Melbourne doctor who called for women to be raped stood down during investigation

Graham2001

Graduate Poster
Graham2001
Joined
Aug 19, 2006
Messages
1,771
Glad to hear this guy got what he deserved...



The health district responsible for the hospital which employs an emergency doctor who said “some women deserve to be raped” has ordered the doctor be stood down while they investigate.

Earlier in April Dr Christopher Kwan Chen Lee was suspended by the Tasmanian health practitioners tribunal for six weeks after he admitted to posting a series of sexist and racist remarks online. While Lee previously worked in Tasmania, in 2018 he began work at Box Hill hospital in Victoria as an emergency doctor, and the suspension bars him from working anywhere in Australia.
Click to expand...


https://www.theguardian.com/austral...n-to-be-raped-stood-down-during-investigation
 
theprestige said:
How do they know he's the one who made the posts?
Click to expand...

That's always problematic for me. When someone is speaking their minds anonymously, they are not abusing their position. As long as his responsibilities are conducted professionally, I don't care much about his personal feelings.
 
Thermal said:
That's always problematic for me. When someone is speaking their minds anonymously, they are not abusing their position. As long as his responsibilities are conducted professionally, I don't care much about his personal feelings.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree with this, it doesn't matter if someone is an ******* if they are a professional. On the other hand, its hard to imagine this kind of thing didn't effect his work.
 
Thermal said:
That's always problematic for me. When someone is speaking their minds anonymously, they are not abusing their position. As long as his responsibilities are conducted professionally, I don't care much about his personal feelings.
Click to expand...

A tricky question. Let us assume that comments made on-line reflect one's true beliefs (or at minimum a willingness to make outrageous statements on sensitive topics that would be very disturbing in meat space). Personally, being Jewish, I would not want to have as a doctor someone who repeatedly posted on-line that all Jews are vermin and should be killed in gas chambers, whatever their known outward "professional behavior" to date. How could I be certain that they feel an obligation to provide the same level of health care to me as to an "Aryan?" How can their supervisors be certain that they have indeed done so in every instance in the past? Such a statement disqualifies them in their profession.

I recognize the complexities relating to freedom of speech and I believe that there are a wide range of personal opinions that one should be able to express that are irrelevant for one's job qualifications (BTW: raping women is not one of the acceptable ones for a doctor). But I don't see a difference between posting a disqualifying statement on-line "anonymously" (obviously unsuccessfully anonymously) versus stating it publicly in real life.

"One's mind" is very relevant for the proper fulfillment of many professions, so "speaking one's mind" reveals this important component of one's qualifications. The willingness to share "one's mind" publicly (on-line or in real life) ramps this up even further because it indicates that the person feels so strongly about their view that they needed to share it with others.
 
Last edited:
ahhell said:
I tend to agree with this, it doesn't matter if someone is an ******* if they are a professional. On the other hand, its hard to imagine this kind of thing didn't effect his work.
Click to expand...
Problems with his work can be measured and addressed as such, regardless of whether any thought crimes were committed.
 
Giordano said:
A tricky question. Let us assume that comments made on-line reflect one's true beliefs (or at minimum a willingness to make outrageous statements on sensitive topics that would be very disturbing in meat space). Personally, being Jewish, I would not want to have as a doctor someone who repeatedly posted on-line that all Jews are vermin and should be killed in gas chambers, whatever their known outward "professional behavior" to date. How could I be certain that they feel an obligation to provide the same level of health care to me as to an "Aryan?" How can their supervisors be certain that they have indeed done so in every instance in the past? Such a statement disqualifies them in their profession.

I recognize the complexities relating to freedom of speech and I believe that there are a wide range of personal opinions that one should be able to express that are irrelevant for one's job qualifications (BTW: raping women is not one of the acceptable ones for a doctor). But I don't see a difference between posting a disqualifying statement on-line "anonymously" (obviously unsuccessfully anonymously) versus stating it publicly in real life.

"One's mind" is very relevant for the proper fulfillment of many professions, so "speaking one's mind" reveals this important component of one's qualifications. The willingness to share "one's mind" publicly (on-line or in real life) ramps this up even further because it indicates that the person feels so strongly about their view that they needed to share it with others.
Click to expand...

And that is a very fair argument. Agreed that this doc is beyond the pale, and having such vile opinions should disqualify him from working with matters as sensitive and traumatized as rape victims. I'm actually a little shocked that someone at this extreme could function at all in the healing community.

I'm thinking of the less repulsive cases, abstractly. Would I want an avid Christian to treat someone? What if they don't believe in evolution, and other aspects of our understanding of the physical world? Well, as long as the doctor's practice is consistent with modern protocols, his free-time ranting or whatever is not my biz. Ideally, I would want a rational and compassionate caregiver, but there's only so many halos to go around.
 
Thermal said:
And that is a very fair argument. Agreed that this doc is beyond the pale, and having such vile opinions should disqualify him from working with matters as sensitive and traumatized as rape victims. I'm actually a little shocked that someone at this extreme could function at all in the healing community.

I'm thinking of the less repulsive cases, abstractly. Would I want an avid Christian to treat someone? What if they don't believe in evolution, and other aspects of our understanding of the physical world? Well, as long as the doctor's practice is consistent with modern protocols, his free-time ranting or whatever is not my biz. Ideally, I would want a rational and compassionate caregiver, but there's only so many halos to go around.
Click to expand...

Agreed. In fact one of my doctors is an avid Christian and he is superb - my favorite in fact. We just don't talk religion (or my "Jewish atheist" lack thereof).

Not believing in evolution might be a professional problem for an infectious disease specialist or an oncologist. To treat drug resistance they would at least need to believe in the "micro-evolution" story favored by many creationists. Or at least understand and buy into the accepted protocols whatever they think are the underlying reasons.
 
Thermal said:
And that is a very fair argument. Agreed that this doc is beyond the pale, and having such vile opinions should disqualify him from working with matters as sensitive and traumatized as rape victims. I'm actually a little shocked that someone at this extreme could function at all in the healing community.

I'm thinking of the less repulsive cases, abstractly. Would I want an avid Christian to treat someone? What if they don't believe in evolution, and other aspects of our understanding of the physical world? Well, as long as the doctor's practice is consistent with modern protocols, his free-time ranting or whatever is not my biz. Ideally, I would want a rational and compassionate caregiver, but there's only so many halos to go around.
Click to expand...

I guess I don't care what my doctor believes as long as it isn't relevant to whatever he's examining. My dentist is a kooky tax protester, but I don't care, because he's a great dentist. If I had a gynecologist who secretly hated women, though, and I found out, I would object to letting him anywhere near my ****, even if he was somehow still skilled at his profession. Maybe it's not logical. Everything I think doesn't have to be logical.
 
isissxn said:
I guess I don't care what my doctor believes as long as it isn't relevant to whatever he's examining. My dentist is a kooky tax protester, but I don't care, because he's a great dentist. If I had a gynecologist who secretly hated women, though, and I found out, I would object to letting him anywhere near my ****, even if he was somehow still skilled at his profession. Maybe it's not logical. Everything I think doesn't have to be logical.
Click to expand...

That's the hitch for me. I find it hard to understand why someone would go through the intense work required to be a doctor, and not have the basic love of what s/he was doing. Which would seem to include profound respect for the humans entrusting their care to him/her. A doctor like this OP is just incomprehensible. Although my wife works in a school system where some workers don't appear to care much about the student's best interests as much as their personal benefits, so there's that dissonance, too, I suppose.
 
theprestige said:
Problems with his work can be measured and addressed as such, regardless of whether any thought crimes were committed.
Click to expand...
WTF?

How can you say this ass doesn't treat rape victims with contempt? How would you measure that?

It is extremely unlikely a doctor making these kinds of comments doesn't then not have it carry over in how they treat patients.
 
CORed said:
Read the linked article. He actually posted pictures of himself and his medical licence to the forum where he made the remarks. It's one of those cases that makes you wonder how somebody smart enough to become a doctor could be that stupid.
Click to expand...

Hahahahaha! No thoughtcrime here, then, just good old self-pwning.
 
CORed said:
Read the linked article. He actually posted pictures of himself and his medical licence to the forum where he made the remarks. It's one of those cases that makes you wonder how somebody smart enough to become a doctor could be that stupid.
Click to expand...

Truth. He seemed to think that posing on a foreign-based forum somehow made him immune. Don't see how the www thing eluded him, either.
 
Thermal said:
....

I'm thinking of the less repulsive cases, abstractly. Would I want an avid Christian to treat someone? What if they don't believe in evolution, and other aspects of our understanding of the physical world? Well, as long as the doctor's practice is consistent with modern protocols, his free-time ranting or whatever is not my biz. Ideally, I would want a rational and compassionate caregiver, but there's only so many halos to go around.
Click to expand...
This is not about beliefs. It's about contempt for patients. If that Christian doctor has contempt for gays instead of compassion, then it matters.

Otherwise your example is a failed analogy.
 
CORed said:
Read the linked article. He actually posted pictures of himself and his medical licence to the forum where he made the remarks. It's one of those cases that makes you wonder how somebody smart enough to become a doctor could be that stupid.
Click to expand...

Thanks. I tried the article a couple times, but didn't have much patience today for clutter and popups and roundabout reporting. So I figured I'd just ask my question here and see if there was a straight answer ready to hand.
 
Another question: Is he barred from working as a doctor at all? Or just barred from working for whatever organization is currently investigating him?

Could he set up a private practice, if he wanted?
 
Giordano said:
....

Not believing in evolution might be a professional problem for an infectious disease specialist or an oncologist. To treat drug resistance they would at least need to believe in the "micro-evolution" story favored by many creationists. Or at least understand and buy into the accepted protocols whatever they think are the underlying reasons.
Click to expand...
There is one evolution denier with a PhD in microbiology that teaches at Liberty University. She has no problem with her cognitive dissonance.

But you are falling into the same false analogy trap as Thermal. This is not about medical knowledge and expertise. This is about how a doctor feels about individuals, about their lifestyles, about their worth, about their fault in their medical issues.

That is not about knowledge and expertise.
 
theprestige said:
Another question: Is he barred from working as a doctor at all? Or just barred from working for whatever organization is currently investigating him?

Could he set up a private practice, if he wanted?
Click to expand...

Not in Australia. He's down for the count there till investigation is satisfied
 
Thermal said:
Read the posts again. I think you missed stuff.
Click to expand...
I read the article and one it linked to. You miss the point:
Dr Jill Tomlinson, a reconstructive and hand surgeon, said: “Attitudes that condone or promote violence against women have no place in the medical profession.” Dr Daya Sharma, an eye surgeon, wrote that many family violence and rape victims attended emergency departments. “Patients usually don’t get a choice of doctor in an emergency. How can a doctor with these beliefs treat a rape victim?” he said.
Click to expand...

Pray-tell what am I missing? :rolleyes:
 
ahhell said:
I tend to agree with this, it doesn't matter if someone is an ******* if they are a professional. On the other hand, its hard to imagine this kind of thing didn't effect his work.
Click to expand...

But knowing who it is might affect the hospital or whatever professional order he belongs to. Last thing they want is to be associated with him.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
I suggest you quote something you are referring to and explain how medical knowledge and how one feels about a patient are analogous.
Click to expand...

Thermal said:
And that is a very fair argument. Agreed that this doc is beyond the pale, and having such vile opinions should disqualify him from working with matters as sensitive and traumatized as rape victims. I'm actually a little shocked that someone at this extreme could function at all in the healing community.

I'm thinking of the less repulsive cases, abstractly. Would I want an avid Christian to treat someone? What if they don't believe in evolution, and other aspects of our understanding of the physical world? Well, as long as the doctor's practice is consistent with modern protocols, his free-time ranting or whatever is not my biz. Ideally, I would want a rational and compassionate caregiver, but there's only so many halos to go around.
Click to expand...

Put the two highlights together.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
There is one evolution denier with a PhD in microbiology that teaches at Liberty University. She has no problem with her cognitive dissonance.

But you are falling into the same false analogy trap as Thermal. This is not about medical knowledge and expertise. This is about how a doctor feels about individuals, about their lifestyles, about their worth, about their fault in their medical issues.

That is not about knowledge and expertise.
Click to expand...
If they have the knowledge and expertise, and they do good work, who cares how they feel?

It seems like a lot of doctors succeed in the profession in part because they're misanthropes who care more about solving the problems of body parts than they do about the human beings who inhabit those bodies.
 
Another question: If the investigation finds that his work is acceptable, does he get reinstated? Or do they find some other reason to maintain his suspension? Or is the investigation guaranteed to find some fatal flaw in his work?

On the other hand: If they already know that he published patient information, why are they wasting time on an investigation at all? Shouldn't he already be disqualified, by that one confirmed act alone?
 
Thermal said:
Put the two highlights together.
Click to expand...

I'll repeat my post:
Thermal said:
....I'm thinking of the less repulsive cases, abstractly. Would I want an avid Christian to treat someone? What if they don't believe in evolution, and other aspects of our understanding of the physical world? Well, as long as the doctor's practice is consistent with modern protocols, his free-time ranting or whatever is not my biz. Ideally, I would want a rational and compassionate caregiver, but there's only so many halos to go around.
Click to expand...
This is not about beliefs. It's about contempt for patients. If that Christian doctor has contempt for gays instead of compassion, then it matters.

Otherwise your example is a failed analogy.
Click to expand...
I didn't quote your whole post for a reason.
 
theprestige said:
If they have the knowledge and expertise, and they do good work, who cares how they feel?

It seems like a lot of doctors succeed in the profession in part because they're misanthropes who care more about solving the problems of body parts than they do about the human beings who inhabit those bodies.
Click to expand...
It matters because doctors are not robots. You don't have the extreme beliefs about women and have it not manifest in your attitude toward patients.

The extent the males on this forum are going to to dismiss this as some unrelated FB posts or posts on a forum is interesting.
 
Last edited:
Giordano said:
A tricky question. Let us assume that comments made on-line reflect one's true beliefs (or at minimum a willingness to make outrageous statements on sensitive topics that would be very disturbing in meat space). Personally, being Jewish, I would not want to have as a doctor someone who repeatedly posted on-line that all Jews are vermin and should be killed in gas chambers, whatever their known outward "professional behavior" to date. How could I be certain that they feel an obligation to provide the same level of health care to me as to an "Aryan?" How can their supervisors be certain that they have indeed done so in every instance in the past? Such a statement disqualifies them in their profession.

I recognize the complexities relating to freedom of speech and I believe that there are a wide range of personal opinions that one should be able to express that are irrelevant for one's job qualifications (BTW: raping women is not one of the acceptable ones for a doctor). But I don't see a difference between posting a disqualifying statement on-line "anonymously" (obviously unsuccessfully anonymously) versus stating it publicly in real life.

"One's mind" is very relevant for the proper fulfillment of many professions, so "speaking one's mind" reveals this important component of one's qualifications. The willingness to share "one's mind" publicly (on-line or in real life) ramps this up even further because it indicates that the person feels so strongly about their view that they needed to share it with others.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't a doctor that wants to hurt Jews not say things publicly? So they can have more access to vulnerable Jewish patients?
 
Thermal said:
That's always problematic for me. When someone is speaking their minds anonymously, they are not abusing their position. As long as his responsibilities are conducted professionally, I don't care much about his personal feelings.
Click to expand...


No one should comment before reading the story. Excerpts:
Guardian Australia has uncovered a slew of offensive posts in addition to those investigated by the tribunal, along with examples of Lee posting photographs of medical procedures he performed and patient x-rays.
Click to expand...
In other posts he insisted his online persona matched his real-life persona, going so far as to post photographs of his passport and medical degree to prove his identity, and one of himself wearing a stethoscope. When people criticised him for his comments, Lee replied, “Malaysian and Australian authorities can’t touch me for things I say on a Singaporean forum.”
Click to expand...
Lee also posted photographs of his wife and boasted about their sex life. The tribunal heard that he said in one of his posts: “If my marriage fell apart, it would not end in divorce. It would end in murder.” In a post not considered by the tribunal, Lee wrote that if his wife were to become pregnant, he would force an abortion by kicking “her down the stairs”.
Click to expand...

Etc.

This guy is a government employee serving the general public. It's reasonable to require a certain standard of civility, courtesy and common decency. People have been fired justifiably for much less.
 
Bob001 said:
No one should comment before reading the story. Excerpts:




Etc.

This guy is a government employee serving the general public. It's reasonable to require a certain standard of civility, courtesy and common decency. People have been fired justifiably for much less.
Click to expand...

Yes. That's why I went on to clarify that I was thinking of the less obnoxious cases. A 'where do we draw the line' extrapolation.

Pretty roundly agreed this guy was way, way over the line. Which leads to the question, where is the line, who is drawing it, and based on what?
 
theprestige said:
If they have the knowledge and expertise, and they do good work, who cares how they feel?

It seems like a lot of doctors succeed in the profession in part because they're misanthropes who care more about solving the problems of body parts than they do about the human beings who inhabit those bodies.
Click to expand...

Not caring about people and actively, viciously hating them are different things, though.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Doc Martin comes to mind.
Click to expand...

Oh hey, I love that show! I hadn't run into someone else that watched it before.

I believe they're finally filming the final season now.

Louisa and Martin fight too much though. It can be super boring, and gives me claustrophobia. But everything else is gold.
 
Dr. Keith said:
Doc Martin comes to mind.
Click to expand...

The thing is that Doc Martin is a good doctor who really wants to help people when they need it, and has done so sometimes even at the risk of his own safety, but he hates stupidity, and he sees a lot of people around him doing a lot of stupid stuff. Doc Martin would never even think, let alone say, the stuff this real-life doc does.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom