Muslims compromising healthcare
SOME Muslims are undermining the battle to rid
Dispensers containing anti-bacterial gel have been placed outside wards at hospitals all over
It prevents people bringing in more infections. But some Muslims refuse to use the hand cleansers on religious grounds because they contain alcohol.
Health watchdogs are so concerned they intend to meet with NHS bosses in the New Year to try and hammer out a solution.
Why do they need to think up a solution? It’s obvious what they need to do. If Muslims refuse to wash their hands they should be banned from the hospital unless they are seriously ill. There is absolutely no excuse for not washing your hands when at a hospital even if it is for religious reasons.
22 comments:
Absolutely true.
The sooner Muslims are banned from Britain, the better.
Oh, come on. It's just Muslims who aren't washing their hands, is it?
"Health professionals also transmit infection by failing to decontaminate their hands effectively before and after contact with MRSA-positive patients." [source]
So by your logic we should be banning health professionals from hospitals. And why would banning Muslims from hospitals be better, not to mention easier to implement, than the idea at the bottom of the article you link to, i.e. making soap and water available?
Health professionals are busy people. It is not that they refuse to do it but it is probably that they forget because they are going from patient to patient. Muslims are the ones that refuse to do it.
If those healthcare professionals were refusing to use the method then they should be banned from the hospital.
According to your article using soap and water takes far longer than the method already used. The article you link to also shows that the alcohol based solution gives a much more significant reduction in in bacteria recovered from the hands.
Thanks for the link which shows the alcohol solution is much better. you helped prove my point.
Hang on, it proves nothing of the sort. The article compares results between the alcohol rub and an "aqueous handwash", which I take to be squirty stuff out of a bottle, not soap and water. If it was the latter, there would be no "need to go to a sink and dry the hands".[My emphasis].
The advantage of the alcohol rub is its speed, which is obviously vital for busy hospital staff, who do indeed have many patients to see. There's not the same urgency for people visiting relatives on a ward.
You say that health professionals 'forget' to wash their hands between patients. Surely that's a much more obvious potential source of infection which needs to be addressed.
The advantage of the alcohol rub is its speed, which is obviously vital for busy hospital staff, who do indeed have many patients to see. There's not the same urgency for people visiting relatives on a ward.
The NHS is strapped for cash. The alcohol wash is efficient. why should they have to spend even more money and go into more debt buying soap when they have a viable alternative?
You say that health professionals 'forget' to wash their hands between patients. Surely that's a much more obvious potential source of infection which needs to be addressed.
You are right of course but refusing to clean your hands is a potential source which can be rectified by stopping those from going into hospital who refuse to clean their hands.
The NHS is strapped for cash. The alcohol wash is efficient. why should they have to spend even more money and go into more debt buying soap when they have a viable alternative?
What, like paying someone to check visitors' hands? A few extra bars of soap will cost far less.
You are right of course but refusing to clean your hands is a potential source which can be rectified by stopping those from going into hospital who refuse to clean their hands.
Well, at least that makes more sense than just picking on Muslims. I still think it would be a mistaken priority, though, especially in the context of what you rightfully identify to be scarce resources.
What, like paying someone to check visitors' hands? A few extra bars of soap will cost far less.
The article clearly states that the nurses know whats going on. You don't need to hire anyone. Just get the nurses to inform those that don't wash their hands that they will be banned from visiting if they don't start.
at least that makes more sense than just picking on Muslims
I am not exactly picking on muslims. I am picking on those that refuse to wash their hands and those people just so happen to be muslims.
You don't need to hire anyone. Just get the nurses to inform those that don't wash their hands that they will be banned from visiting if they don't start.
You don't see any problems with taking nurses away from their existing duties to do this? Will nurses also be responsible for enforcing the ban?
I am not exactly picking on muslims. I am picking on those that refuse to wash their hands and those people just so happen to be muslims.
That's a distinction that had escaped me. Wasn't the whole conversation we have just had based on the idea that it's not just Muslims who aren't washing their hands?
ian: "Wasn't the whole conversation we have just had based on the idea that it's not just Muslims who aren't washing their hands? "
No, not as I read it. The gist of the post is that Muslims are refusing to wash their hands for religious reasons, thus putting patients and hospital staff at risk. Such arrogance and irresponsibility should not be rewarded by allowing it to continue. Hence Muslims who refuse to wash their hands should rightly be banned from hospitals, along with anyone else who refuses.
Note: "Muslims who refuse to wash their hands" does not mean 'all Muslims' as you seem to be implying, just those who REFUSE to comply with rules and regulations.
You don't see any problems with taking nurses away from their existing duties to do this?
It will take 30 seconds just to inform them.
Will nurses also be responsible for enforcing the ban?
hospitals have security you know. if nurses are in the room at the time though why shouldn't they be the ones to tell them to get out?
Wasn't the whole conversation we have just had based on the idea that it's not just Muslims who aren't washing their hands?
Muslims are the only ones refusing to wash their hands.
Muslims are the only ones refusing to wash their hands.
Exactly. The emphasis is on outright refusal, not simply (un)professional negligence.
Just one more instance of Muslims' contempt for 'Dhimmi' society.
Expel them all. That is the only way to counter the current Muslim menace, however it is manifest.
bfb: Note: "Muslims who refuse to wash their hands" does not mean 'all Muslims' as you seem to be implying, just those who REFUSE to comply with rules and regulations.
Sorry, that's not what I'm implying: what I'm getting at is why the emphasis on Muslims who aren't washing their hands, as opposed to health professionals, or anyone else for that matter, who are not washing their hands for whatever reason (not that The Sun or YDKM in his original piece mention either of the latter two). In this context, I don't see a big difference between 'refusing' and 'forgetting', the hands are still dirty...
The Sun article is a non-story, based on hearsay evidence from only two named medical witnesses (one of whom is linked to the Sun), whose impartiality we are in no position to judge. That's not to say they are partial (although the doctor cited is hardly likely to strongly contradict one of her employers), just that we have no way of knowing. There is no direct evidence from elsewhere, no Muslim spokesperson saying that to use alcohol-based gels is against their religion. There is, in fact, no Muslim viewpoint at all (and even if there was one, that could only ever represent one strand of Islamic thought, not all of it).
On the other hand, as the article I linked to shows, there is evidence suggesting that health professionals not washing their hands is a factor in the spread of infection at hospitals. The Sun's article ignored this, and the other factors referred to in the Country Doctor piece, choosing only to cover the Muslim angle. Nor was any mention made of how many people from other backgrounds were not washing their hands. The whole Sun piece struck me - still does - as a thinly-veiled (no pun intended) exercise in Muslim-bashing.
YDKM, for whatever reason, you also chose to concentrate on Muslims who were not washing their hands - there was, after all, no mention of banning anyone else in your original piece - although I grant that your concluding sentence can be read as being universally applicable.
what I'm getting at is why the emphasis on Muslims who aren't washing their hands, as opposed to health professionals, or anyone else for that matter
Muslims are the ones that are deliberately compromising healthcare. healthcare workers are doing it by accident.
There is no direct evidence from elsewhere, no Muslim spokesperson saying that to use alcohol-based gels is against their religion. There is, in fact, no Muslim viewpoint at all (and even if there was one, that could only ever represent one strand of Islamic thought, not all of it).
Then they have absolutly no reason to do it and we have even more reason for keeping them out of hospitals if they continue to deliberately compromise healthcare.
there was, after all, no mention of banning anyone else in your original piece
Sorry about that but I thought my readers would know that what I mean was anyone that was deliberately not washing their hands should be banned (unless they are in need or urgent medical care). I mentioned the muslims because they were reported on and they are the most prominent group that are deliberately not washing their hands.
me:There is no direct evidence from elsewhere, no Muslim spokesperson saying that to use alcohol-based gels is against their religion. There is, in fact, no Muslim viewpoint at all (and even if there was one, that could only ever represent one strand of Islamic thought, not all of it).
ydkm:Then they have absolutly no reason to do it and we have even more reason for keeping them out of hospitals if they continue to deliberately compromise healthcare.
Just to be clear, the passage I quote above from my previous comment refers specifically to the Sun article, which made no attempt for balance by providing even one Muslim viewpoint, or indeed any other evidence.
he passage I quote above from my previous comment refers specifically to the Sun article, which made no attempt for balance by providing even one Muslim viewpoint, or indeed any other evidence.
A muslim viewpoint isn't needed. The fact is some muslims are refusing to wash their hands.
As for other evidence what more evidence do you need? Health watchdogs are concerned so it must be a big problem. A care assistant is a witness to it happening dozens of times. This care assistant also spoke to nurses who say it happens alot. You also have chairman of the Patients’ Association that commented on it. You also have another doctor quoted near the end. So what other evidence is needed?
ian:I don't see a big difference between 'refusing' and 'forgetting', the hands are still dirty...
If you can't see the difference between 'refusing' and 'forgetting' you need help. Do you really believe bogus asylum seekeers and illegal immigrants 'forget' to announce their presence in our country to the Home Office?
What future is there for this country when people like you defend those who choose to flout our rules and regulations?
bfb: If you can't see the difference between 'refusing' and 'forgetting' you need help.
Mate, if you can't read, you need help. Ahem: In this context, I don't see a big difference between 'refusing' and 'forgetting', the hands are still dirty...
Like to try again?
ian:
How old are you?
Repeat: If you can't see the difference between 'refusing' and 'forgetting' you need help!
Enlighten us all, since when was 'refusing' the same thing as 'forgetting'(in whatever context)?
Mate!
It's usually at this stage that lefty types like you resort to the typical "your'e all bigotted Nazi racists" bullshit. Thrill us all with your powers of arguement!
bfb:How old are you?
Old enough to understand the difference between "I don't see a big difference between 'forgetting' and 'refusing'", which is what I wrote, and "I think 'forgetting' is the same thing as 'refusing'",which is what you seem to think I wrote. Like I said, try again.
bfb:in whatever context
Really, context is always important in determining meaning. Think, for example, about the different ways the word "mate" can be used.
The context is particularly important here if what concerns you is the possibility that dirty hands might spread infection. In that case, why the hands remain dirty is less important than the fact they aren't clean.
Of course, if what really concerns you is something different, such as, for the sake of argument, whose hands aren't clean, then the distinction I drew might take on more importance. What concerns you, here?
bfb:Thrill us all with your powers of argument!
Well, I'm certainly struggling to match yours...
Ian:
Repeat: How old are you?
'Dirty hands' isn't the issue here.
'Refusing to wash them' IS!
If you are incapable of distinguishing between 'refusing' and 'forgetting' then I suggest you seek an education...
...If I were a 'leftie', I'd be ashamed of you!
Is that your best shot?
You know what, bfb? Now that you've simply repeated the same point for the third time, and you still haven't bothered to engage with what I'm actually saying, I realise that you're right and I'm wrong. The ad hominem aspect to your comments merely heightens their impact. Well done, have a cigar.
Sorry to have wasted everyone's time.
you've simply repeated the same point for the third time
A testament to your ignorance rather than to any fault in my character. Few people would consider me stupid simply for repeating myself, though many would conclude that anyone who cannot see the difference between 'refusing' to wash your hands and 'forgetting' to do so lacks a certain amount of intelligence.
and you still haven't bothered to engage with what I'm actually saying
You have been saying
that 'refusing' to wash your hands is no different from 'forgetting' to wash them, and I have 'engaged' repeatedly to point out the flaw in this arguement.
I realise that you're right and I'm wrong
Tell me something I don't already know.
The ad hominem aspect to your comments merely heightens their impact
My comments are entirely consistent with the theme of this post, which is that anyone who refuses to wash their hands in hospitals should be banned from entering them. May I suggest you think twice about using fancy terms such as 'ad hominem' until you actually know what they mean?
Well done, have a cigar.
How old are you?
Post a Comment