WHEN IS A DOCTOR NOT A DOCTOR? WHEN HE OR SHE IS A TERRORIST
Many news stories are gold mines of material for standup comedians. Witness today's headlines:
{paraphrase} Mastermind of the failed terrorist car bomb attack is a "brilliant neurologist."
Brilliant indeed! "Brilliant is defined as:" distinguished by unusual mental keeness or alertness."
Translated this means the guy must have achieved very high scores on his entrance exams to
medical school. However mentally astute at the same time he is clearly not distinguished by his
compassion, decency, and genuine caring for individuals.
What makes something laughable is the incongruity between what is reasonably expected versus what actually occurs. Case in point: A man named Charlie walks along a road, slips on a banana peel, while the many who witness his surprise falling spontaneously break up with peels of laughter.
Thus my first reaction to the identification of not one but three accused terrorists identified as Doctors is to scratch my head and smile in disbelief. You gotta be kidding. What is this world coming to? You must know what I mean. But my second reaction is one of serious sobriety. What in fact is this world coming to?
Little kids, pregnant women, brilliant doctors trained and apparently quite willing to suicide by putting themselves in harms way blowing themselves up for what must be in their minds a noble cause. Huh?
But this noble cause loses its nobility when they make anyone - I mean anyone - including you and me - us - random fair targets for unspeakable attack and hideous destruction. If this was filmed I am certain most people would leave the movie thinking it was a "bomb" - totally contrived and absurd. But no it is apparently hard nosed nitty gritty facts.
As a psychologist I am motivated to understand the psychodynamics that lead to this perversion of purpose and dedication. How is it that people - who ever they are and from wherever they hail - so twist the hypocratic oath into the hypocritical oath?
There is a diagnosis called dissociated personality type characterized by a person splitting their experience {defined as ideas and feelings} into one or the other. Those characterized by brilliance but clearly sadistic are often found to be "suffering" with a dissociated personality. Such a consciousness employs the defense mechanism referred to as isolation of affect. It is as if they live their lives as a black and white movie. They are unaware that they are missing colors. Thinking is their God - feelings are for the masses and the inferior. Life for them is an elaborate chess game. There are either clear winners or clear losers. Winning is everything and one is jusfified to use any and every means to achieve their objective.
Such people are perfect for making abstractions their ideal absolute standards. They are obsessed with restoring perfect order and justice. They no nothing of complexity, and mercy.
These people are difficult to treat as they truly believe that nothing is wrong with them. Indeed ,from their perspective, what is wrong is any and everyone who reject their absolute causeas anything less than absolute right.
Terror is their key weapon which operates on the principle that anxiety is contagious and often psychologically paralyzing. The antidote is learning to bear the disorienting affects of panic, holding firm to what what one values, keeping resolute, aware, and courageous - standing up to the bullies before they have a chance to strike. Exposing them as mystifiers who spread an evil and totally cynical message. They are defined by adopting a scortched earth policy destroying all differences along their paths - constructing nothing of value as they move from one bombing campaign to another. Doctors indeed!
Jefferson perhaps said it best: With respect to democracy we must all exercise eternal vigilance.
recommend
Facebook
Twitter
bookmark 
print
Comments: 30
Religion is a form of insanity. The more devoutly one believes in his faith, the more likely he is to rationalize and justify what he would normally define as insane destructive behavior. Get rid of religion and such behavior will largely disappear.
Spirituality seeks to recognise each and all as inter-related, is interested in the whole rather than the part. Seeks peace always.
Religions have specific agendas and see collateral damage as the lesser of the evils they seek to change ... in other words, to them, the end justifies the means. A doctor type killing for his religion sees himself as serving the greater good ... IMnsHO.
We in the UK have a fast track immigration entry system for those in the medical field - looks like the checks weren't stringent enough.
Whatever happened to 'Do no harm'?
I think the fact that one of the Glasgow Airport bombers who set himself alight was chanting Allah Akbar, speaking Arabic and working in a Scottish hospital is enough to say that at least ONE doctors was actively involved, don't you?
I am not a spiritual person, but many of my friends are. The way I see it, spirituality (or lack of it) is a way of looking at life, and is inherently neither good nor bad.
It's organized religions, their institutionalized brainwashing and teaching of intolerance that are the cause of much of conflict in the world. Religions don't teach intolerance, you say? Name a religion that doesn't teach that THEIRS is the only right one, and anyone who doesn't follow their teachings is headed for Hell in a handbasket. (What the Hell is a handbasket,anyway?)
"The problem can be encapsulated in one word...religion"
"Religion is a form of insanity."
"Religions don't teach intolerance, you say? Name a religion that doesn't teach that THEIRS is the only right one"
While you on the other hand are different, and figure you have it wrong?
It is generally estimated that about four or five percent of Americans have this disorder. Do you have any actual data on a link of some kind to either it's origins in religion, or the effect, negative or positive, on the tendency for violent behaviour resulting from affiliation to religion ?
This really looks like a rather unsubstantiated theory you propose. Are you sure you're not being a bit "creative" here ?
John,
Not sure what you are trying to say, but I will assume you are saying that I am intolerant of religions. To the extent that they disrupt society, I guess I am. I am also intolerant of murder, racism...and hypocrisy. Guilty as charged.
Read the quotes from Hamas, Al Qaeda or Hezbollah members...or any one of a number of terrorist organizations worldwide. They make it very clear that the basis for their actions is religious.
"The Islamic Resistance Movement draws its guidelines from Islam; derives from it its thinking, interpretations and views about existence, life and humanity; refers back to it for its conduct; and is inspired by it in whatever step it takes." (Hamas Charter 1988, Article I)
"The Islamic Resistance Movement is a distinct Palestinian Movement which owes its loyalty to Allah, derives from Islam its way of life and strives to raise the banner of Allah over every inch of Palestine. Only under the shadow of Islam could the members of all regions coexist in safety and security for their lives, properties and rights. In the absence of Islam, conflict arises, oppression reigns, corruption is rampant and struggles and wars prevail." (Hamas Charter 1988, Article 6)
"Allah is its goal, the Prophet its model, the Qur'an its Constitution, Jihad its path and death for the case of Allah its most sublime belief." (The Slogan of Hamas, Hamas Charter 1988, Article 7)
"Not sure what you are trying to say"
I'm trying to say that your reasoning is incredibly flawed.
" "Religions don't teach intolerance, you say? Name a religion that doesn't teach that THEIRS is the only right one"
Well that's not really too hard to understand is it ? Don't you feel YOUR view on these matters is the only right one ? Isn't that pretty much how the human mind works ? Why on earth would someone be a member of a religion, or be an atheist, or agnostic, or anything else, if they didn't feel it was the truly best position ?
You go so far in your rigid beliefs as to say religion is insanity, while I know of no religion that calls those outside it insane.
Ask any believing Muslim what he thinks of 'infidels.' The Koran is pretty specific about what should be done with them. The Bible too suggests some rather violent measures to be taken against non-believers. Apostasy is a death sentence in Islam. Don't you call such beliefs insane?
I have no desire to become involved in a debate about the details of your rationales for justifying a conclusion founded upon something so irrational as you have already proposed. Your insistence that those involved in religion ought to abandon sanity itself, and hold that what they believe to be true, is false, so as to avoid being intolerant, simply removes you from the realms of what I consider meaningful discussion.
Surely, if you have heaped up more subtle conclusions on such a patently illogical foundation, they cannot be seen as free from bias, or as penetrating insights into something as complex and delicate as mankind's quest for liberation from his egocentric tendencies. If you can't perceive the beam in your eye, I hardly think you can see well enough to be picking at the splinters in others hands.
I'll give you one example of what I consider insane behavior brought about by common religious belief: This is a quote from Robert Pirsig's book "Lila."
Now I am not Catholic (obviously) but if you asked a hundred Catholics if they really believed the wafer was physically part of Jesus Christ's body, a fair percentage of them would say no. But the ones who were the most devout would say yes.
And that is why I said in my initial statement in this thread:
Or how about this?
LINK
Original, translated from Greek.
" I swear by Apollo, Asclepius, Hygieia, and Panacea, and I take to witness all the gods, all the goddesses, to keep according to my ability and my judgment, the following Oath.
To consider dear to me, as my parents, him who taught me this art; to live in common with him and, if necessary, to share my goods with him; To look upon his children as my own brothers, to teach them this art I will prescribe regimens for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and never do harm to anyone.
To please no one will I prescribe a deadly drug nor give advice which may cause his death...In every house where I come I will enter only for the good of my patients, keeping myself far from all intentional ill-doing and all seduction and especially from the pleasures of love with women or with men, be they free or slaves.
All that may come to my knowledge in the exercise of my profession or in daily commerce with men, which ought not to be spread abroad, I will keep secret and will never reveal.
If I keep this oath faithfully, may I enjoy my life and practice my art, respected by all men and in all times; but if I swerve from it or violate it, may the reverse be my lot."
(source: Wikipedia)
From these excerpts, it is clear that doctors are expected to work for the good of their patients and do no harm to anyone. Do most of them abide by these principals? I believe the answer is yes. But do all of them? No. Why? I don't know. I do believe that the doctor or doctors who were involved in the "failed terrorist car bomb attack" Gibbs refers to in his article, were influenced by the tenets of their religion, in particular by Jihad (something on which I do not profess to be an expert by any means). Were they influenced by other people, other thoughts, other beliefs? I don't know, but probably. Do the acts of terrorist, like suicide bombings horrify me? Most definitely. Because doctors carried out this failed bombing, do I blame all doctors? No. Because these doctors and those who helped to plan and carry out this terrorist plot were followers of a particular religion, at least one known to be Islamic, do I blame everyone from that religion? No. I hold accountable those who planned and plotted and carried out these terrorist acts and all the terrorists who supported them. Do I blame an entire religion? I don't know. The concept of Jihad terrifiies and angers me. For me the idea of "killing in the name of God" makes absolutely no sense. For me, given my background and my current perspective of God, invoking God to justify killing is utterly and only criminal. That is how I feel and that is how many others feel. But it is not how the terrorists feel. And therein lies our dilemma. How do we have a civil, open discussion with a group of people who believe absolutely that all those who do not believe as they do should and must be eliminated? We don't. So how do we deal with the terrorists? How do we put a stop to them and the crimes against God and humanity they commit time and time again? Is there something in their agenda beyond killing all nonbelievers and taking over the world that would give us a way to talk to them, to negotiate with them, or is the only solution what many people have espoused to me in recent years, by killing them all before they kill us all? Maybe there is someone out there who has a viable answer, because I sure don't.
If we in our microcosm of the world here at Gather can't even discuss things without attacking each other and our differences in perspectives, how on Earth can we expect that we have any chance of eradicating terrorism?