Doctor who faces inquiry for asking a Muslim to lift her veil says he will quit after 23 years as a GP due to the 'major injustice' of the investigation

First topic message reminder :


A GP has revealed he is planning to quit medicine over an investigation by the doctors watchdog into claims he ‘discriminated’ against a Muslim woman for asking her to remove her veil.

Dr Keith Wolverson said he ‘politely’ asked the woman to take off the garment for patient safety reasons during a consultation last year because he was unable to hear her explain her sick daughter’s symptoms.

He was then ‘deeply upset’ when last week he received a letter from the General Medical Council, the professional regulator, informing him that he was subject to an inquiry over allegations of racial discrimination which could result in him being struck off.

Last night, Dr Wolverson, who has practised as a GP for 23 years and has an unblemished record, said regardless of the outcome of the investigation he now plans to leave his job.

He said: ‘I feel a major injustice has taken place. This is why you are waiting so long to see your GP and doctors are leaving in droves. This country will have no doctors left if we continue to treat them in this manner. I’m deeply upset.

‘A doctor’s quest to perform the very finest consultation for the safety of the patient has been misinterpreted in a duplicitous manner to suggest there has been an act of racism committed. I absolutely no longer want to be a doctor.’

Dr Wolverson told how the Muslim woman brought her daughter, aged ten or 11, to see him at a walk-in centre at Royal Stoke University Hospital in Stoke-on-Trent, Staffordshire, last June.

The mother said she was concerned the child had tonsillitis.

But the 52-year-old GP struggled to hear the mother’s account of the girl’s health problems because her speech was being obscured by her niqab – a garment worn by some Muslim women that covers the body and face apart from the eyes.

The doctor said he ‘politely’ asked the woman to remove the veil covering her face so he could be sure what she was saying.

‘I asked her, would you kindly remove your face veil please because it makes communication very difficult,’ Dr Wolverson explained. ‘Normally this issue doesn’t arise because patients automatically do so.

‘One would think that any parent would be wholly supportive and grateful that a doctor was trying to safely treat their child.’

According to Dr Wolverson, the mother complied with his request without raising any objections.

But half an hour after the consultation, her husband arrived and declared he was making a complaint about the GP’s behaviour.

‘He sat outside my consultation room and threateningly made eye contact towards me whenever I went out to fetch each patient,’ Dr Wolverson said. ‘He then made a formal complaint and I was prevented from working at the walk-in centre again.’

It has since emerged that NHS bosses sent the GMC a form outlining the complaints. It says the woman told the doctor she did not want to remove the veil on religious grounds but he refused to continue the consultation unless she did.


https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7046077/Doctor-faces-inquiry-asking-Muslim-lift-veil-says-quit-23-years-GP.html

Ah, so from what I posted, you gleaned “racism”

Interesting.

eddie wrote:I never once said he was racist nor did I imply it, let alone think it?

...although, I have my suspicions.  

I want to follow this and see what the Medical Council says after witnessing her speaking with the veil on.

eddie wrote:Ah, so from what I posted, you gleaned “racism”

Interesting.

Well considering you think some women, an espcially an african american woman looks manish. I do questions, whether you do hold some subconcious racial views.As to here I never claimed you were saying it was racist.Maybe you can point to where I did, or are you going to avoid all the points I did make, considering you defending this backward form of slavery of women?

Nah...I think Maggie Thatcher looked rather masculine too.

eddie wrote:Nah...I think Maggie Thatcher looked rather masculine too.

What were her masculine features and also Michelle Obama?

Dunno. My opinion, isn’t it? Like you have yours about what you think. Are you that bored?

eddie wrote:Dunno. My opinion, isn’t it? Like you have yours about what you think. Are you that bored?

Well why is it that you cannot take criticism of your views? Then use poor excuses to get out of debating them?

So have your opinion, I am having mine on your poor defense of the enslavement of Wahhabist Muslim women

Okay doke. I accept your opinion as yours.

eddie wrote:Okay doke. I accept your opinion as yours.

Which translates as you not being able to counter my view

I think Cass's point also applies to you. Why not join somewhere that people simple agree with you?

*simply.

Nah, I like it here.

eddie wrote:*simply.

Nah, I like it here.

Excellent, then stop, deflectin, hiding behind your position and your husband and actually answer the points raised to you.

Thanks

Yes about half past six I think.

phildidge wrote:Nothing worse when people make up a load of crap and simple defend a misogynistic symbol. 

Sorry but Muslim women should remove the face veil when speaking to people. As communication is not just based on speech and its tone but the expressions that people make. Thus to hide this goes against evolutionion itself it understandfing people when we speak to them. Of course the ignorant will argue off things like the mobile. Which if they had any sense know. That people often mistake what someone has said, simple because they cannot see their facial expressions.

I dont care whether the doctor here was racist or not. That is a red herrring, but for so called liberals to defend this misogynistic symbol, is beyond the pale. They will often defend this claiming they do this to show their devotion to god. Nope, they do not, because the moment in doors, they will revert to wearing western clothers. So why outside? Its very simple. Its not a choice on what to wear, as seen, they revert to western clothees when in doors and its not a view on modesty. As again they do not do so indoors either. Its simple a form of male slavery over women. That they have to cover up, based on outdated culturalism. That has formed in a part of the world that looks to control women. If this is down to religion, then everyday these women fall foul to this, when they are indoors. Being as again they revert to western clothes. 

Hence its never a choice as to why women wear this. Its simple drummed into them with indoctrination. That if they do not wear, they will suffer in a make belief afterlife. Hence fear is used to make women wear this. If not that, husbands force their wives to wear and this is often women brought up into Wahabbism. Forced also into arranged marriages.

So when people argue off racism here, frankly, those claiming this are defending a misogynistic symbol and belief system. They defending women being treated like slaves. They are treating women like property. So you want to get angered over a GP wanting to speak face to face with a woman over her ill daughter and think this is acrime? Then I am sorry, you are also enabling this 7th century form of culture, that enslaves women, to the poor misogynistic nature of the men in this wahhabist faith

Posted again for anyone to actually respond to the points made

eddie wrote:Ah, so from what I posted, you gleaned “racism”

Interesting.

so, what you're really saying is that everyone else is boring

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:Ah, so from what I posted, you gleaned “racism”

Interesting.

so, what you're really saying is that everyone else is boring

Hell no.

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:Ah, so from what I posted, you gleaned “racism”

Interesting.

so, what you're really saying is that everyone else is boring

Or Eddie simple cannot take cany criticism

phildidge wrote:

gelico wrote:


so, what you're really saying is that everyone else is boring

Or Eddie simple cannot take cany criticism

it was a joke (a la cathy newman)

are you back in england now?

hope all is ok iwth you

gelico wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Or Eddie simple cannot take cany criticism

it was a joke (a la cathy newman)

are you back in england now?

hope all is ok iwth you

Only for a few days, and know what you said was a joke

Sorry but getting bored how eddie constantly cannot take critical views of what she says. To then have Ben jump in every two seconds, when this happens.

I have always liked Eddie being outspoken, but she should take ownership of what she says

I do and when in the wrong, I apologise. Neither have to me and I even wished her a happy birthday the other day via email and got no reply. That is a person holding a grudge sadly

phildidge wrote:

gelico wrote:

eddie wrote:Ah, so from what I posted, you gleaned “racism”

Interesting.

so, what you're really saying is that everyone else is boring

Or Eddie simple cannot take cany criticism

I was debating quite well with Vintage who made some intelligent comments and I said the same thing to her:
This isn't about whether women should or shouldn’t wear a veil, it’s about whether I believe the story about the doctor hearing her or not.

Whether Muslims should or should not wear a face-covering isn’t what I find interesting in this thread. It’s about the STORY.

If you want to know my opinions on the STORY you can read back if you wish.

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Or Eddie simple cannot take cany criticism

I was debating quite well with Vintage who made some intelligent comments and I said the same thing to her:
This isn't about whether women should or shouldn’t wear a veil, it’s about whether I believe the story about the doctor hearing her or not.

Whether Muslims should or should not wear a face-covering isn’t what I find interesting in this thread. It’s about the STORY.

If you want to know my opinions on the STORY you can read back if you wish.  

Well my reply was a reply in general and then you took this up

And avoided just about everything i said

Well the interesting point is that a Muslim woman should remove her veil when speaking to people. As facial expressions are a major part of communication

Its also possible that sound can be muffled behind a veil, even more if the person speaks English as a second language and is not fluent. Also accents can also make this difficult, so with a veil. Its going to be harder to understand. God forbid, the doctor was deaf and could only lip read eh?

So if you jump into the post I made, then answer the points

Well we will have to wait and see whether he is deaf/hard of hearing/she had a strong accent.
None of that was mentioned in the story so I can’t assume any of that until it comes out in the inquiry.

eddie wrote:Well we will have to wait and see whether he is deaf/hard of hearing/she had a strong accent.
None of that was mentioned in the story so I can’t assume any of that until it comes out in the inquiry.

The point is, it does not matter whether she did or he did not.
Being polite means, you should think of other people and hiding your face behind a veil, hinders communication. One being the fact that a number of doctors actually are deaf. Let alone how facial expressions are a major part of communication

There are only two reasons why Dr Wolverson would want to avoid any hearing on the issue of discrimination.  (1) “He is ‘deeply upset’ … the General Medical Council … is opening an inquiry” into his conduct, or (2) he knows the allegations are true, and his claim of ‘patient safety’ is an attempt to shroud his behavior in professional mumbo-jumbo to avoid the truth.

The first reason, if true, must mean he is awfully thin-skinned to risk his whole life and professional career in order to show he is merely indignant at the accusation.

The second is more plausible, and constitutes continuing furtive behavior on his part.  He wants to avoid a hearing because he knows that it will be easy enough to prove discrimination, and he will be discredited along with losing his license.

If you know the consequences of both, it’s best for him to sulk quietly into the night.

Original Quill wrote:There are only two reasons why Dr Wolverson would want to avoid any hearing on the issue of discrimination.  (1) “He is ‘deeply upset’ … the General Medical Council … is opening an inquiry” into his conduct, or (2) he knows the allegations are true, and his claim of ‘patient safety’ is an attempt to shroud his behavior in professional mumbo-jumbo to avoid the truth.

The first reason, if true, must mean he is awfully thin-skinned to risk his whole life and professional career in order to show he is merely indignant at the accusation.

The second is more plausible, and constitutes continuing furtive behavior on his part.  He wants to avoid a hearing because he knows that it will be easy enough to prove discrimination, and he will be discredited along with losing his license.

If you know the consequences of both, it’s best for him to sulk quietly into the night.

Complete conjecture, not based on any evidence

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:Well we will have to wait and see whether he is deaf/hard of hearing/she had a strong accent.
None of that was mentioned in the story so I can’t assume any of that until it comes out in the inquiry.

The point is, it does not matter whether she did or he did not.
Being polite means, you should think of other people and hiding your face behind a veil, hinders communication. One being the fact that a number of doctors actually are deaf. Let alone how facial expressions are a major part of communication

Wow. I didn’t know it was a fact that a number of doctors were deaf! You live and learn.

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

The point is, it does not matter whether she did or he did not.
Being polite means, you should think of other people and hiding your face behind a veil, hinders communication. One being the fact that a number of doctors actually are deaf. Let alone how facial expressions are a major part of communication

Wow. I didn’t know it was a fact that a number of doctors were deaf! You live and learn.

http://hphl.org.uk/

Read the point on a clear facial mask

Yes but if he were deaf surely his only patients would be people who knew how to sign?

In any case, if he were deaf, don’t you think he might have mentioned that in his defence at the onset?

I guess we will have to wait and see instead of making assumptions.

How is it discrimination,  do we now have to take every nuance of every culture into consideration at all times, everything will grind to a halt, the only thing happening will be law suits and hearings. There are so many things various people can consider themselves discriminated by, if we all take umbridge all the time the only people making a living would be lawyers. Should we ignore FGM for instance, its someone culture aren't we discriminating against people who think this is required.
He doesn't need to be deaf not to be able to hear properly in such a situation.

eddie wrote:Yes but if he were deaf surely his only patients would be people who knew how to sign?

In any case, if he were deaf, don’t you think he might have mentioned that in his defence at the onset?

I guess we will have to wait and see instead of making assumptions.

What? I cannnot believe what i just read

You are saying they cannot lip read and thus discriminating against now deaf health professionals

I am not claiming this doctor is hard of hearing, hence you are missing the point

Covering the lips will hinder communication, with those who are hard of hearing

It also hinders communication with those who can hear, as how many times have people mistaken what somebody has said by simple not being able to view their facial expression?

The point is facial expressions are a part of communication and lifting this to talk to people in no way harms the Muslim that adheres to the Wahhabist outdated sexist belief. It has nothing to do with modesty, but control

Oh I’m confused. You did say that a number of doctors are deaf so that point has nothing to do with this doctor then?

eddie wrote:Oh I’m confused. You did say that a number of doctors are deaf so that point has nothing to do with this doctor then?

Are you being deliberately stupid here Eddie? I never once claimed this doctor was hard of hearing

Vintage wrote:How is it discrimination,  do we now have to take every nuance of every culture into consideration at all times, everything will grind to a halt, the only thing happening will be law suits and hearings. There are so many things various people can consider themselves discriminated by, if we all take umbridge all the time the only people making a living would be lawyers. Should we ignore FGM for instance, its someone culture aren't we discriminating against people who think this is required.
He doesn't need to be deaf not to be able to hear properly in such a situation.

I never suggested he was deaf, I also never suggested he was discriminating against her. I’m not sure either of those things are necessarily true.
I have simply stated, over and over, that a piece of cloth doesn’t stop someone being heard as many Muslim women can be heard by family and friends etc.

We shall have to see what the inquiry discovers.

phildidge wrote:

eddie wrote:Oh I’m confused. You did say that a number of doctors are deaf so that point has nothing to do with this doctor then?

Are you being deliberately stupid here Eddie? I never once claimed this doctor was hard of hearing

Then why did you bring up deaf doctors and find a link about deaf doctors? Perhaps you lost your track of thought.

eddie wrote:

Vintage wrote:How is it discrimination,  do we now have to take every nuance of every culture into consideration at all times, everything will grind to a halt, the only thing happening will be law suits and hearings. There are so many things various people can consider themselves discriminated by, if we all take umbridge all the time the only people making a living would be lawyers. Should we ignore FGM for instance, its someone culture aren't we discriminating against people who think this is required.
He doesn't need to be deaf not to be able to hear properly in such a situation.

I never suggested he was deaf, I also never suggested he was discriminating against her. I’m not sure either of those things are necessarily true.
I have simply stated, over and over, that a piece of cloth doesn’t stop someone being heard as many Muslim women can be heard by family and friends etc.

We shall have to see what the inquiry discovers.  

OMG, I have just explained that facial experessions are a major part of communication and how something in front of your face can muffle sound. Do you even understand how sound waves travel? 
I tell you what, place your hand over your mouth and see whether your voice becomes muffled?

eddie wrote:

phildidge wrote:

Are you being deliberately stupid here Eddie? I never once claimed this doctor was hard of hearing

Then why did you bring up deaf doctors and find a link about deaf doctors? Perhaps you lost your track of thought.

Prehaps you are simple being incredible thick here

The point is some doctors are and the vide should be when in communication to look at people when you speak to them
As they need to lip read. Its also important to see facial expressions on people s faces, which the veil hinders

Seriously, how hard is that for you to grasp?

Well I guess there must be tons of miscommunication among Muslim women and their family and friends.

Oh I just tried speaking with my hand in front of my face (which is thicker than cloth btw) and both people heard me (and neither of them are deaf).

eddie wrote:Well I guess there must be tons of miscommunication among Muslim women and their family and friends.

Oh I just tried speaking with my hand in front of my face (which is thicker than cloth btw) and both people heard me (and neither of them are deaf).

Tons, tha wear the face veil?
Bullshit, when only around a thousand Muslim do so in the country
Did they hear as you as clearly? Not a chance they heard you as clearly without
Again this is really about you defending a really poor sexist form of dress that enslaves women
The best way a child will learn first before it even speaks is how Eddie?
Facial expressions
Try doing that with a clothe over your face and you will see a baby fail to learn to grasp the basics

phil wrote:You are saying they cannot lip read and thus discriminating against now deaf health professionals

A simple test will suffice: Have the woman put on the veil, and say what she was saying to the doctor in the exam room.  If it interferes with "patient safety" the doctor is vindicated.  If it doesn't, he loses.

"Patient safety" is as "patient safety" does.  The opportunity to have empirical evidence is right there before them.  Whether her voice, or covering the lips, or any other alleged challenge compromises patient safety, will be tested right before them.  The proof is in the pudding.

Original Quill wrote:A simple test will suffice: Have the woman put on the veil, and say what she was saying to the doctor in the exam room.  If it interferes with "patient safety" the doctor is vindicated.  If it doesn't, he loses.

"Patient safety" is as "patient safety" does.  The opportunity to have empirical evidence is right there before them.  Whether her voice, or covering the lips, or any other alleged challenge compromises patient safety, will be tested right before them.  The proof is in the pudding.

Hence lip reading is a way to back up what has been said, if there is a accent held by a patient.
Accents can hinder communication and hence why its always more safe to be able to see the lips move to what has been said
The doctor will always be vindictaed this way

You seem desperate that this man is guilty of discrimination, why?,
What ever his reasons for asking her to remove the face veil, she was happy enough to comply, if not, she was in her rights to ask to see a different doctor.

If you mouth words at someone they don’t always know what you’re saying. Lip-reading is a very acquired art that people who are deaf from birth, will master as a vital skill.
Most of us can’t lip-read properly.

Anyway, I haven’t any more to add that I haven’t said already on this thread.

Let’s wait and see what transpires.

What gets me Vintage is that the Face veil is the symbol of Wahhabism itsellf. The most neo-conservative form of Islam. That is homophobic, sexist, prejudiced against Jews espcially and non-Muslims. Believes apostates should be stonned to death, adulterers, should be stonned to death etc. Muslims who wear the veil believe in all of this. They are from the earliest ages, the mosy unluckiest of women, based on geography. Born in to families, that seek to control wfemale lives. To the extent they are brainwashed with these poor views. The face veil as I say has nothing to do with modesty, as they would wear this all the time. Its simple men controlling women and everyone should be appalled at that, if they stand for women's rights

Vintage wrote:You seem desperate that this man is guilty of discrimination, why?,
What ever his reasons for asking her to remove the face veil, she was happy enough to comply, if not, she was in her rights to ask to see a different doctor.

I could care less...I've worked both sides of such a case. Apparently, the Medical Council found the facts questionable enough to declare the case actionable. My experience is on the proof aspect.

I'm saying the proof is simpler than most. It's binary. Put on the veil and see if it compromises patient safety. The Medical Council is comprised of doctors...aren't they the best judges of "patient safety?"

eddie wrote:If you mouth words at someone they don’t always know what you’re saying. Lip-reading is a very acquired art that people who are deaf from birth, will master as a vital skill.
Most of us can’t lip-read properly.

Anyway, I haven’t any more to add that I haven’t said already on this thread.  

Let’s wait and see what transpires.

Actually turn down the sound to a video and watch people speaking. You will be surprised in how much you can pick up from simple watching the lips.

I dont care what transpires, what I am sick of is people defending poor belief systems

This isn’t a thread about defending anything, well, not for me. I’ve said it enough times, I want to know how he couldn’t hear through cloth.

And I won’t make assumptions about his hearing or his discriminating against her, because I don’t know, I wasn’t there.

So, I think Quill’s point about an actual practical test, is rather simplistic and logical and will prove whether his story about not being able to hear her is true.

Although there is no law either way in the UK face veils employers can
ban it in the work place for health and safety and for proper communication = what's the difference.
Supporting women's right to wear a face veil because they themselves choose to is also supporting those, whether family members or the community, who force the wearing of the face veil on women who have no wish to do so.
I can only agree with what.have said Didge

eddie wrote:This isn’t a thread about defending anything, well, not for me. I’ve said it enough times, I want to know how he couldn’t hear through cloth.

And I won’t make assumptions about his hearing or his discriminating against her, because I don’t know, I wasn’t there.

So, I think Quill’s point about an actual practical test, is rather simplistic and logical and will prove whether his story about not being able to hear her is true.

Oh sorry, the master has spoken again and telling me what can and cannot be debated on this thread

This is very much about a belief system, which as seen is creating problems in society

1. You never factored accents
2. a face veil can make this worse and can muffle sound
3. Facial expressions are an important part of communication. This is easily proven how people on mobiles can misinterpet what has been said to them, as they cannot see the expressions of peolple
4. Its a belief system that is sexist that is driving this

Vintage wrote:Although there is no law either way in the UK face veils employers can
ban it in the work place for health and safety and for proper communication = what's the difference.
Supporting women's right to wear a face veil because they themselves choose to is also supporting those, whether family members or the community, who force the wearing of the face veil on women who have no wish to do so.
I can only agree with what.have said Didge

Thanks Vintage

Vintage wrote:Although there is no law either way in the UK face veils employers can
ban it in the work place for health and safety and for proper communication = what's the difference.

There is a law against religious discrimination. Note, you qualify your words, acknowledging exceptions: "for health and safety [etc]." That is precisely the issue the doctor has raised in his defense by citing "patient safety".

Vintage wrote:Supporting women's right to wear a face veil because they themselves choose to is also supporting those, whether family members or the community, who force the wearing of the face veil on women who have no wish to do so.

It's a religious practice.

Original Quill wrote:

Vintage wrote:Although there is no law either way in the UK face veils employers can
ban it in the work place for health and safety and for proper communication = what's the difference.

There is a law against religious discrimination.  Note, you qualify your words, acknowledging exceptions: "for health and safety [etc]."  That is precisely the issue the doctor has raised in his defense by citing "patient safety".

Vintage wrote:Supporting women's right to wear a face veil because they themselves choose to is also supporting those, whether family members or the community, who force the wearing of the face veil on women who have no wish to do so.

It's a religious practice.

You are wrong in regards to religious discrimination

Prohibitions on religious garb implicate Article 9 of the Convention, which states that everyone has the freedom “to manifest his religion or beliefs.”[6] Article 8 states that everyone “has the right to respect for his private and family life.”[7] But states can limit those rights under certain circumstances. Specifically, the exercise of one’s religion can be limited by the state in the interest of public safety; for the protection of public order, health, or morals; or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.[8] The right to privacy can be limited for the same reasons, or additionally for “the economic well-being of the country.”