Dr. Adi Weissbuch of the unit for at-risk pregnancies at the Rehovot hospital was recently contacted with urgency via e-mail by a female doctor who identified herself as “NN” from an Iranian-university hospital.
She had read a comprehensive article published in an international medical journal in which Weissbuch wrote about a rare genetic complication of pregnancy and supplied his e-mail address at the bottom.
Consultation was urgent, the Iranian doctor wrote, because according to Islamic law, abortion is forbidden after the 18th week of pregnancy, and her patient was already in her 16th week. She sent the Kaplan physician a copy of lab results and asked his opinion.
Weissbuch wrote back that on the basis of the data, there was very little chance that the woman would have a healthy baby and that delivering the baby would endanger her life. The Rehovot doctor had discussed a very similar case in his article.
After receiving the information, the Iranian doctor advised the woman to undergo an abortion immediately, and she did so.
Weissbuch said that he had received numerous requests for medical help via email from various parts of the world, but that this was the first time one had come from Iran.
“For me as a doctor, caring for patients is not dependent on nationality, gender or religion. We are morally bound to give proper treatment and advice to whoever needs it. From my side, of course all of my correspondence with the Iranian physician mentioned ‘The State of Israel’ under my full name, but she was not dissuaded by this fact,” he said.
Nov 15, 2011
If Not For Ahmadinejad...If Not For The Ayatollahs
I'd like to say if not for Ahmadinejad, we might be ok with the Iranian people, and them with us. Unfortunately the hostility has been around for longer than Ahmadinejad has.. Maybe "if not for the Ayatollahs..." is more accurate.
JPost has the story of a doctor in Iran who has a patient with a rare genetic condition during pregnancy and needed an immediate consult on the matter. She had read an article in a medical journal written by a Israeli doctor on this exact condition, and she decided to contact him. Despite her being an iranian in iran, and he being an Israeli in Israel, she sent him an email:
This is a very important point.
ReplyDeleteSeveral months ago I saw a vignette in Mishpacha magazine about a Jewish doctor in Germany who refused to treat a patient who was a neo-Nazi. I was quite upset.
I am not a judge, jury or executioner. My job is to fix the patient to the best of my ability or get them to someone who can. Politics should never, ever enter the situation. Good for both of these doctors.
I'm sorry but I don't see what is newsworthy about this. Every day, thousands of us - if not more - are in contact with the "enemies", be it from hostile arab countries, Iran, or whereever. I personally have contacts from throughout the arab world with whom I communicate on a regular basis. This is the 21st century and we are living in a hi-tec world
ReplyDeleteShalom, what's newsworthy isn't that hi-tech made this possible, it's that the two doctors, from countries who are mortal enemies, were able to put their religious differences aside for the well-being of the patient.
ReplyDeleteBut there's a crucial difference between this story and Garnel's from Mishpacha. In our story, Dr. Weissbuch knows nothing about the
Iranian doctor or her patient. The enemy in Iran is the regime, not the people.
Garnel is right about politics not entering the situation. A Republican doctor should still treat a patient who's a Democrat, or vice versa.
But the doctor with the neo-Nazi patient - I see that differently.
That's not Democrat vs. Republican, it's not even "citizen from Israel vs. citizen of Iran."
This is an INDIVIDUAL - who would like to beat you and all your People worldwide until you're three-quarters dead, steal your house, your businiess, and all your property, stuff you like a sardine into a cattle car, standing in darkness for 4 days and make you drink your own excrement, shoot your wife and rip your baby's body in half in front of your eyes, strip you naked, starve you for a few weeks while you do hard labor in the snow, and then throw you into an oven and laugh while he watches your ashes fly skyward.
(I apologize for being so graphic. It was intentional because if you just say Neo-Nazi, one may not get the full meaning behind that. I did it to get your juices flowing. Garnel calls that politics? That ain't just politics, that's personal. NOW how would you feel about treating this patient?)
Now you may say that even STILL, the doctor should put his feelings aside and do the best for his patient. I might agree (maybe) if the doctor had already started treating this patient when this information came to light, that he should just hold his nose, finish the job and get it over with. But if this doctor hadn't even started yet, why should he lechatchila have to treat this patient? Let another doctor do it. In fact, I think that would be the responsible thing to do. It all depends how he said it. If he says, "I refuse to treat this patient, let him die and go to hell," well it's one thing to think it, it's another to say it. But how about if he says, "I'm afraid that with the specific knowledge I have about this particular patient, that my feelings would get in the way of my providing him the best care, and so I request that another doctor be assigned to this patient." How does that sound?
As for this post, kudos to the two doctors in Isral and Iran. Not the same as Garnel's example.
>Politics should never, ever enter the situation.<
ReplyDeleteSince when is supporting the killing of Jews, "politics"?