is also true that religion should never be allowed to interfere with medical treatments.
If there are people who can't do a doctor's job - and furthermore wish to prevent others from doing a doctor's job - they shouldn't be training to become doctors. Regardless of what grounds it's on, I think it would make a lot of sense to have all medical students agree on application for medical courses that they will not allow personal views to affect their medical practice. It is impossible to deny that it is the duty of a doctor to meet the medical needs of their patient, and thus if a doctor cannot do this they are in the wrong job.
Yeah I agree, religious beliefs should not be interfering with their job. If an individual can't fulfill the job description, they aren't fit to be a doctor.
What I don't understand is how can Muslims make up 33% of medical student intake when they only account for three per cent of the population?
Either they have been given special treatment in the admission systems in the past or they are being given some other advantage in their education.
Whatever the reason the medical schools have a duty to make sure that their intake represents the makeup of the population and not give advantages to any particular group.
Yep, if you're gonna become a doctor you should be prepared to serve your patient, with respect to their religion but yours as a doctor should not interfere.
isnt that the general idea and advice they are given anyway.
What I don't understand is how can Muslims make up 33% of medical student intake when they only account for three per cent of the population?
Either they have been given special treatment in the admission systems in the past or they are being given some other advantage in their education.
Whatever the reason the medical schools have a duty to make sure that their intake represents the makeup of the population and not give advantages to any particular group.
Ethnic parents - and forgive me if I'm wrong here - often put great value on their sons/daughters becoming doctors/lawyers/other things, and push their children to do so. Whilst it is admirable, it does skew the percentage a bit. The small snag that their children can't actually be doctors without accepting that their religion cannot play a part in impartial treatment seems to have passed these parents by, however (they were too busy praying, I guess ).
Anywhoo, it seems a bit ridiculous that somebody would apply for a job that directly contradicts their personal belief system. That would be like me training to be a priest.
Patients with any moral objections to any procedures on any medical syllabus should be barred from entering medical courses. Anyone voicing moral objections to parts of the syllabus and refusing to study should be kicked off their course.
isnt that the general idea and advice they are given anyway.
Students should have to sign something when they begin their course. If they at any time refuse to learn about a procedure they should be expelled. And later in their career, struck off.
I know that this is an extreme view though and will never happen. Shame.
I agree that people who would object to such practices should be filtered out at application stage, no matter how much they moan about equal-opportunities etc. Doctors in this country are here to do a job, not to conform to ancient religious beliefs.
Pharmacists and GP's are allowed to refuse to provide the morning after pill- its called a conscience clause. However legally they must refer to another health professional who WILL. They must also have the knowledge i.e. to have attended the courses! It should be no different whether its catholics or muslims or anyone else. I really hope this article is not true as its very worrying.
Patients with any moral objections to any procedures on any medical syllabus should be barred from entering medical courses. Anyone voicing moral objections to parts of the syllabus and refusing to study should be kicked off their course.
Pharmacists and GP's are allowed to refuse to provide the morning after pill- its called a conscience clause. However legally they must refer to another health professional who WILL. They must also have the knowledge i.e. to have attended the courses! It should be no different whether its catholics or muslims or anyone else. I really hope this article is not true as its very worrying.
I read a few months ago an article of a muslim GP who refused to treat homosexual patients because he believed them to be "immoral". So what if someone comes into the GP's surgery wearing an horrific wooly jumper that's clearly a crime to all sense of style does that mean that a GP has the right to not treat them because they believe that wearing something so ugly is immoral?
Muslims complain that they are unfairly portrayed as intolerant people in the media but by doing things like the above they're not really helping their cause.
I read a few months ago an article of a muslim GP who refused to treat homosexual patients because he believed them to be "immoral".
Muslims complain that they are unfairly portrayed as intolerant people in the media but by doing things like the above they're not really helping their cause.
Wow that's disgusting behaviour I'm pretty sure (apologies if im wrong) part of the hippocratic oath is not to judge, therefore that is breaking the oath which there should definitely be consequences of.
Secondly I do hope that muslim applicants will be questioned on this issue and it would not just be assumed that they would act in this manner and the number of muslim applicants given a place would not just be blindly capped, that would be unfair.
Wow that's disgusting behaviour I'm pretty sure (apologies if im wrong) part of the hippocratic oath is not to judge, therefore that is breaking the oath which there should definitely be consequences of.
Secondly I do hope that muslim applicants will be questioned on this issue and it would not just be assumed that they would act in this manner and the number of muslim applicants given a place would not just be blindly capped, that would be unfair.
Yes, it is part of the Hippocratic Oath. The problem with that situation was that the man used his religion as an excuse and the man was seen by another GP.
Switch the situation and turn it into a GP who generally disagrees with homosexuality, on personal grounds, and he refused to treat a gay man he'd be told to get a grip or look for another job but this muslim GP was pandered to and allowed his tantrum because he was a Muslim and if he'd been told to "get a grip" then there would be an outcry that he was the victim of racism.
Yes, it is part of the Hippocratic Oath. The problem with that situation was that the man used his religion as an excuse and the man was seen by another GP.
Switch the situation and turn it into a GP who generally disagrees with homosexuality, on personal grounds, and he refused to treat a gay man he'd be told to get a grip or look for another job but this muslim GP was pandered to and allowed his tantrum because he was a Muslim and if he'd been told to "get a grip" then there would be an outcry that he was the victim of racism.
I agree with you entirely, religion should not give people the right to not do a job they signed up to do-especially when it's such a competitive field. I mean if there was a religion that said you couldn't clean loo's then becoming a cleaner in a service station is ridiculous (ahem sorry about the ridiculous analogy there)
I just meant that it would be unfair to write off all muslims as I'm sure not all of them would refuse to carry out these procedures. (although I'm not particularly well versed in religions)