[LAWS]Female Dentists With Non Marham Patients

[Syed.Dynasty]

Can someone let me know the ruling on if it is permissable for a women to practice dentistry or other medical jobs on non marham patients? If there is any can u support it with quotations plz? I have looked everywhere can't find anything about it.

[Orion]

^^ Dentists wear gloves and mouth is not a private part.

So what is the issue?

[Replicant]

Here's some stuff according to Ayatollah Sistani:

Q162: Some students in the physical medical science study physiotherapy which requires touching the body of a female patient and handling her (body), to the extent required by the illness. Were the student to refuse to do that, he would fail the examination. Is it permissible to study this science and specialize in it?

A: This is permissible for the student if he knows or is confident that his specialization in this (field) is something upon which the preservation of some honored lives depends, even if it be in the future. His practice of physiotherapy should be in such a way that it does not lead to any sexual excitement. (FM, pp. 425-26)

Q163: In a medical college, it is necessary for the student to examine a non-mahram woman and man, and it might happen that he examines their genital organs or the anus. Is this kind of examination permissible for the student of medicine? Is it permissible for a graduate doctor to do this sort of examination if the preservation of some honored lives depends on it, even if it be in the future?

A: Yes, this is permissible for both the medical student and the doctor if the preservation of some honored lives depends on it, even if it be in the future. (FM, p. 426)

Q164: You have mentioned in your practical treatise (al-risalah al-ëamaliyyah) something which can be summarized thus ó it is not permissible for a man to look at the private parts of a woman and vice-versa, even for treatment, except when unavoidable. Is it adequate to consider it a necessity for a person in a position of practice, e.g. a medical student?

A: It is inadequate unless removing a great harm from a Muslim depends on it (the practice), even if it be in the future. (MMS, pp. 29-30, Q59a)

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/2/inside/51.htm

Question: The medical profession demands that the doctor checks his female patients carefully; and since getting undressed for medical check up is common in some European countries, is it permissible to engage in medical practice here in such circumstances?

Answer: It is permissible, if one refrains from forbidden looking and touching, except where the check up of the patient requires them.

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/5/inside/43.htm

As a component of their curriculum, physiotherapy students train in massage. This may entail applying massaging techniques to the body of a woman patient. If the students decline to carry out what they are required to do because of their course of study, they may fail the exam. Can they still enrol in such a course at the outset, and can those who are already doing it carry on with it?

- It is permissible on the account of the students’ knowing that the field of specialist knowledge they have embarked on shall benefit some respected souls, albeit on a future date. Let, therefore, their practice of massaging techniques be free from any sexual innuendoes.

* As a part of their training, medical students are required to examine women not related to them. Such examination could include the private parts of the patients, be they women or men. Can they carry out these examinations during their years of study and after their graduation?

- Yes, it is permissible for medical students and physicians to carry out such examinations, provided that preservation of the respected human life is at stake, even if it be in the future.

* Among the nurse’s job are duties such as taking the patient’s pulse and dressing of wounds. Both may require direct touch,

1. Can a man patient refuse a female nurse feeling his body?

- He can ask for a male nurse to do the job, or ask the female nurse to wear gloves?

2. In certain circumstances, the medical case calls for direct contact with the body and a male nurse is not available. For this, or any other valid reason, is it all right?

- As suggested by the question, direct touch can be tolerated, provided it is restricted to the immediate part or area of the body that needs the attention

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/4/inside/33.htm

Question: A Muslim woman nurse visits patients; part of her work involves touching the body of men, Muslims as well as non-Muslims. Is this permissible for her, knowing that leaving her job would make it hard for her to find work? And is there a difference between touching the body of a Muslim and that of a non-Muslim?

Answer: It is not permissible for a woman to touch the body of non-mahram man, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, except when it is necessary, in which case the prohibition is overridden.

http://www.najaf.org/english/book/5/inside/49.htm

[gogiison2]

Some of those rulings I find quite shocking.

Another option: you can work in a mixed workplace, and maybe request that you only assist female clients. If you don't ask, you may never know. Try it!

[xstatik2]

Women go to women doctors and males go to male doctors.... SIMPLE !!

[Syed.Dynasty]

thanks replicant for the quotes

[satyaban]

Can someone let me know the ruling on if it is permissable for a women to practice dentistry or other medical jobs on non marham patients? If there is any can u support it with quotations plz? I have looked everywhere can't find anything about it.

I am not blaming you but that it is an issue is totally absurd!

[Basra]

I am not blaming you but that it is an issue is totally absurd!

We believe that two people of the opposite sex should not be alone in close quarters together as we are told Shaytan (Satan) is the third with them and will try to tempt them to do evil sexual actions outside of marriage.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Basra

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

Some of those rulings I find quite shocking.

Why? They seem quite reasonable.

[gogiison2]

Why? They seem quite reasonable.

They seem a little too liberal.

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

If it's halal, we don't need to make it harder on ourselves by imposing further restrictions on ourselves that aren't even Islamic.

[kadhim]

They seem a little too liberal.

Yeah, reality has an unfortunate liberal bias sometimes in terms of what actually works/is sensible in practice.

[gogiison2]

If it's halal, we don't need to make it harder on ourselves by imposing further restrictions on ourselves that aren't even Islamic.

Just because a scholar says it is halaal, does not guarantee that it is. How is it making it harder on yourself?

Yeah, reality has an unfortunate liberal bias sometimes in terms of what actually works/is sensible in practice.

Sensible to the liberals? Sure, it's where practically anything is legitimate as long as it brings in cash.

Edited September 2, 2011 by gogiison2

[kadhim]

I mean practical/impractical in terms of "Why yes, miss, it does appear that your childbirth is going into emergency territory, and it does appear that you're hemmorhaging. Unfortunately, I'm a man, and to help you, I'd have to see your girlie bits, and avoiding temptation obviously takes complete priority over every other consideration whatsoever. If you can just hold on until a female doctor comes along, hopefully she can save you. "

Edited September 2, 2011 by kadhim

[gogiison2]

I mean practical/impractical in terms of "Why yes, miss, it does appear that your childbirth is going into emergency territory, and it does appear that you're hemmorhaging. Unfortunately, I'm a man, and to help you, I'd have to see your girlie bits, and avoiding temptation obviously takes complete priority over every other consideration whatsoever. If you can just hold on until a female doctor comes along, hopefully she can save you. "

In emergency situations, pretty much anything goes. This does not mean that a scholar should be liberal and allow pork at all times. Big difference.

[kadhim]

In emergency situations, pretty much anything goes. This does not mean that a scholar should be liberal and allow pork at all times. Big difference.

Good luck learning how to deliver a baby or how to medically treat female parts without hands on practice. There's only so much you learn from books and even medical simulation.

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

Kadhim-- good post.

Just because a scholar says it is halaal, does not guarantee that it is. How is it making it harder on yourself?

Sensible to the liberals? Sure, it's where practically anything is legitimate as long as it brings in cash.

I'm not arguing whether or not it is halal. Per the posted rulings, it's halal. I'm saying that even when knowing that some things are halal, sometimes Muslims take it too far and make their own lives difficult by imposing extra laws that aren't stated in Islam, and are therefore not really adding anything. If these rulings say that it's okay, then why go an extra step and ask to see only patients of one gender?

But, in terms of whether it is halal or not-- we are given scholars for a reason, and if we follow them in good faith, and they make rulings to the best of their abilities, then we will not be faulted for following that ruling. Hope this makes sense.

Who says it's about cash? This thread is about saving lives-- it's about healthcare, not money and payment.

Edited September 2, 2011 by BabyBeaverIsAKit

[gogiison2]

Good luck learning how to deliver a baby or how to medically treat female parts without hands on practice. There's only so much you learn from books and even medical simulation.

We have midwives for that purpose. Taking it back to the Sunnah days.

I'm not arguing whether or not it is halal. Per the posted rulings, it's halal. I'm saying that even when knowing that some things are halal, sometimes Muslims take it too far and make their own lives difficult by imposing extra laws that aren't stated in Islam, and are therefore not really adding anything. If these rulings say that it's okay, then why go an extra step and ask to see only patients of one gender?

But, in terms of whether it is halal or not-- we are given scholars for a reason, and if we follow them in good faith, and they make rulings to the best of their abilities, then we will not be faulted for following that ruling. Hope this makes sense.

Who says it's about cash? This thread is about saving lives-- it's about healthcare, not money and payment.

-The main point I am trying to make is that the scholar may be wrong in his judgement concerning this issue. I am just providing an alternative outlook.

-Following them in good faith? Without any knowledge, we will always be 'following in good faith.' Is that an excuse to be sheepish and not use our brain?

-Saving lives and dentistry? Hmm. Is that why they say they are sky high in suicide rates?

[Flowers91]

there is no issue. just like a male doctor can examine a female, and vice versa

i mean. come on, why do people not trust eachtoher in the presence of a male or a female - surely you can compose yourself and not be so tempted to do things behind closed doors. have some faith in yourselves???

the devil isn't gonna magically appear and make you do things

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

We have midwives for that purpose. Taking it back to the Sunnah days.

What?? In emergency situations, there won't be a midwife conveniently located nearby. That's the nature of an emergency situation. There may not be a doctor nearby, either, but if we teach as many medical professionals this skill, whether males or females, the chances of a trained professional being in close proximity will increase (rather than restricting the knowledge to half of the population). Also, the infant mortality rate was a lot higher in those days; even midwives today (and in the past) aren't equipped with all of the knowledge and skills to take care of complicated medical labors and deliveries as are full-fledged physicians. In hospitals, midwives do a lot of deliveries, but doctors (males and females) tend to take on the more complicated ones.

-The main point I am trying to make is that the scholar may be wrong in his judgement concerning this issue. I am just providing an alternative outlook.

-Following them in good faith? Without any knowledge, we will always be 'following in good faith.' Is that an excuse to be sheepish and not use our brain?

I'm not advocating abandoning the use of our brains. In fact, I'm saying to use it. It doesn't make sense, logically, to impose further restrictions when the risks will end up being greater than the benefits. It's like saying, "I've been starving for days, but I won't have this pork, just in case the marjas were wrong about us being allowed to eat pork in emergency situations" --> that's imposing further restrictions, and that's basically what you're doing here.

-Saving lives and dentistry? Hmm. Is that why they say they are sky high in suicide rates?

"Saving lives" is in reference to healthcare in general. Dentists definitely can help save lives-- ex. catching oral cancer in its early stages. Also, they definitely do perform vital functions in improving the quality of life.

[gogiison2]

What?? In emergency situations, there won't be a midwife conveniently located nearby. That's the nature of an emergency situation. There may not be a doctor nearby, either, but if we teach as many medical professionals this skill, whether males or females, the chances of a trained professional being in close proximity will increase (rather than restricting the knowledge to half of the population). Also, the infant mortality rate was a lot higher in those days; even midwives today (and in the past) aren't equipped with all of the knowledge and skills to take care of complicated medical labors and deliveries as are full-fledged physicians. In hospitals, midwives do a lot of deliveries, but doctors (males and females) tend to take on the more complicated ones.

I'm not advocating abandoning the use of our brains. In fact, I'm saying to use it. It doesn't make sense, logically, to impose further restrictions when the risks will end up being greater than the benefits. It's like saying, "I've been starving for days, but I won't have this pork, just in case the marjas were wrong about us being allowed to eat pork in emergency situations" --> that's imposing further restrictions, and that's basically what you're doing here.

"Saving lives" is in reference to healthcare in general. Dentists definitely can help save lives-- ex. catching oral cancer in its early stages. Also, they definitely do perform vital functions in improving the quality of life.

Sure, teach the female obstetricians these skills, and problem solved. And yes, for emergencies, any doctor would be considered a good idea. I agree.

Let me give you an example of how this works: if our car needs an oil change, we don't change the whole engine. I would advise trying the natural way, and having a plan B just in case something potentially dangerous occurs. Medical doctors are not bad people, generally. It's just many are ignorant of the natural, proven ways. Why? Because they aren't taught this stuff in school. Ask Dr. Weil. He studied the conventional way, just like you are doing. He admits that his colleagues have no idea about nutrition (kind of the same impression I got after speaking to you, a week or so ago). As they say: if you go to a carpenter, he'd want to use his hammer; if you go to a Islamic scholar, he'd want to use Quran and ahadeeth; if you go to a medical doctor, he'd want to use concocted drugs; if you go to a surgeon, he'd want to use his scalpel. I think you get the idea.

As for cancer, it's said to be a symptom, rather than the root cause. So, to take out a tooth, or any other oral surgery because or oral cancer, is akin to taking out the bulb when your Check Engine light comes on. It does not address the issue at hand, it simply masks it. Hence why many cancers always come back. This is where mainstream medical doctors become futile in many cases. They often do not have a clue on how to get the body back to homeostasis.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/06/17/the-midwife-a-steadily-growing-and-natural-childbirth-option.aspx

Edited September 3, 2011 by gogiison2

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

Sure, teach the female obstetricians these skills, and problem solved. And yes, for emergencies, any doctor would be considered a good idea. I agree.

That's contradictory. Teach only female obstetricians those skills, but than other doctors will magically know how to deliver in case of emergencies without ever having trained in it? ALL doctors need to know this information. The more people that possess this knowledge, the higher chance that there will be someone trained nearby in an emergency situation.

Let me give you an example of how this works: if our car needs an oil change, we don't change the whole engine. I would advise trying the natural way, and having a plan B just in case something potentially dangerous occurs. Medical doctors are not bad people, generally. It's just many are ignorant of the natural, proven ways. Why? Because they aren't taught this stuff in school. Ask Dr. Weil. He studied the conventional way, just like you are doing. He admits that his colleagues have no idea about nutrition (kind of the same impression I got after speaking to you, a week or so ago). As they say: if you go to a carpenter, he'd want to use his hammer; if you go to a Islamic scholar, he'd want to use Quran and ahadeeth; if you go to a medical doctor, he'd want to use concocted drugs; if you go to a surgeon, he'd want to use his scalpel. I think you get the idea.

I shouldn't even be responding to this, since this is waaaaaaay off topic and I know you are looking for any excuse to spew your voodoo, but taking personal jabs at me will not do, so here goes:

You're saying to get to the root of the problem, I understand that. But when you don't know the root of the problem, and you don't have fifty years to wait until this knowledge is discovered by someone, you put a bandaid on the problem.

I have plenty of knowledge about nutrition, who are you to judge me? I told you exactly what conventional medicine teaches. It teaches that for the average patient with no special circumstances, he/she don't need a multivitamin if he/she has a balanced diet. Patients can take vitamins if there is no contraindication, but there is such a thing as toxicity, so to avoid all of that, the best way is to really eat a balanced diet.

I've got news for you: if your vodoo really worked, a lot more people would be flocking to them right now. No one has figured out how to cure every type of cancer (and cancers are very diverse, DO NOT make the ignorant mistake of lumping all of them under one category). And as for oral surgery, there are other parts of the mouth tbat are involved in cancer, not just the teeth, ex. the squamous skin cells. At least with allopathic medicine, SOME cancers are curable.

Edited September 4, 2011 by BabyBeaverIsAKit

[gogiison2]

That's contradictory. Teach only female obstetricians those skills, but than other doctors will magically know how to deliver in case of emergencies without ever having trained in it? ALL doctors need to know this information. The more people that possess this knowledge, the higher chance that there will be someone trained nearby in an emergency situation.

I shouldn't even be responding to this, since this is waaaaaaay off topic and I know you are looking for any excuse to spew your voodoo, but taking personal jabs at me will not do, so here goes:

You're saying to get to the root of the problem, I understand that. But when you don't know the root of the problem, and you don't have fifty years to wait until this knowledge is discovered by someone, you put a bandaid on the problem.

I have plenty of knowledge about nutrition, who are you to judge me? I told you exactly what conventional medicine teaches. It teaches that for the average patient with no special circumstances, he/she don't need a multivitamin if he/she has a balanced diet. Patients can take vitamins if there is no contraindication, but there is such a thing as toxicity, so to avoid all of that, the best way is to really eat a balanced diet.

I've got news for you: if your vodoo really worked, a lot more people would be flocking to them right now. No one has figured out how to cure every type of cancer (and cancers are very diverse, DO NOT make the ignorant mistake of lumping all of them under one category). And as for oral surgery, there are other parts of the mouth tbat are involved in cancer, not just the teeth, ex. the squamous skin cells. At least with allopathic medicine, SOME cancers are curable.

Okay, I am not going to trade shots with you because it is evident that you are very ignorant of how the body works. You go follow the Rockefeller way of medicine, while I follow the way our ancestors have done all this time. There is a reason why cancer rates are increasing. It's too bad you reject the more natural ways. As I often say, it's the conflict of interest that you are dealing with. You may be too deep to get out now. I feel for you, but not that much.

Also, Babybeaverisakit, sales of organic foods are on the rise. People are more health-conscious these days because they are understanding the corruptions of the big corporate pharmaceutical companies. Slowly but surely, people are waking up to what is really going on with your charlatan teachers (doctors).

Edited September 4, 2011 by gogiison2

[kadhim]

BabyBeaver, I wouldn't bother. I mean, this guy subscribes to a branch of "medicine" in which a "medicine" solution is something so dilute that 9 times out of ten it wouldn't contain even 1 molecule of the original substance. I think for such a person, reason went off the table a long time ago. You're dealing entirely in the faith based sphere in such a case. Modern witchdoctoring.

Edited September 4, 2011 by kadhim

[gogiison2]

BabyBeaver, I wouldn't bother. I mean, this guy subscribes to a branch of "medicine" in which a "medicine" solution so diilute that 9 times out of ten it wouldn't contain even 1 molecule of the original substance. I think for such a person, reason went off the table a long time ago. You're dealing entirely in the faith based sphere in such a case. Modern witchdoctoring.

Kadhim, you have continually proved ignorant all across the board, on various topics, Islamic and others. We all know your level of intellect. That's not an attack, it's just that we know that you like to speak without thinking.

The queen of England's personal doctor actually promotes homeopathy. How's that for 'witchdoctoring'?

------

Honestly brother, it wouldn't shock me if no one on this board takes you seriously. You'll need to study harder to get up on me, alhamdulillah.

Edited September 4, 2011 by gogiison2

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

BabyBeaver, I wouldn't bother. I mean, this guy subscribes to a branch of "medicine" in which a "medicine" solution is something so dilute that 9 times out of ten it wouldn't contain even 1 molecule of the original substance. I think for such a person, reason went off the table a long time ago. You're dealing entirely in the faith based sphere in such a case. Modern witchdoctoring.

I won't anymore-- it's hard to argue against someone who doesn't adhere to the laws of logic. There's a reason modern medicine is accepted worldwide. I do pray that Allah blesses him with proper knowledge with regards to medicine, and I do pray that others don't fall prey to his poisonous form of ignorance.

To everyone: I will offer assistance to anyone who desires it. If you want proper information regarding the allopathic medicine stance about a particular topic, I will be happy to help find you the proper channels and sources, so PM me.

Edited September 4, 2011 by BabyBeaverIsAKit

[ImAli]

there is no issue. just like a male doctor can examine a female, and vice versa

i mean. come on, why do people not trust eachtoher in the presence of a male or a female - surely you can compose yourself and not be so tempted to do things behind closed doors. have some faith in yourselves???

the devil isn't gonna magically appear and make you do things

Just thank god some of these people on here aren't in charge of health care standards.

[kadhim]

Kadhim, you have continually proved ignorant all across the board, on various topics, Islamic and others. We all know your level of intellect. That's not an attack, it's just that we know that you like to speak without thinking.

The queen of England's personal doctor actually promotes homeopathy. How's that for 'witchdoctoring'?

------

Honestly brother, it wouldn't shock me if no one on this board takes you seriously. You'll need to study harder to get up on me, alhamdulillah.

LOL. Well, it doesn't really take a lot of thought to see that it's a load of hogwash. The "medicines" of homeopathy don't contain any medicine. This is not a hidden matter - it's out in the open. Homepathic remedies consist of distilled water. Highly, highly overpriced distilled water. Nice business if you can get it, I guess. Actually, in a way, a brilliant one up on the classic snake oil salesman. If this newer version of the scam, they even cut out the snake oil!

Current mainstream medicine could certainly use some improvement - a holistic broader perspective would certainly help. But it is a huge logical fallacy to go from this to concluding that the quack placebo medicine of homeopathy has any value.

[BabyBeaverIsAKit]

^LOL

[gogiison2]

I won't anymore-- it's hard to argue against someone who doesn't adhere to the laws of logic. There's a reason modern medicine is accepted worldwide. I do pray that Allah blesses him with proper knowledge with regards to medicine, and I do pray that others don't fall prey to his poisonous form of ignorance.

To everyone: I will offer assistance to anyone who desires it. If you want proper information regarding the allopathic medicine stance about a particular topic, I will be happy to help find you the proper channels and sources, so PM me.

Hey guys, ask her whatever concocted unnatural drugs you need to cover your symptoms. Forget about fixing the problem. We live in an age of masking and not correcting the issues at hand. Haha. Good luck! I think I understand why they say conventional doctors have the highest suicide rates, and that they average 55 yrs of life. You be a good saleswoman for Rockefeller, okay!

Edited September 5, 2011 by gogiison2

[kadhim]

Hey guys, ask her whatever concocted unnatural drugs you need to cover your symptoms. Forget about fixing the problem. We live in an age of masking and not correcting the issues at hand. Haha. Good luck! I think I understand why they say conventional doctors have the highest suicide rates, and that they average 55 yrs of life. You be a good saleswoman for Rockefeller, okay!

You're still with the same logical fallacy that attacking one thing will make your perspective right. How is drinking expensive distilled water going to fix underlying problems? Answer the question.

[OneNoteSong]

Hey guys, ask her whatever concocted unnatural drugs you need to cover your symptoms. Forget about fixing the problem. We live in an age of masking and not correcting the issues at hand. Haha. Good luck! I think I understand why they say conventional doctors have the highest suicide rates, and that they average 55 yrs of life. You be a good saleswoman for Rockefeller, okay!

Lol where did you get this average life span of docs? Please cite your sources, especially since this is a very ridiculous number. There is a huge emphasis on fixing the problem and prevention in modern medicine. Now tell me, how do you guys cure cancer better than modern medicine docs?

[gogiison2]

You're still with the same logical fallacy that attacking one thing will make your perspective right. How is drinking expensive distilled water going to fix underlying problems? Answer the question.

Homeopathy worked for my minor asthma symptoms. I used to use an inhaler till I found a more natural, safer method. Now, by the grace of Allah, my lungs are way stronger. All in all, I could argue with you, back and forth, but this is tried and true. I have been there, done that. Results speak!

You don't seem to understand how homeopathy works. If one were to explain quantum physics to you, you'd probably say the same ridiculous things. Check this article to see how it works:https://www.homeopat...dvocates_O.html

Lol where did you get this average life span of docs? Please cite your sources, especially since this is a very ridiculous number. There is a huge emphasis on fixing the problem and prevention in modern medicine. Now tell me, how do you guys cure cancer better than modern medicine docs?

It's clear you know nothing about how modern 'medicine' works. Big pharma does NOT want a cure, else they'd be broke. And Babybeaverisakit would be unemployed, and would have wasted countless years of studying quackery rendered useless. So, they attempt to cover up natural ways that do bring the body back to homeostasis.

I know people in the military (non-Muslim) that I can get information from. Freemasons. I know things that you may not be aware of. Consider it a good service I share this with you. I may not post this for long.

Edited September 5, 2011 by gogiison2

[OneNoteSong]

You didn't answer my question, you just made up a couple of conspiracy theories.

Edited September 5, 2011 by OneNoteSong

[gogiison2]

You didn't answer my question, you just made up a conspiracy theory.

I think I'll resume this thread when I see more positive remarks. It's all love.

Edited September 5, 2011 by gogiison2