Sunday, March 11, 2018

Black doctor kills a baby in an attempt to prove himself

He acted without permission from the parents so is surely liable to be charged with manslaughter

The heartbroken parents of a two-day-old baby who died after a needless operation today described the horror of their son 'arriving home in a coffin'.

Paul Mitchelhill died in his mother's arms following risky abdominal surgery carried out by a doctor who wanted to 'prove a point'.

A coroner concluded that failings by surgeon Emmanuel Towuaghanste 'directly contributed' to his death and the inquest heard he should have acted more 'conservatively'.

And his devastated parents, Paul and Irene Mitchellhill, have today revealed the agony of their loss which continues to leave a 'void' in their lives almost five years on.

Speaking after the inquest, the couple, from Carlisle, Cumbria, said: 'Paul died the day after his surgery and we came home without our son, having only held him for the first time as he was dying.

'We faced the horror of losing our first baby boy and the trauma of him arriving home in a coffin.'

The hearing at Newcastle Civic Centre was told how the surgery was 'not urgent' and Paul's death was 'avoidable'.

But Mr Towu, 62, took the decision within hours of Paul's arrival at the Great North Children's Hospital in Newcastle on October 21, 2013, to operate on a defect known as an exomphalos major - rather than wait to find out more.

But an expert witness suggested the locum surgeon, who had been at the hospital for only a month, was trying to 'prove a point' by carrying out the surgery.

Paediatric surgeon Bruce Jeffray, who now heads the department, told the hearing he had seen just six cases of exomphalos major in his 20 years experience.

Mr Jeffray said he would have treated the condition 'conservatively' and would not have elected to perform emergency surgery on the new-born child.

Instead, he would have wrapped the defect in bandages and handed the baby to his mother as he was at no immediate risk, the inquest heard. He added: 'I think this was an avoidable death.'

Mr Jeffray described compartment syndromes as 'disastrous', adding: 'You have converted a stable situation into uncontrolled chaos.'

Simon Huddart, a retired paediatric surgeon, also told the hearing: 'A locum surgeon of one month as a consultant and performing this surgery has a feeling of trying to prove a point.

'Seeing an operation is not the same as doing the operation, I watched my dad drive for 17 years - it doesn't mean I could drive.'

The inquest heard his parents were not consulted ahead of the operation and Mr Towu did not discuss the decision with permanent medical colleagues ahead of the operation.

Surgery was undertaken to close a 7cm gap in his abdomen, but he quickly showed worrying symptoms of Abdominal Compartment Syndrome (ACS) due to a complication.

Expert surgeons told the four-day hearing that they would not have operated immediately, and the court heard opportunities to save his life were missed in the hours after the operation went wrong.

Police were called in and launched a manslaughter investigation on the basis Mr Towu had been grossly negligent, but no criminal action was taken against him.


Ben Shapiro: Intersectionality and Anti-Semitism

Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan is an anti-Semite. This isn't in question. It's a fact, and one the minister continues to underscore with each speech. Last week, he spoke before the 2018 Saviours' Day event in Chicago. He stated: "White folks are going down. And Satan is going down. And Farrakhan, by God's grace, has pulled the cover off the eyes of that Satanic Jew, and I'm here to say your time is up, your world is through." Just for good measure, he added, "Jews were responsible for all of this filth and degenerate behavior that Hollywood is putting out," suggested that Jews are "the children of the devil" and claimed, "when you want something in this world, the Jew holds the door."

He's not a subtle fellow.

Which makes it utterly stunning that so many top-level Democrats have been able to get away with hobnobbing with him. Just weeks ago, we found out that Farrakhan met with the members of the Congressional Black Caucus in 2005, including then-Sen. Barack Obama; 21 current members of Congress were at that meeting. None of them have denounced Farrakhan. Rep. Danny Davis, D-Il., asked about Farrakhan on Sunday, stated, "I don't have no problems with Farrakhan. ... I know the Jews and Farrakhan ... The world is so much bigger than Farrakhan and the Jewish question and his position on that and so forth."

Tamika Mallory, one of the leaders of the Women's March on Washington, was personally present at Farrakhan's lecture in Chicago. Another Women's March leader, Carmen Perez, routinely touts Farrakhan on her social media. And anti-Semite Linda Sarsour spoke at a Nation of Islam event three years ago. All three have defended Farrakhan. Mallory took to Twitter to explain: "Jesus had a number of enemies as do all black leaders. Period point blank." Perez stated, "There are no perfect leaders." And Sarsour defended another anti-Semite from questions about Farrakhan.

Yet the mainstream media's attention to this odd spate of events has been relatively muted. Imagine, for a moment, that the House Freedom Caucus had met with former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke. Imagine top tea party leaders had done so as well. Then imagine they had been questioned by members of the media about their associations and proceeded to dismiss such questions as irrelevant. Would we ever hear the end of the story? Of course not. President Trump is still living down his tacit nods at the "alt-right" during the 2016 campaign, as he should. But top Democrats openly embrace the anti-Semitism of Louis Farrakhan, and the only major media figure who seems to give a damn is CNN's Jake Tapper.

All of which demonstrates that where the media are concerned, intersectional identity matters far more than blatant bigotry. Farrakhan is black; the Congressional Black Caucus is, too; Mallory is black; Perez is Mexican-American; Sarsour is Muslim. This means that we're supposed to ignore their anti-Semitism. Were these characters all white Christian Republicans rather than minority Democrats, this would be front-page news each day.

The sin of intersectionality lies in the willingness of its devotees to discard virtue for identity politics. Anti-Semitism is anti-Semitism, no matter who purveys it. If only the members of the Democratic Party and the media felt the same way.


An 'America First' Immigration Policy

There are a lot of things right with Donald Trump's immigration vision and a few things that are misguided. It's worth reviewing which is which.

I was privileged to learn my immigration economics and history from the very best, Julian Simon. I was a research assistant for his classic book "The Economic Consequences of Immigration into the United States," which, nearly 30 years after publication, remains the best tutorial out there for anyone who wants to understand how immigrants affect our jobs and our pocketbooks.

Every policymaker working on the issue today would be the wiser if they went back and read it.

The big picture starts with this: America greatly benefits economically from a steady flow of immigrants (currently about 1 million new legal arrivals each year) — always has and hopefully always will. It's not a cliche that we import the best, brightest and hardest working from all over the world.

Immigrants' age profile is beneficial to the U.S. They tend to come to the United States when they are young — between the ages of 16 and 35. They are educated in China, or Mexico, or Germany, or Ireland, and then America gets most or all of the benefits of their labor and the public return on the education.

This is one of the greatest wealth transfers in the history of the world. It is worth trillions of dollars to American citizens. Not every immigrant turns out to be an asset — and, yes, there are bad apples — but America's ability to import human capital at virtually no cost is arguably one of our greatest comparative advantages in the global economy.

Immigrants are especially beneficial now because of our unfavorable demographic situation. We have some 75 million baby boomers who are retiring at the pace of 10,000 a day, and there aren't enough young people to fill the gaps. Immigrants can and hopefully will — or else Social Security and Medicare will go belly up much faster than anyone imagines.

So what are the central components of an "America First" immigration policy?

—Build the wall, but make sure it has big gates. Getting tough on illegal immigration makes sense, but we should not cut back on the number of visas for legal immigrants. We need them.

—President Trump is right that we should move to a merit-based immigration system. While most immigrants give more than they receive, it is incontrovertible that the fiscal and economic benefits of immigrants are directly correlated to their skills, special talents, knowledge of English, educational attainment and entrepreneurial abilities.

—Since there is such a high global demand for entry into the U.S., we should set a price on these visas, perhaps $25,000 or even $50,000. We could raise about $20 billion a year to reduce the budget deficit. There would be no shortage of people lining up to pay the entry fee in exchange for the most valuable resource in the world: an American passport.

—Issue work visas for farm and other seasonal workers. These should be temporary visas that authorize these migrants to work and reside here. Americans aren't going to work in the fields. Period.

—End the visa family category for parents of immigrants. There is no benefit to bringing in people over the age of 60. They are likely to use Supplemental Security Income and Medicaid benefits, while having paid little in taxes.

—Immigration, yes — but welfare, no. Immigrants should not be eligible for any nonmedical welfare benefits. The current restrictions — on food stamps, housing benefits, SSI, disability and so on — have been unenforced for years. Immigrants who need financial assistance should get it from their sponsors, churches, charities or relatives, not American taxpayers. We need E-verify not just at workplaces but also in welfare offices. Immigrants who do go on welfare should have their visas suspended.

Under these conditions, it's hard to imagine that millions of bright, hardworking and freedom-seeking immigrants would not want to come to the United States. The most valuable asset in the world is a U.S. passport, and we should stop giving it away for free.


Australia. One woman tells the politically incorrect truth  about violence towards women and children in black culture

Soaked in blood, with nightclothes clinging to her skin in the thick, muggy heat, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price sprints to the nearest neighbour’s house and begs them to call the police. It is 7am, Darwin, 2008. Five months into a new relationship — the first since splitting with her high-school sweetheart and father of her three kids — and Price is bolting for her life.

Drugs and feral outbreaks of jealousy have broken the veneer of the honeymoon period. In the heat of the attack a lamp is hurled at her with such force that it leaves a gash requiring six stitches. “I looked at my hand, it was covered in blood and the blood was dripping down my shoulder,’’ Price recalls. “And I thought, ‘I have to get out of here because if I don’t get out of here, he’s going to kill me.’ ”

She manages to make a run for it, out the door, feet slapping the driveway of the flats where she lives, across the road and into sanctuary. “I felt like the stereotypical Aboriginal woman victim of ­violence. And I felt really degraded,” Price says now. “Sitting in this stranger’s house, bleeding all over their floor and asking them to call an ambulance for me, and the police. I was just so glad that my kids weren’t there to witness that.”

The proud Warlpiri-Celtic woman peers at the bushland across the street from her mother’s place on the edge of the Alice Springs township. ­“Immediately there’s a stigma attached to a victim of family violence. And I felt it, straight away. And I felt like, ‘How could I let this happen to myself? Why didn’t I see this coming?’”

This would be the last time Jacinta Price would be a victim. She broke up with her boyfriend, roused her spirits and took a good hard look around her. In the mirror stood a clever young Territory woman with much to say — although it would take some years for her to articulate all that she’d seen and experienced since she was a tiny kid running through the potholed backstreets of Alice.

But soon she began to speak some uncomfortable truths. She lifted the veil on the murderers and rapists and victims in her own extended family and the kinship ties and “cultural excuses” that protect the perpetrators. She has been hailed as a fearless anti-violence warrior and at the same time has become a lightning rod for criticism. But once the lid was off she realised there was no turning back. Despite the vitriol, the scorn, the social media hate campaigns. No running away.

In a newspaper article, Price listed the diverse cultural mix in her own household: “I am half Warlpiri and a mixture of Irish, Scottish and Welsh. My sons are of Warlpiri, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, Malay, Indian, French, African, Chinese, Scandinavian and ­German ancestry. My stepson is half Scottish and a quarter Mauritian. They are all 100 per cent ­Australian.” Her point? “Most of the self-identifying indigenous members of our community who claim to feel hurt by Australia Day being held on January 26 would also have white ancestors in their family trees and may not even have been born if the First Fleet hadn’t come.”

Price’s views have attracted the attention of some high-profile allies, including the one-time prime ministerial candidate turned anti-PC baiter Mark Latham, who enlisted her to take part in a televised Australia Day campaign. “I heard her speak at a conference in Brisbane last year and was very impressed by her practical but compassionate approach to the indigenous issues,” says Latham.

The cavalcade of abuse that dogged Price in the weeks following her involvement in the campaign was “horrendous”, says the one-time Labor leader. “The trolls hate her because she’s the sort of ­person that identity politics would normally applaud — an indigenous woman, an elected councillor from Central Australia. She’s got impeccable credentials for speaking on indigenous issues, but she’s not toeing the inner-city green line, and their only response is abuse and online hysteria.”

Latham understates nothing when speaking of how far he believes Price could travel in politics. In April, if she is successfully nominated to run for the Country Liberal Party in the sprawling ­Territory seat of Lingiari — which insiders say looks a done deal — she then has the chance to ride into the House of Representatives on the ticket at next year’s election. “I think Jacinta is the most impressive indigenous person that I’ve come across in the political sphere,” Latham says.

Conservatives across the nation latched onto the Price juggernaut following the intense Australia Day coverage. Asked if she trusts figures like Latham and others now hooked on her and her political ideologies, and whether they have her best interests at heart, she cautiously replies: “Trust is a strong word. I think there are people who are ­valuable to have in your network, put it that way. You need to surround yourself with ­people you trust. There are only a few people you can trust. I’ve learnt that most definitely. And never necessarily trust those who are throwing themselves at you and want to do things for you. Even if they say they don’t ­necessarily want something, there is always something that someone wants.”

By 2015, the younger Price was in the process of a political awakening. She realised she too was now in a position to start raising her voice. The seemingly endless chain of violence in her family led her to speak out. “I got to a point in my life where we had that many deaths in our family. We had that many women traumatised by family violence and children traumatised by family violence,” she says. “And this ‘growing up yapa [Aboriginal] way’ is always like, you don’t talk about the really tough things. You pretend like they don’t exist. You know there are members in your family who have beaten the crap out of your own aunty, who have raped people, and yet your family expects you to pretend that these people haven’t done those things. You’re supposed to turn a blind eye to that. And I think I got to a point where I went, ‘I’ve had enough of this’. And I became quite vocal.”

In lifting the veil from the largely taboo subject of Aboriginal community violence, Price’s star began to rise. She was hand-picked to deliver a couple of high-profile addresses to audiences at the National Press Club and the right-wing think tank the Centre for Independent Studies. In the latter, in 2016, she told the audience: ­“Aboriginal culture is a culture that accepts violence and in many ways desensitises those living the culture to violence.”

To the press club she admitted she had been placed under immense pressure to withhold parts of her story, saying she was putting her immediate family at risk of violent retaliation. “But why am I standing here if not to hold us all to account for the lack of responsibility, action and justice for these Aboriginal women and children and the thousands of ­victims of family violence and sexual abuse?” she said.

Prominent Aboriginal leader Warren Mundine says Price’s uncompromising stance on indigenous violence has never been more necessary. “It’s a voice we need to have in the parliament. Because the current situation is not working,” he says from Sydney Airport, where he is waiting for a flight to ­Darwin where he will meet members of the NT Government dealing with a child protection crisis after the alleged rape of a two-year-old Aboriginal toddler in Tennant Creek. “On the Closing the Gap figures, we’re spending something like $130 billion [in eight years to 2016] and we’re not really confronting the real issues,” Mundine says. “About the social breakdown and family dysfunction in some of these communities. And the alcohol and drugs and so on. So I think she’s spot on. The status quo is not working. We need new blood in there, we need someone to be disruptive and to shake it up so we start actually confronting and dealing with the issues.”

In her desert hometown, some have begun striking out against Price’s firebrand commentary. A perception that she hasn’t properly consulted with women in town camps and communities has added kindling to the blaze. In late January, a statement attributed to “the Aboriginal women of Central Australia” was read in the Alice Springs council chambers by indigenous councillor ­Catherine Satour, appearing to take aim directly at Price. “To be an Aboriginal leader it requires you to be appointed and recognised as such by the Aboriginal community,” the statement read. “As the Honourable Linda Burney MP so rightfully put: ‘Leadership in an Aboriginal cultural context is not given or measured by how much media you get or if you earn big money. True Aboriginal ­leadership does not come from high-level appointments or board membership. It doesn’t come from and cannot be given by white constructs. Leadership is earned; it is given when you have proven you can deal with responsibility and you understand that responsibility’.”

While Satour and others flatly deny the speech was pointed at Price, a heated stoush at the ­meeting’s conclusion suggests otherwise. Inflamed on social media beforehand, Price’s relatives showed up to defend her name. Price herself was a no-show, away in Sydney for unrelated business. White activists accompanied a group of Abori­ginal women supportive of the statement. The place was packed. While the meeting dragged on, a din erupted on the council lawns. A ­screaming match between Bess Price and other desert women had broken out, with insults hurled in English and Red Centre languages. The stoush hit fever pitch as Satour left the chambers. It is alleged that an uncle of Price’s stormed up and verbally assaulted the councillor. “Following this statement [being] read is now a matter for a police investigation as I and the Arrernte woman were abused and I was threatened with violence,” Satour says. Territory Police have confirmed a report was filed.

More HERE 


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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: