GP facing the sack for "discrimination" over the veil

Of course I understand how a consultation works; that's why I'm choosing to weigh in on the debate. It's worth noting that he did not, in fact, ask for a female GP, and indeed that is one of the criticisms against him.

From the linked articles:

"Human rights campaigner Aisha Ali-Khan tweeted: ‘I don’t believe [a] doctor should be prosecuted for doing his job *but* he should have asked for a female third party to help, or asked patient to write down her medical complaints.’"

You wouldn't get awfully far in a ten-minute appointment that way, would you?

If he is having trouble understanding her, yes. While it's not the same thing (my therapist could understand me), I've used the same strategy previously where I didn't feel capable of vocalising various issues: and yet my therapist was not deaf and I am able to speak (the term is not dumb, just as it's not mohamedian).



That would also be a reasonable alternative to offer, and yet nowhere in the telegraph article (the daily mail is about as reliable as reading tea leaves) does it say he offered that...

Um, I'm sorry but unless a person writes incredibly slowly, I can't imagine why they wouldn't be able to cover as much as is needed in a 10 minute appointment; she was only describing the symptoms her daughter had, it would take < 30 seconds to write something like that.

Ah right so the so called human rights campaigner was there at the walk-in centre? Please quote where it says he didn't ask for a female GP? Your views have been made clear. You will happily trust somebody who is probably Muslim than a doctor who actually dealt with the patient and clearly said he looked for a female GP. I'm afraid you've made this an issue of skin colour.

(the term is not dumb, just as it's not mohamedian).

Presumably, however, Judges and MPs do so in order to confirm an identity, which is not the same as this situation

The GP was racist and got fired, big deal?

Identity is part of it, but the reading of facial expressions is a bigger part, and is all part of normal interaction, used subconsciously by us all every day. Only about ten per cent of a message is conveyed by the words of the message; important parts are conveyed by facial expressions and body language.

I beg to differ. Just because you might have adopted American slang and use 'dumb' to mean 'stupid' does not mean we have all sunk to those levels of discourse. You should get a dictionary:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/dumb

1. adjective

Someone who is dumb is completely unable to speak.

and, of course:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mohammedan

or:

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/moslem

All perfectly ordinary and inoffensive.

When in doubt always attack the accuracy of the news outlet

Are you really suggesting it is reasonable to communicate in writing with someone who is neither deaf nor dumb and who is sitting in front of you on the grounds that they wish to live their lives as if they were in a seventh century desert?

Except no, dumb is offensive and has been considered as such for quite a while. The term deaf and dumb is very outdated, well understood as offensive and recommended against in pretty much every style guide (you would describe someone as profoundly deaf or deaf without speech instead)



So, still care to point out where the GP actually offered to transfer the woman to a female GP? Because again, your source doesn't make any mention of it.

Are we really basing this on the article not saying that he didn't offer a female GP as an alternative? If you can point me to somewhere where that is written in the coverage of the story, please do - but currently nothing from his side, nor from hers, suggest that a female GP was offered as an alternative. I can't imagine that if a complaint was made against you that a) you wouldn't make it abundantly clear that you'd offered that and b) that no news articles would quote you saying that.

I repeat, neither of the linked articles state he asked if she wanted to see a female GP. If you have seen news coverage elsewhere disputing that, then by all means link it to me

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7043207/GP-52-facing-sack-discrimination-Muslim-veil.html

Does this make it any better or will you resort to attacks on news outlets because they didn't describe your expectations?

I've seen the suggest that I could've asked a female GP to carry out the treatment for the woman's daughter but there was no female GP in the centre.'

Except no, dumb is offensive and has been considered as such for quite a while. The term deaf and dumb is very outdated, well understood as offensive and recommended against in pretty much every style guide (you would describe someone as profoundly deaf or deaf without speech instead)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7043207/GP-52-facing-sack-discrimination-Muslim-veil.html

Does this make it any better or will you resort to attacks on news outlets because they didn't describe your expectations?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7043207/GP-52-facing-sack-discrimination-Muslim-veil.html

Lets all go with Aisha the human rights activist who wasn't present at the walk-in centre but probably shares the same heritage and religion as the so called "victim" which makes her more trustworthy

I did that with my GP the first time I went alone, I was really nervous so I wrote all my symptoms and issues on paper and handed it to him lol

I would point out that the article you linked explicitly says he didn't ask if she wanted to see a female GP:

"'I've seen the suggest that I could've asked a female GP to carry out the treatment for the woman's daughter but there was no female GP in the centre.' "

Do you understand how allegations work? He had the intention to offer alternatives and he did look for a female doctor which by the way she should have done so before hand.

or do you suggest it would have been better if he sent her away completely?