Do we know the nationality of Savita Halappanavar's doctor?

se02orqua5xz9v

Much has been made of the alleged comments by Savita Halappanavar's doctor that Ireland "is a Catholic country". This has deemed "racist" by some commentators, included many on social media. [See here]

Disregarding the fact that Catholicism is not a race, nor do non-Catholics constitute their own race, do we even know the nationality of the doctor who made these statements? Obviously, it is unlikely that we are to learn the name of he/she in the near future, but blindly assuming that he/she is Irish, I feel, is a mistake.

There are less than 19,000 doctors registered to practice in Ireland.

Of those, approximately 6,500 graduated outside of Ireland, including India (511 doctors), Sudan (546 doctors), South Africa (1,105 doctors) and Pakistan (1,313). [Click here for details.]

I am not saying that the doctor probably wasn't Irish; he/she probably was. But to deem his/her behaviour racist, when we don't even know the ethnic identity of the person in question, is another example of people misusing the word 'racist', and thus diminishing its power when used in appropriate situations.

GerardKeating

The hospital has three or four maternity consultants. Two are Irish

se02orqua5xz9v

GerardKeating wrote: »

The hospital has three or four maternity consultants. Two are Irish

So there's maybe a 50% chance the consultant was not Irish?

Cat Melodeon

Religious discrimination is considered to be a manifestation of racism, as is any kind of repression based on cultural or biological factors. Racism is not restricted to discrimination on the basis of skin colour, nationality or ethnicity. Of course all of these terms and definitions are contested and you may decide that for you, racism has a very narrow definition. In sociological theory however, racism has many facets and manifestations. Thus, medical staff restricting treatment on the basis of Ireland being "a Catholic country" (and presumably based on their own religious beliefs) despite those treatments legally being available to all women of all and no faiths under the law could be constructed as a form of religious persecution, and therefore racist. This is regardless of the nationality, religion or 'race' of the person making that pronouncement.

coylemj

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Religious discrimination is considered to be a manifestation of racism, as is any kind of repression based on cultural or biological factors. Racism is not restricted to discrimination on the basis of skin colour, nationality or ethnicity. Of course all of these terms and definitions are contested and you may decide that for you, racism has a very narrow definition. In sociological theory however, racism has many facets and manifestations. Thus, medical staff restricting treatment on the basis of Ireland being "a Catholic country" (and presumably based on their own religious beliefs) despite those treatments legally being available to all women of all and no faiths under the law could be constructed as a form of religious persecution, and therefore racist. This is regardless of the nationality, religion or 'race' of the person making that pronouncement.

Please stop trying to expand the definition of racism to suit your agenda.

Discrimination based on religion is called bigotry, not racism. If an Orangeman in the Six Counties hates his Catholic neighbour (or v.v.), it is not racism, it's bigotry - got it?

Cat Melodeon

coylemj wrote: »

Please stop trying to expand the definition of racism to suit your agenda.

Discrimination based on religion is called bigotry, not racism. If an Orangeman in the Six Counties hates his Catholic neighbour (or v.v.), it is not racism, it's bigotry - got it?

Why are you so aggressive? I clearly stated that these are contested definitions and that people use a version that best fits their own opinions. I personally feel the UN definition of racial discrimination (the UN prefers that term to 'racism') comes closest to describing all -'isms' arising from racism:

"Racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin that has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural or any other field of public life.

If that gives me an 'agenda', so be it. As someone unable to engage in a conversation without using a nasty tone, I don't care much whether you agree with me. Got that?

coylemj

You can't even agree with yourself, you say the following.....

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Religious discrimination is considered to be a manifestation of racism, as is any kind of repression based on cultural or biological factors. Racism is not restricted to discrimination on the basis of skin colour, nationality or ethnicity.

and then you quote the UN definition......

"Racial discrimination" shall mean any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin"

BlatentCheek

"any kind of repression based on cultural or biological factors" is a ludicrously broad definition. It can conceivably include practically any form of disagreement, dislike or abuse (eg if children in a Dublin school are bullying child who moves to school from the country because he plays GAA instead of soccer they are all racists under this definition OR if I prefer Irish sausages to German frankfurters and bratwurst, a preference informed by my cultural background, I'm probably a racist).

I wouldn't pay much mind to the "racism" claims around Savita Harrapanavar's death; indeed I wouldn't pay much mind to most claims around the tragedy at this stage. The poor woman's death turned into a bull**** storm almost immediately. Whether it was the Indian BJP organizing protests in India calling for the medics involved to face murder charges or my previously doctrinaire catholic girlfriend going all Sinead O'Conner about it: the hypocrisy and nonsense surrounding this event was stunning. Sadly, It doesn't even look like we will get legislation to clarify the X case ruling in the end

se02orqua5xz9v

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Religious discrimination is considered to be a manifestation of racism, as is any kind of repression based on cultural or biological factors. Racism is not restricted to discrimination on the basis of skin colour, nationality or ethnicity. Of course all of these terms and definitions are contested and you may decide that for you, racism has a very narrow definition. In sociological theory however, racism has many facets and manifestations. Thus, medical staff restricting treatment on the basis of Ireland being "a Catholic country" (and presumably based on their own religious beliefs) despite those treatments legally being available to all women of all and no faiths under the law could be constructed as a form of religious persecution, and therefore racist. This is regardless of the nationality, religion or 'race' of the person making that pronouncement.

But we do not know the religion or race of the medical consultant who said Ireland "is a Catholic country". If he/she was an Indian Hindu saying it to another Indian Hindu, it can hardly be described as "racism", can it?

Stereomaniac

No. It cannot. I doubt there was any sort of race agenda here. I'm pretty sure if there was, only the doctor would be aware of it. A woman died. It's sad. It's ****ed up. That's it.

Cat Melodeon

coylemj wrote: »

You can't even agree with yourself, you say the following...and then you quote the UN definition......

I said "comes closest", I didn't say it encapsulates it fully.

BlatentCheek wrote: »

I wouldn't pay much mind to the "racism" claims around Savita Harrapanavar's death;

I agree with that, there isn't a scrap of evidence of any racism in this case, only one unconfirmed report of "this is a Catholic country". Without context/evidence, it's a bit premature to call racism.

Preferring Irish sausages to German Frankfurters doesn't impact on anyone's human rights: the analogy doesn't work.

Craig Nervous Suspect wrote: »

But we do not know the religion or race of the medical consultant who said Ireland "is a Catholic country". If he/she was an Indian Hindu saying it to another Indian Hindu, it can hardly be described as "racism", can it?

I agree, although it would still be a form of religious persecution.

Loafing Oaf

Craig Nervous Suspect wrote: »

But we do not know the religion or race of the medical consultant who said Ireland "is a Catholic country".

AFAIK they have pretty much identified on the basis of Praveen's comments. Not sure we can name them here though...

se02orqua5xz9v

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

I agree, although it would still be a form of religious persecution.

How would it be a form of religious persecution if both shared the same religion?

Cat Melodeon

Beacuse medical procedures are denied on the basis of the ethos of one dominant religion. That system is in place because of the dominant religion, not because of the beliefs of one individual. If a (Hindu) doctor follows the procedures demanded by the Catholic system and that results in the (Hindu) patient not receiving appropriate care, then it is the system rather than the individual doctor that is at fault and which is discriminatory. The origin/religion of the doctor/patient is irrelevant as the system constrains the doctor (under threat of suspension) and discriminates against the patient (denial of care). The only way it wouldn't be discriminatory would be if the patient was in perfect agreement with the prioritising of life of the unborn and was happy to die waiting for the foetal heartbeat to stop rather than carry out a termination, and the doctor was happy to interpret their Hippocratic oath as prioritising the unborn life over that of the already born. I'm very tired and I don't know if I have explained what I mean properly.