Thursday, January 09, 2014

Multicultural medical care in Britain from Muslim doctor

A mother listened to an answerphone message recording the final moments of her daughter - who was sent home by a GP who `wouldn't give her the time of day'.

The walk-in-centre doctor carried out a `substandard' examination on 20-year-old Evelyn Purchase, failing to notice that she had pneumonia, a coroner ruled.

Barely 36 hours later, and as the arts student lay dying in bed, she tried to call her mother Tara but was forced to leave a message on her mobile.

Speaking yesterday, Miss Purchase said: `Evelyn was still poorly the day after her trip to the doctor, which was my birthday, and she decided to stay at home while I went out with her sister, Dana.

`We came home and I went to check on Evelyn, and found her  lifeless in her bedroom, clutching the phone.  `My heart broke in two and I will never get over it.  `I later realised I had a voicemail message and when I listened to it, I realised that Evelyn had tried to call me and I could hear her dying in the message.  `She has left a huge hole in all of our lives, and we will never get over her death.'

Coroner Robin Balmain said a number of assumptions were made by the doctor about the talented illustrator's condition and that the assessment had been `less than optimal'.

Recording a narrative verdict, he stopped short of saying Evelyn's death could have been prevented.  But he added: `This is a tragedy. This is the death of a young girl at the start of her adult life.

`It seems to me that what went  on during the course of that examination was probably incomplete.' Evelyn, a second year student at Hereford College of Arts, visited a doctor at Holly Hall walk-in centre in Dudley, West Midlands, on April 5 last year, with her mother,  complaining that she felt unwell.

Mahmud Ahmed, who had previously treated Evelyn, diagnosed her with a chest infection and  prescribed antibiotics.  He failed to realise he had already given her two courses of antibiotics which had failed to work.

Believing depression to be the cause of her loss of appetite, he also prescribed anti-depressants - without carrying out a mental health examination.

Dr Ahmed told the inquest: `I did not check her oxygen levels as she was not unduly short of breath. I thought that the infection was not so serious for her to be admitted to hospital.'

Miss Purchase, whose daughter Dana is 16, said: `I will never be able to forgive myself for not being there for her when she needed me. I wish someone had told us how ill she was.

`We begged the doctor to send her for a chest X-ray, but he wouldn't. Evelyn was such a bright, clever young girl and she had her head screwed on.  `She was a shy character who  concentrated on her studies, rarely partied, and she never lost focus of her achieving her ambitions.

`We were incredibly close and she had never been kissed, didn't have a boyfriend because she knew where she wanted to go in life and knew that she required focus to do so.'

The maths and English teacher from Halesowen, who has divorced Evelyn's father David, plans to bring the case before the General Medical Council.

`I'm not saying that she wasn't treated but she was not treated appropriately for her condition and, as a consequence, she died on my bed, in my bedroom, in unbelievably bad circumstances,' she said.  `If she had been placed into  hospital she would have had the opportunity to fight for her life.

`I'd taken Evelyn to a few doctors' appointments in the days before her death and we went to the walk-in centre as her condition severely worsened - but I just feel he didn't have the time of day for us.'

Cause of death at the inquest in Smethwick on Monday was given as extensive bilateral pneumonia with pulmonary abscesses as a  contributing factor.


Israeli Arabs: We Do Not Want to Live in Palestinian State

Renewed talk of land swaps between Israel and a future Palestinian state has left many Israeli Arabs worried about losing their status as citizens of Israel.

According to the Israeli daily Ma'ariv, Israel has proposed to the Americans transferring Israeli Arab communities to the Palestinian Authority as part of a land swap that would place Jewish settlements in the West Bank under Israeli sovereignty.

The proposal means that some 300,000 Israeli Arabs would be allowed to stay in their villages in the "triangle" area along the border with the West Bank. However, these citizens would find themselves living under the jurisdiction of a Palestinian state.

The new-old proposal has been strongly rejected by leaders of the Israeli Arabs, who expressed outrage over the idea.

It was hard this week to find even one Israeli Arab who publicly supported the proposal.

"This is an imaginary proposal that relates to the Arabs as if they were chess pieces that could be moved around according to the wish of the players," said Ahmed Tibi, an Arab member of the Knesset.

Another Arab Knesset member, Afu Ighbarriyeh, said, "Citizens of a democratic state are not tools or hostages in the hands of their government."  Both Tibi and Ighbarriyeh are from towns in the triangle area; Taybeh and Umm al-Fahm.

But what the Arab Knesset members are not saying openly is that they do not want to wake up in the morning and discover that they are citizens of a Palestinian state. It is much easier for them to accuse Israel of racism than to admit that they do not want to be part of a Palestinian state.

A public opinion poll conducted by the Arab Center for Applied Social Research in November 2007 found that more than 70% of Israeli Arabs are opposed to any proposal to annex towns and villages in the triangle area to the Palestinian Authority in exchange for the annexation of the settlements to Israel.

Another poll by Professor Sammy Smooha of the University of Haifa showed that three-quarters of Israeli Arabs believe Arab representatives should deal with daily issues and not the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

The poll also showed that over the past ten years, Israeli Arabs have become more extreme in their views toward Israel and its Jewish majority.

Professor Smooha said that Israeli Arabs are interested in receiving the benefits that the state provides them - stability, democracy, services and so on. The Arab leadership is more critical of Israel than the Arab public, which is "much more pragmatic than their leaders," he explained.

The Knesset has 120 members, 12 of whom are Arabs. Some of the Arab parliamentarians have over the past two decades acted and spoken in a way that has caused damage to the interests of the 1.5 million Arab citizens of Israel.  They are first and foremost responsible for radicalizing a large number of Israeli Arabs and turning them against the state.

These parliamentarians have, in fact, spent more time defending the interests of the Palestinians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip than those of their voters.

A Knesset member who openly identifies with Fatah or Hamas or Hezbollah is responsible for the situation that many Israeli Jews today see Israeli Arabs as a "fifth column" and an "enemy from within."

These Knesset members are fully aware that they would lose most of their privileges under most Arab regimes -- the real reason why they are strongly opposed to the latest proposal.

The Palestinians have their own parliament in the West Bank and Gaza Strip. But this parliament, known as the Palestinian Legislative Council, has been paralyzed since Hamas seized control of the Gaza Strip in 2007.

In most Arab countries, parliament members who dare to criticize their rulers often find themselves sitting at home or behind bars.

If the Arab Knesset members are so worried about becoming citizens of a Palestinian state, they should be working toward integration into, and not separation from, Israel. The Arab parliamentarians need to listen more to what their constituents are telling them and not to the voices of Fatah and Hamas.


Record support for severe curbs on immigration to Britain

Support for sweeping curbs on immigration to the UK has reached record levels, a major study of public opinion shows.  Almost eight out of 10 Britons now believe that the number of new arrivals should be limited and nearly six in 10 want to see major reductions in the number allowed in.

The numbers advocating a large cut have swelled by more than 40 per cent since before the expansion of the European Union, according to the latest findings from the British Social Attitudes survey, which has been charting public opinion for more than 30 years.

Strikingly, it shows that even among those who believe that immigration has boosted Britain's economy and enriched its culture, clear majorities now want to see it cut.

There is also a sharp divide along class lines, with an elite of highly paid and highly qualified people twice as likely as workers from middle and lower income families to view immigration in positive terms.

Significantly, attitudes have also hardened even among those from immigrant families themselves with less than half now convinced that it is good for the economy and a quarter doubting the cultural benefits.

The findings came as Vince Cable, the Business Secretary, underlined divisions with the Coalition over immigration insisting that the Government "certainly won't achieve" its target of getting numbers below 100,000 before the General Election next year.

Speaking in a BBC documentary, The Truth About Immigration, he described the cap, a flagship Conservative policy, as "not sensible".

In the same programme, Jack Straw, the former Home Secretary, described Labour's estimates of migrant numbers ahead of the main eastward expansion of the EU in 2004 as "completely catastrophic".

And David Blunkett, his successor, admitted that the Blair government had not spelt out likely the full impact because of a "fear of racism".

Nick Robinson, the BBC's political editor, who presents the programme, said at the weekend that the corporation had made a "terrible mistake" in downplaying public concerns over immigration.

The study of more than 3,000 people found that 77 per cent want immigration reduced, with only four per cent favouring an increase.

Fifty six per cent support reducing it "a lot" - a record level. In 1995, when the question was first asked, only 39 per cent supported major reductions and two years ago only 51 per cent did.

Although the number of people believing that immigration benefits the economy is marginally higher than two years ago, it is still a view held by less than a third of Britons, compared with almost half who see it as harmful.

Only one in three Britons believe immigration enriches Britain culturally, against 45 per cent who think it is detrimental.

Significantly, 54 per cent of those who see immigration as good for the economy still want to reduce it, including a quarter who would support severe reductions. Among those who see immigration as culturally beneficial, 55 per cent now support curbs.

Penny Young, chief executive of NatCen Social research, which conducted the study, said other issues not specifically covered by the questions - such as pressure on the NHS or housing - could be at work.

"Reducing immigration is technically about stopping more immigrants coming to Britain so it may well be that people have got to the point where they think that we are `full'," she said.

"They may think that it has been good for the economy or culturally but that if it carries on it may have a problematic effect."

Strikingly, the proportion of first or second generation immigrants who believe migration is good for the economy has slipped below half in the last two years. A quarter of migrants now even doubt that it immigration is even benefiting Britain culturally.

When responses were analysed along class lines, one of the most notable findings is that only a third of those in the top earnings bracket see immigration as bad for the economy compared with around half of those in the middle.

David Cameron has pledged to reduce net migration to the "tens of thousands" rather than hundreds of thousands . But figures published in November show it rose markedly ni the last year and now stands at 182,000.

Aked whether he thought the target was realistic, Mr Cable said: "It's not sensible to have an arbitrary cap because most of the things under it can't be controlled.

"So it involves British people emigrating - you can't control that. It involves free movement within the European Union - in and out. It involves British people coming back from overseas, who are not immigrants but who are counted in the numbers. So setting an arbitrary cap is not helpful, it almost certainly won't achieve the below 100,000 level the Conservatives have set anyway, so let's be practical about it."

Asked whether it was "nonsense", he said: "The idea it should come down to 100,000 is something the Liberal Democrats have never signed up to because we simply regard it as impractical."

Immigration is expected to dominate the agenda in the lead up to the European elections later this year and a General Election next year.

While the UK Independence Party is expected to take votes from the Conservatives over the issue, the study shows that Labour voters are the most sharply divided over immigration.

Similar proportions of Labour voters - roughly four out of 10 - see immigration as helping or harming the economy and Britain's cultural life.

Government estimates a decade ago were that around 13,000 people from Eastern European member states would come to Britain a year. According to the ONS there are now just over a million people from Poland and the seven other countries which joined the EU in 2004 living in the UK.

"The predications were completely catastrophic," Mr Straw told the programme.  "I mean they were wrong by a factor of 10.  "On immigration, it was bluntly a nightmare and it got more and more difficult"

Mr Blunkett addeds that the Treasury was convinced that the economic benefits would outweigh the disadvantages.  "We didn't spell out in words of one syllable what was happening, partly because of a fear of racism" he said.


Nazi Roots of the Knockout Game

Mr. V. Pfeffer a Jewish survivor of Majdanek concentration camp in Poland described a "favorite sport of the SS men was to make a `boxing sack' out of a Jew. This was done in the following way: Two Jews were stood up, one being forced to hold the other by the collar, and an SS man trained giving him a knock-out."

Fast forward to 2013 and the Nazi SS Knockout Game is recycled and open for business.  On November 24, 2013, Shmuel Pearl, an Orthodox Jew, was hit in the face by Amrit Marajh as part of the `Knockout Game'.  Mr. Pearl testified he overheard his attacker talking about the game before the assault.  Amrit Marajh was released on $750 bail which in and of itself is a travesty of justice.

On November 25 Police were investigating a 72 year old woman who was hit in the face while walking to a Brooklyn Jewish community center.

The majority of reported `Knockout Game' attacks are black on white crimes.  However, on November 26, 2013, the Caucasian Conrad Barrett, was charged with a hate crime by the US Department of Justice for punching a 79 year old black man in a `knockout game' style attack.

Attempted Murder

From my sparring days I can tell you a solid punch to the face is no innocent game.

An unaware victim of a punch to the face or head while walking down the street is attempted murder.  The punch itself can easily break the 7 fragile orbital bones surrounding the eye potentially sending bone fragments inside the eye socket causing permanent blindness or permanent disfiguration.

It doesn't take much strength to break or dislocate the jawbone resulting in painful surgery and months of post operative care costing tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars in medical and rehab bills.

Imagine standing upright with your hands tied behind your back and free falling onto a concrete surface.  The potential damage and breakage of bones, shoulders, hips, skulls, and backs are not uncommon.   Just for visual purposes, I want you go into your refrigerator and grab that melon that is about the same size as your head.  With both hands hold the melon even with your head and drop it on your tile floor or outside on the concrete.

As the cowardly criminals are laughing about dropping you in one punch - your head is that melon free falling from 6 feet onto the concrete.  The thud you hear when the melon hits ground is massive soft tissue damage and a guaranteed concussion.  In many cases the trigeminal nerve trunks in the face are damaged resulting in a lifetime of unbearable pain with limited and costly surgical fixes.

These types of serious internal bodily injuries created from a punch to the head and subsequent fall onto hard concrete often results in long term physical ailments lasting years and decades after the attack.  Victim's injuries after the attack rarely if ever make the evening news.

Disruption of Life

In many cases, a victim of this `knockout game' may be unable to work for weeks or months after the attack dealing with medical and rehabilitation issues.  Imagine the financial stress heaped upon your family if you should suddenly lose your primary source of income for 2-3 months or more.

If the victim works in an office they will be lucky if they are not replaced because a fractured jaw alone impedes clear speech and every social aspect required in the normal course of the work day.   Imagine how hard it would be to do your job if your jaw is wired shut.

There is also mental trauma that is more difficult to quantify.  The criminals who engage in this `knockout game' crime statistically prey on those who appear weak and unable to defend themselves.  Now walking down the street becomes a stressful if not a terrifying proposition.  A victims world view changes as they see every person on the street as a potential threat, life is not meant to be lived that way.

Strong Are Supposed To Protect The Weak

The only recourse our society has to combat pre-meditated attacks on innocent pedestrians is incarcerating these predators in prison for a very long time.

A punch to the head is attempted murder.  If you doubt me, Google `Knockout Game' and watch the hundreds of videos.

I was outraged that Amrit Marajh was let out on only $750 bail after punching Shmuel Pearl for no other reason than trying to knock him out in one punch to the head.  Now this piece of garbage Amrit Marajih is walking free but will be smarter and less likely to get himself busted again.


 This `Knockout Game' was practiced in the Nazi SS Concentration Camp guards and is being practiced again on the streets of New York City and across the country.

If `We The People' do not demand our State and Federal Justice systems increase the sentencing for these types of `knockout game' crimes it will have an incremental corrosive effect on our society.

Our Society functions by the rule of law and the fear of being thrown in jail.  Once the criminals no longer fear law enforcement and the judicial system, it is a short slippery slope to chaos and civil unrest.

The mainstream media reports this `knockout game' as a joke and not a very serious crime.  I have proven beyond a shadow of doubt the serious consequences of taking an undefended punch to the head.

The predators who commit these premeditated violent attacks against complete strangers have one objective that has not been reported by the media.

The ultimate objective of the `knockout game' is to kill a man or woman with one punch.  Charging these predators with attempted murder will quickly put an end to this vile practice whose roots are linked to the Nazi concentration death camps of World War 2.



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: