No one likes a bad dentist…


by Sunny
26th September, 2007 at 5:38 pm    

This guy should be struck off the medical register: “A Muslim dentist has been found guilty of telling a female patient she could not register with him unless she wore an Islamic headscarf.”


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: Religion






52 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs


  1. Leon — on 26th September, 2007 at 5:51 pm  

    What a bloody idiot…I guess the paranoid Daily Mail types will love this.

  2. El Cid — on 26th September, 2007 at 5:59 pm  

    He won’t look so defiant and pleased with himself when he loses his licence, which I hope he does.

  3. Jagdeep — on 26th September, 2007 at 6:04 pm  

    He should be struck off. What a creep.

  4. Don — on 26th September, 2007 at 6:22 pm  

    Canting coxcomb.

  5. ZinZin — on 26th September, 2007 at 6:24 pm  

    Your an anti-dentite.

  6. Nyrone — on 26th September, 2007 at 6:31 pm  

    This guy should be fired…
    out of a cannon
    into the sun.

  7. Jagdeep — on 26th September, 2007 at 6:34 pm  

    They should remove all his teeth.

  8. KB Player — on 26th September, 2007 at 6:38 pm  

    I just heard this dentist charges women who wear headscarves a reduced rate or even waives the fee altogether. What’s his phone number? You don’t even have to buy a headscarf – he supplies one.

  9. nodn — on 26th September, 2007 at 7:30 pm  

    What a load of rubbish! He’s a dentist… her religion and her head is none of his business!

  10. Gibs — on 26th September, 2007 at 8:04 pm  

    I wonder what he would have said if the woman had described herself as an atheist or an apostate ? (which is perfectly legal in the UK for anyone who doesn’t know).

  11. Tanvir — on 26th September, 2007 at 8:11 pm  

    wat a clown

  12. Rumbold — on 26th September, 2007 at 8:15 pm  

    If he only saw private patients then I do not see the problem- he can set the rules. I would not want to regsiter with someone like that, but if there is choice…

    If he deals with NHS patients then it is wrong, but I do not see anything inherantly wrong in setting a dresscode for your surgery if it is a private business (even though I would disagree with his dresscode).

  13. ZinZin — on 26th September, 2007 at 8:26 pm  

    Rumbold, No-one can deny goods/services on the basis of gender.

    Another thing he is a dentist, not a nightclub bouncer.

  14. Bartholomew — on 26th September, 2007 at 8:38 pm  

    Must be something in the mouthwash:

    CHICAGO (WBBM) — A Southwest Side dentist sexually harassed female workers and forced them to recite Scientology formulas in order to get their paychecks, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission says…Apart from being subjected to sexual propositions and touching on an almost daily basis, the employees were required to learn about Scientology in order to keep their jobs, attend Scientology seminars and watch videos in the dental office, the EEOC said.

    Is it safe?

  15. Rumbold — on 26th September, 2007 at 8:41 pm  

    ZinZin:

    If it is his private practice, he should be able to see whoever he wants.

  16. ZinZin — on 26th September, 2007 at 8:53 pm  

    If he had a private practice he can charge what he likes; but he is still subject to professional standards and the law.

  17. Sunny — on 26th September, 2007 at 9:36 pm  

    Bartholomew – what a crazy nut, he makes this guy look sane…

  18. faddy — on 26th September, 2007 at 9:37 pm  

    hes a mate of mine and my dentist.. the filling im stroking now with my tongue was done by him for free.. special paki discounts.. heheh!!

    he was actually known in the community for asking women to wear hijaab.. come to think of it he asked my wife to do it!!

    If anyone remembers hassan butt the radical who was recruiting for al-qaeda.. its his brother!

  19. Jagdeep — on 26th September, 2007 at 9:55 pm  

    If anyone remembers hassan butt the radical who was recruiting for al-qaeda.. its his brother!

    What a family! Sound like great fun!

  20. The Dude — on 26th September, 2007 at 10:47 pm  

    Having his teeth kicked in isn’t enough for this dude. Neither is kissing goodbye to his license. I want him to feel financial pain and public humilation morning, noon and night and for the rest of his sorry ass life.

  21. sahil — on 26th September, 2007 at 11:06 pm  

    What a twat. But I would imagine that the majority of his customers are non-muslim, so how has he been getting away with this for so long??

  22. Rohin — on 27th September, 2007 at 12:21 am  

    Hoho at “Is it safe?” Wonder how many get the reference Bart.

    Still…compared to some of the shit doctors and dentists get up to with female patients, this isn’t much.

    We have an acronym along those lines: TUBE (totally unnecessary breast exam).

    On the flip side of this, I had real trouble with a woman having a heart attack yesterday when she REFUSED point blank to take her hijab off. I had to resort to telling her SHE WILL DIE IN HORRIFIC PAIN otherwise. It didn’t work.

    I have refused treatment for a Muslim patient who wanted a female doctor instead of me (not for any intimate exam or anything).

  23. Rohin — on 27th September, 2007 at 12:34 am  

    I read that BBC article. The WORST thing about that shithead dentist, the very WORST thing is not the hijab nonsense. It’s that he calls himself ‘Dr’. I HATE DENTISTS THAT DO THAT!!

    But as I thought, it was a Muslim woman he objected to. Another example of double standards. Let those infidel women wear what they want, but MY BITCHES must obey the Islamic code! It’s perceived ownership of women.

  24. Juggy — on 27th September, 2007 at 1:01 am  

    lol do u know how much dentists charge these days … i’ll glady put on on a scalf if it meant cheaper.

    That women ruined paki discounts for all those people.

  25. The Common Humanist — on 27th September, 2007 at 8:43 am  

    This is another example of the gender issues that sometimes make Islam and by extension muslims as abit, well, infantile.

    Apologies if anyone is offended but thats often what it looks like from my atheistic POV.

    TCH

  26. Letters From A Tory — on 27th September, 2007 at 9:16 am  

    Of course he should be struck off, how dare he or anyone try and force their patients to act in such a way.

  27. Sofia — on 27th September, 2007 at 10:13 am  

    He wasn’t struck off, but a number of things disturbed me about this “dentist”. First of all, don’t doctors and dentists have to swear some sort of oath to treat all patients equally, I know if the hippocratic oath for doctors but is there an equivalent for dentists? If not, there bloddy well should be.
    As a Muslim he has no right to direct any woman, let alone a Muslim woman on how to dress unless he has a direct relationship with her. (People may still think that is sexist, but again, I think maybe that is another discussion. Wearing a scarf is not a sign of piety unless the person involved is doing it out of CHOICE…not because some foolish idiot wants her to. Although I don’t think he should have been struck off, (dentists are few and far between already) I do think that he should have been suspended for a while, fined, and asked to apologise to the woman in public, just like he humiliated her in public.

  28. sonia — on 27th September, 2007 at 11:03 am  

    good points from rumbold.

    but anyway, whether its private or not, (private companies still have to ‘not discriminate’ – they are subject to law like any public service provider) its easy enough to say erm sorry, you have to not discriminate on that basis.

    i mean you can tick him off by tribunal or whatever, and then say – you have to treat the lady, lady probably doesn’t want him looking in her mouth anymore ( and neither will lots of people because of the publicity) but striking him off the register seems a bit vicious!

  29. sonia — on 27th September, 2007 at 11:03 am  

    it worries me when i see PP exhibiting such mob-like behaviour.

  30. Random Guy — on 27th September, 2007 at 11:56 am  

    I am a bit surprised at the viciousness of some of the comments here. Sign of the times I suppose. A bit shortsighted and as Sonia said, ‘mob-like’. Inflammatory. And extreme.

    Anyway, I think that this guy went a bit too far, but not as far as some posters here are making out. I agree with Rumbold that if it is his practice, then he can lay down the rules. Clearly the woman was aware of them before she went there. So being shocked and humiliated is a bit rich IMO. Raising a complaint with the board? Fine, no problems.

    Also, if this happened in April 2005, why are we hearing about it now in September 2007? Is that how long the dental board takes to get its $hit together?

    Also, the dentist seems to still be in the news:-
    http://www.asianimage.co.uk/news/latest/display.var.1689327.0.race_abuse_case_thrown_out.php

  31. Kismet Hardy — on 27th September, 2007 at 12:10 pm  

    Islamist dentalist

    Print your t-shirt now

  32. Roger — on 27th September, 2007 at 12:59 pm  

    “I have refused treatment for a Muslim patient who wanted a female doctor instead of me (not for any intimate exam or anything).”
    Er, how can you refuse treatment for a patient who’s refusing to be treated by you, Rohin? Equally, I hope that the muslim woman with a heart attack who refused to remove her hijab for you was seen by a female doctor as quickly as possible.

    Mr [or Dr- he may have a doctorate and so be entiled to call himself Dr, no matter how futile and vain it is] Butt may be a bigoted fool; that doesn’t mean he needn’t be a good dentist. As long as he keeps his bogotry separate from his dentistry in future, well-and-good; on the other hand if the bastard goes round in a Porsche with a customised number plate then the NHS accountants ought to be investigating him drastically.

  33. Kismet Hardy — on 27th September, 2007 at 1:02 pm  

    Rohin, you’re feminine enough and I fancy that about you

  34. Katy Newton — on 27th September, 2007 at 1:05 pm  

    But maybe he has a PhD in dentistry, Rohin. Ever thought of that? Have you? HAVE YOU? Eh?

  35. sonia — on 27th September, 2007 at 1:58 pm  

    heh heh kismet good one, where do you come up with these lines!

    next we’ll have “Islamic” doctors saying they won’t examine unclothed women, and it will have to be like the start of rushdies’ midnight children and holes in sheets.

  36. sonia — on 27th September, 2007 at 2:02 pm  

    yep Random Guy, i think that time lapse goes to show that tribunals take a long time to happen.

    i don’t think that just because it is a private practice, practioners of medicine or dentistry or health-related care should be allowed to discriminate on who they provide their service to – certainly not on that basis. and there aren’t that many dentists around, if you need a dentist, what do you do? if all the dentists behaved like this, where would we all be? this goes back to the point that healthcare provision to the public is something we need to think about collectively.

  37. sonia — on 27th September, 2007 at 2:04 pm  

    yes, perceived ownership of women is precisely what it is – thanks Rohin – and that is the problem with Islam, this grand idea that men are the Lords on earth lording it over women. all conveyed us to men of course :-) now how suspicious is that?

    i rest my case.

  38. sonia — on 27th September, 2007 at 2:05 pm  

    oops

    ‘all conveyed to us by men ‘ is what i meant

  39. Kismet Hardy — on 27th September, 2007 at 2:16 pm  

    Sonia seeing as it’s ramadan I hope you’ll be spanking yourself for the foul language you’ve exposed your womanly eyes to on this thread tauba or not tauba that is the question

  40. Kismet Hardy — on 27th September, 2007 at 2:17 pm  

    Sorry to wank over one’s own stream of consiousness but that’s really rather excellent

    Tauba or not tauba

    Sonia, start a website called that and it could be strict muslims battling liberal ones and then we could sell the whole thing to microsoft and go on holiday

  41. Sunny — on 27th September, 2007 at 3:03 pm  

    Clearly the woman was aware of them before she went there. So being shocked and humiliated is a bit rich IMO.

    It’s always her fault isn’t it?

  42. The Common Humanist — on 27th September, 2007 at 3:09 pm  

    “yes, perceived ownership of women is precisely what it is – thanks Rohin – and that is the problem with Islam, this grand idea that men are the Lords on earth lording it over women. all conveyed us to men of course now how suspicious is that?”

    That, I believe, is absolutely spot on.

    On paper it might be a Bill of Rights (by 7th Century standards) but in practice……it often looks a Boys On Top Club, ‘religiously justified’ chauvinism is going to hard to shift but shift it must if muslim societies are going to make the most of themselves.

  43. sonia — on 27th September, 2007 at 3:54 pm  

    kismet that sounds like a brilliant idea, it would be very popular im sure, so much so that we’d be fatwa’d and have to run and hide.

  44. sonia — on 27th September, 2007 at 3:56 pm  

    bill of rights my foot anyway that’s all semantics, like the american govt. being democratic. (depends on your view of reality)pre-islamic mecca wasn’t as homogeneous as they liked to make it sound. there were patriarchal tribes where things were shit for women, and there were matriarchal tribes.

  45. sonia — on 27th September, 2007 at 3:57 pm  

    you’ve probably broken your fast now Kismet, just by typing all that.

  46. Rohin — on 27th September, 2007 at 10:26 pm  

    Roger. I knew without further details my comments would sound off, so I’m glad you asked. No, the woman having a heart attack wasn’t seen by a female doctor and her recovery was superb. This is the NHS, unfortunately patients cannot pick and choose their emergency doctors at will. The best efforts will be made to accommodate reasonable wishes, but in an emergency setting like this one I am not going to stop treating her and walk around the department looking for a woman doctor while this lady infarcts her heart muscle. I wish we had doctors on tap, but sadly we’re constantly stretched.

    For me to acquiesce to her request would NOT be in her best interests, and that’s my only concern. I would be held responsible if I wasted time trying to find a female doctor and the patient died/had some problem because she wasn’t treated immediately.

    The other case was a young girl who had come to A&E 23 times with the same trivial problem and was already under specialist investigation. Yet she still came in at 4am, when the department is even more short-staffed. I took a history then proceeded to examine her. She started taking her coat off and her boyfriend just shook his head and said only a female doctor can do that. I explained that unfortunately the NHS doesn’t work like that. I could refer her to a female physician, but in an A&E at night, it’s an unreasonable request. She was at no risk.

    Bottom line – I put the patient’s interests first, but I’m not going to appease unreasonable requests. I can understand if you thought about a GP setting, my comments may have sounded unfair.

  47. douglas clark — on 27th September, 2007 at 11:20 pm  

    Rohin,

    You are a very sensible person, well said.

    I think Bob Marley died an avoidable death through religious belief. Well maybe not, exactly, but he did refuse all treatment. Libertarians would say that was fair enough.

    Had it been his missus with the suppurating toe, and the good Bob shaking his head in denial of her treatment, you’d be entitled to question what the heck was going on.

    The point being that personal religious commitment is OK for the individual, it is never, ever appropriate for others. Patients, I’d have hoped, could be seen independently of controlling bastards.

  48. Random Guy — on 28th September, 2007 at 8:53 am  

    @Sunny, #41: “It’s always her fault isn’t it?”

    What? I am not blaming the woman for anything. What are you talking about? Listen, if she was unaware of this guy’s ‘philosophy’ before she went there, and then was shocked and humiliated, that makes perfect sense to me. So when the headlines say “A Woman Was Shocked and Humiliated at such and such a dentist’s practice” then you immediately assume that the incident toook place in situ.

    If she knew what to expect and was still shocked and humiliated then I find it a little less easy to believe . Don’t try that rightwing bull on me Sunny.

  49. Roger — on 28th September, 2007 at 12:22 pm  

    My apologies, Rohin; the impression I’d got from your remark “I had to resort to telling her SHE WILL DIE IN HORRIFIC PAIN otherwise. It didn’t work.

    “I have refused treatment for a Muslim patient who wanted a female doctor instead of me (not for any intimate exam or anything).” was that this was one of those cases.
    All the same, it’s a dilemma. What is the legal position of a doctor when a patient refuses emergency treatment and is given it regardless?

  50. Soso — on 28th September, 2007 at 2:24 pm  

    Were her teeth Turkish, or something?

    This is similar to a male dentist demanding sexual services in exchange for a root canal.

  51. sonia — on 28th September, 2007 at 2:32 pm  

    good points from rohin in 46.

  52. Dentists — on 8th October, 2007 at 1:27 pm  

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.