Police Fire Tear Gas At Protesters In Front Of Parliament

[hammered]

Of course doctors should treat all patients.

Of course it is understandable that doctors are angry at the police as they have seen and also no doubt heard the nature of the wounds from colleagues. Be angry. Demonstrate. And most of all ensure the truth is known, but treat the patients. Quite simple really.

[sjaak327]

Sorry, it doesn't concern them, if excessive violence has been used by police, then there are other people who can take measures against these police, a doctor is not qualified to make that judgment. A doctor just has to do his work, that they apparently think they can play for judge should be enough reason to sack them on the spot. I don't think there is any more discussion needed, it just makes me sick. Unfit for their job, nothing more nothing less.

I think this is a highly unqualified judgment!

Doctors do have an unquestionable duty to save lives and help people in emergencies not doubt!

But that at the same time a doctor is not qualified to make a judgment about a political situation is absolutely new to me!

I believe it was merely pointed in the direction of the police causing extensive physical harm to fellow citizens, that if they need help, they may not get it!

A thread made... or heard of any police bled to death because doctors left him outside the clinic?

No a doctor is not qualified to make judgement as to whether somebody is guilty of murder or harming people in ways that they loose legs, as I was under the assumption, that this was the reason to refuse police treatment. You now say it is because they were causing extensive physical harm to fellow citizens, then again, there are courts of law, that are typically qualified to make judgements like that, based upon evidence.

Are they going to refuse any PAD supporters who have caused harm to policemen ? Ludricous.

Edited October 10, 2008 by sjaak327

[jdinasia]

Of course doctors should treat all patients.

Of course it is understandable that doctors are angry at the police as they have seen and also no doubt heard the nature of the wounds from colleagues. Be angry. Demonstrate. And most of all ensure the truth is known, but treat the patients. Quite simple really.

Why exactly would a Dr need to treat non-emergency patients? If (according to SOME hippocratic oaths) the first commandmant is "First do no harm" and there is no immediate harm in not treating someone but there is an obvious threat to people in the future by treating someone, how is that an issue? People need to see the translations of statements that were made and to remember that this isn't the UK

Dr's should certainly be able to make decisions based upon a moral code that they possess as much as any other person (in situations that are not immediately life or death. Remember folks that the police hospital is 2 blacks away!) I personally would choose to take out a splinter from an innocent than to treat a killer that would return to killing.

[sylviex]

1) The administration at King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital have dealt with the issue

That is unclear. From The Nation today:

More than 40 doctors yesterday reaffirmed their resolve not to attend to any police or soldiers who fought with the People's Alliance for Democracy.

"What's more important than treating diseases is to prevent them," Dr Sutep Gonlachanvit said. At least nine colleagues from Chulalongkorn Hospital and 30 doctors from Chiang Mai have agreed to deny treatment to police and soldiers from the bloody clashes, he said.

A banner reading "The Faculty of Psychiatry condemns the use of violence against people. We demand that the tyrant government steps down"will soon be flying in front of Somdet Chaopraya Institute of Psychiatry, Dr Kasem Tantipalacheeva said.

"We won't treat police who show up in their uniform. But if they come in as general people, we will provide treatment," he said.

Seventy doctors at Chiang Mai University's faculty of medicine also decided against treating police, cabinet members and government MPs, except in emergency cases.

Hundreds of students and academics from Chulalongkorn and PAD supporters yesterday gathered at the statues of King Rama V and King Rama VI and started a week-long protest by wearing black.

Human rights advocates condemned the doctors' move.

"This is not only a serious violation of medical ethics, it is also a breach of international humanitarian laws to which Thailand is a party," they said. Their statement was signed by dozens of human rights activists and academics.

"The lives and rights of these officers should be protected the same as other people," they said.

2) People need to read up on the hippocratic Oath (links were provided earlier)

They do, indeed.

The Declaration of Geneva was intended as a revision ^[1] of the Oath of Hippocrates to a formulation of that oath's moral truths that could be comprehended and acknowledged modernly.^[2]

The Declaration of Geneva, as currently amended, reads^[4]:

At the time of being admitted as a member of the medical profession:

• I solemnly pledge to consecrate my life to the service of humanity;
  
• I will give to my teachers the respect and gratitude that is their due;
  
• I will practise my profession with conscience and dignity;
  
• The health of my patient will be my first consideration;
  
• I will respect the secrets that are confided in me, even after the patient has died;
  
• I will maintain by all the means in my power, the honour and the noble traditions of the medical profession;
  
• My colleagues will be my sisters and brothers;
  
• I will not permit considerations of age, disease or disability, creed, ethnic origin, gender, nationality, political affiliation, race, sexual orientation, social standing or any other factor to intervene between my duty and my patient;
  
• I will maintain the utmost respect for human life;
  
• I will not use my medical knowledge to violate human rights and civil liberties, even under threat;
  
• I make these promises solemnly, freely and upon my honour.
  

Wiki

An alliance of human rights advocates yesterday called on doctors to change their stance and urged the Medical Council and the National Human Rights Commission to look into the affair.

BKK Post

Edited October 10, 2008 by sylviex

[jdinasia]

Sylv ---- you need to keep reading about the Hippocratic Oath --- there is no 1 oath ... nor do all schools require them etc

[sjaak327]

I wonder if Chulalongkorn gets any money from the government, if they do, I guess that will stop soon... Refusing to treat tax payers based upon some policitical judgement. It seems some people are really lost in some kind of void.

[sylviex]

Sylv ---- you need to keep reading about the Hippocratic Oath --- there is no 1 oath ... nor do all schools require them etc

Yes, I am well aware of that.

See comments from human rights groups (above) claiming breach of international agreements to which Thailand is party.

See also comments from cmsally and others regarding ethics.

[PREM-R]

ASTV showed coverage of a man who had lost his hand and lower forearm during the "protest". The "hero" was paraded on the stage with his stump heavily bandaged. Now I am no expert, but I would say that the injuries suggest that this guy was most likely not hit by a tear-gas canister but was infact holding a "grenade" which exploded before he could launch it at the police. Later a Jeep registered to a PAD member exploded and a young lady who died at the scene was later described as being killed when carrying an explosive device "close to her body". These two things lead me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was the PAD and not the police who were responsible for the worst of the injuries. Remember also that two police officers were taken to hospital suffering from gunshot wounds.

[sriracha john]

Of course doctors should treat all patients.

Of course it is understandable that doctors are angry at the police as they have seen and also no doubt heard the nature of the wounds from colleagues. Be angry. Demonstrate. And most of all ensure the truth is known, but treat the patients. Quite simple really.

and that is what they have done by all reports...

[cmsally]

Will be interesting to see how this affects some of their overseas exchange programs and joint research.

I hope overseas institutions are not going to turn a blind eye.

And remembering that they have now set a precedent, if the military should ever come out against the population, they obviously should not be treating them either. But will that be case?

[sylviex]

Of course doctors should treat all patients.

Of course it is understandable that doctors are angry at the police as they have seen and also no doubt heard the nature of the wounds from colleagues. Be angry. Demonstrate. And most of all ensure the truth is known, but treat the patients. Quite simple really.

and that is what they have done by all reports...

I am sure we all hope so, not least so we can stop bickering about whether they should or not. In my view, that is beyond question.

Nonetheless, the message coming from a number of medical workers is still quite alarming on this score. I am not sure how strong ethical codes may be amongst medical workers here but I certainly never expected to hear even a hint of a suggestion like that of refusal to treat uniformed police and members of the government. That's a very bad sign, in my view, just as is the willingness of some posters here to attempt to justify it.

Edited October 10, 2008 by sylviex

[sriracha john]

a young lady who died at the scene was later described as being killed when carrying an explosive device "close to her body". These two things lead me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was the PAD and not the police who were responsible for the worst of the injuries.

apparently you missed this...

Dad denies police bomb claim

The father of Angkhana Radappanyawut is upset over police claims that she may have died after being blown up by bombs she allegedly carried in her own bag. Angkhana's father, Chinda, said at the funeral ceremony at Sri Prawat temple that his 28-year-old daughter had not carried any bombs in her bag because he had the bag with him now. He added that he would unveil the truth to counter the police account after the ceremony. Angkhana died during the clashes between PAD demonstrators and police on Tuesday. Her Majesty the Queen had her representative send a wreath to the funeral yesterday. Deputy Police Spokesman Police Maj-Gen Surapol Thuanthong has said that Angkhana might have died because she was carrying bombs in her bag. He also denied that a man in a black jacket standing with a pistol in his hand behind the Suan Dusit zoo fence was a plainclothes policeman. His picture was taken by photographers as he was aiming his gun at PAD demonstrators in front of parliament on Tuesday. Angkhana was one of the two people who died during the anti-government rally. Bang Khla Hospital Director Direk Pakagul rushed a man to hospital who police claimed held a ping-pong bomb in his left hand. He said the object was actually a leather ball attached to a key chain. Dr Direk said nurses, an ambulance driver, and doctors at Ramathibodi hospital where the man was admitted could serve as witnesses. He said he found the bleeding man sitting against a wall so he called an ambulance. The man could not speak because he was wounded. His right arm had been severed.

Continued here:

http://www.bangkokpost.com/101008_News/10Oct2008_news11.php

[frodo]

ASTV showed coverage of a man who had lost his hand and lower forearm during the "protest". The "hero" was paraded on the stage with his stump heavily bandaged. Now I am no expert, but I would say that the injuries suggest that this guy was most likely not hit by a tear-gas canister but was infact holding a "grenade" which exploded before he could launch it at the police. Later a Jeep registered to a PAD member exploded and a young lady who died at the scene was later described as being killed when carrying an explosive device "close to her body". These two things lead me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was the PAD and not the police who were responsible for the worst of the injuries. Remember also that two police officers were taken to hospital suffering from gunshot wounds.

May I suggest that you read or perhaps you re-read this thread a little more carefully. Her death has not been proven to be caused by her carrying anything but a purse. Regarding your other arguments, you're not an expert and a suggestion is just that. Officers with gunshot wounds? Speculative of course, but the only people proven to have guns thus far are the police and an unidentified man wearing black. Friendly fire, perhaps?

[jdinasia]

Of course doctors should treat all patients.

Of course it is understandable that doctors are angry at the police as they have seen and also no doubt heard the nature of the wounds from colleagues. Be angry. Demonstrate. And most of all ensure the truth is known, but treat the patients. Quite simple really.

and that is what they have done by all reports...

I am sure we all hope so, not least so we can stop bickering about whether they should or not. In my view, that is beyond question.

Nonetheless, the message coming from a number of medical workers is still quite alarming on this score. I am not sure how strong ethical codes may be amongst medical workers here but I certainly never expected to hear even a hint of a suggestion like that of refusal to treat uniformed police and members of the government. That's a very bad sign, in my view, just as is the willingness of some posters here to attempt to justify it.

You need to go back and read that post you made ... It states the Dr has a conscience ...If as a matter of conscience a Dr makes a call in a non-emergency situation not to treat someone that they believe is harming others ........

[jdinasia]

ASTV showed coverage of a man who had lost his hand and lower forearm during the "protest". The "hero" was paraded on the stage with his stump heavily bandaged. Now I am no expert, but I would say that the injuries suggest that this guy was most likely not hit by a tear-gas canister but was infact holding a "grenade" which exploded before he could launch it at the police. Later a Jeep registered to a PAD member exploded and a young lady who died at the scene was later described as being killed when carrying an explosive device "close to her body". These two things lead me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was the PAD and not the police who were responsible for the worst of the injuries. Remember also that two police officers were taken to hospital suffering from gunshot wounds.

May I suggest that you read or perhaps you re-read this thread a little more carefully. Her death has not been proven to be caused by her carrying anything but a purse. Regarding your other arguments, you're not an expert and a suggestion is just that. Officers with gunshot wounds? Speculative of course, but the only people proven to have guns thus far are the police and an unidentified man wearing black. Friendly fire, perhaps?

The press reports the man in black with the gun at Dusit Zoo was aiming/pointing the gun AT the PAD.

[sriracha john]

Of course doctors should treat all patients.

Of course it is understandable that doctors are angry at the police as they have seen and also no doubt heard the nature of the wounds from colleagues. Be angry. Demonstrate. And most of all ensure the truth is known, but treat the patients. Quite simple really.

and that is what they have done by all reports...

I am sure we all hope so, not least so we can stop bickering about whether they should or not. In my view, that is beyond question.

Nonetheless, the message coming from a number of medical workers is still quite alarming on this score. I am not sure how strong ethical codes may be amongst medical workers here but I certainly never expected to hear even a hint of a suggestion like that of refusal to treat uniformed police and members of the government. That's a very bad sign, in my view, just as is the willingness of some posters here to attempt to justify it.

or exaggerate it.

We haven't had one single report of an actual incident whereby a police officer was actually refused treatment.

[hammered]

ASTV showed coverage of a man who had lost his hand and lower forearm during the "protest". The "hero" was paraded on the stage with his stump heavily bandaged. Now I am no expert, but I would say that the injuries suggest that this guy was most likely not hit by a tear-gas canister but was infact holding a "grenade" which exploded before he could launch it at the police. Later a Jeep registered to a PAD member exploded and a young lady who died at the scene was later described as being killed when carrying an explosive device "close to her body". These two things lead me to believe, rightly or wrongly, that it was the PAD and not the police who were responsible for the worst of the injuries. Remember also that two police officers were taken to hospital suffering from gunshot wounds.

May I suggest that you read or perhaps you re-read this thread a little more carefully. Her death has not been proven to be caused by her carrying anything but a purse. Regarding your other arguments, you're not an expert and a suggestion is just that. Officers with gunshot wounds? Speculative of course, but the only people proven to have guns thus far are the police and an unidentified man wearing black. Friendly fire, perhaps?

A media watchdog has asked the media to report events even handedly and have in particular criticised the NBT and police PR wing

From the Post: http://www.bangkokpost.com/101008_News/10Oct2008_news10.php

[sylviex]

Of course doctors should treat all patients.

Of course it is understandable that doctors are angry at the police as they have seen and also no doubt heard the nature of the wounds from colleagues. Be angry. Demonstrate. And most of all ensure the truth is known, but treat the patients. Quite simple really.

and that is what they have done by all reports...

I am sure we all hope so, not least so we can stop bickering about whether they should or not. In my view, that is beyond question.

Nonetheless, the message coming from a number of medical workers is still quite alarming on this score. I am not sure how strong ethical codes may be amongst medical workers here but I certainly never expected to hear even a hint of a suggestion like that of refusal to treat uniformed police and members of the government. That's a very bad sign, in my view, just as is the willingness of some posters here to attempt to justify it.

You need to go back and read that post you made ... It states the Dr has a conscience ...If as a matter of conscience a Dr makes a call in a non-emergency situation not to treat someone that they believe is harming others ........

I am afraid that -- thus far in my life -- I have not met any other doctor or other medical worker who would attempt to apply such an interpretation to all uniformed police and all government members.

[AlKing]

I really didn't wanna bother replying to some nonsense, immorality, ignorance and pure stupidity but anyone who watched the interview with one of the doctors who refused to treat the policemen the other day would understand that their position was that they would still treat anyone who needs emergency care. However they'd reserve their right in treating anyone in uniforms who's not seriously injured. Their reason was that as doctors, their first and foremost duty, besides treating patients, was to help prevent people from being ill or getting injured in the first place. Besides their professonal obligations, they also must have social responsibilities. In times like these, the only action they could take to raise awareness about what's REALLY happened and demand the end to the bloodshed was to do what they did. Their boycott against treating police officers who don't need emergency care was a symbol and a cry to the end of violence perpetrated by the police. They just wanted the police to use a gentler and more humance approach in dealing with the protestors. That's all the doctors wanted to do.

Anyway, I am not gonna be surprised one bit though if some people on here still can't grasp this. Some are just too think and too evil.. I guess.

Doctors are paid and trained to treat patients, not to have an opinion or declare action on matters that strickly doesn't concern them, the interview with one of these people, that apparently would ask other doctors from other hospitals to join him in the boycott is simply unbelievable. This guy should be sacked on the spot. I can not in any way find even an inch of sympathy or understanding for such an action.

Just my guessing. He will have his license removed if he does not apologise. Hence he did apologise. I believe he is not sincere in doing so.

Just my guessing. He choose politics before his professional career. Now he choose his professional career before his personal self esteem.

Just my own opinion, my family and I will not step into Chula Hospital ever again, not to mention consult such kind of doctor.

[sylviex]

We haven't had one single report of an actual incident whereby a police officer was actually refused treatment.

Good. We hope common sense will prevail.

I am commenting on the worrying aspect of political fervour threatening to prevent that.

[cmsally]

Of course doctors should treat all patients.

Of course it is understandable that doctors are angry at the police as they have seen and also no doubt heard the nature of the wounds from colleagues. Be angry. Demonstrate. And most of all ensure the truth is known, but treat the patients. Quite simple really.

and that is what they have done by all reports...

I am sure we all hope so, not least so we can stop bickering about whether they should or not. In my view, that is beyond question.

Nonetheless, the message coming from a number of medical workers is still quite alarming on this score. I am not sure how strong ethical codes may be amongst medical workers here but I certainly never expected to hear even a hint of a suggestion like that of refusal to treat uniformed police and members of the government. That's a very bad sign, in my view, just as is the willingness of some posters here to attempt to justify it.

You need to go back and read that post you made ... It states the Dr has a conscience ...If as a matter of conscience a Dr makes a call in a non-emergency situation not to treat someone that they believe is harming others ........

I am afraid that -- thus far in my life -- I have not met any other doctor or other medical worker who would attempt to apply such an interpretation to all uniformed police and all government members.

Same here. Quite frankly it is really frightening to see the views that some foreigners hold on medical ethics.

On the same basis, supposing Thailand were ever to be attacked by an outside power; how you would feel about being denied medical treatment (as a foreigner)?

[jdinasia]

cmsally ... 1) silly scenario and 2) I would not be a combatant or in uniform

[cmsally]

cmsally ... 1) silly scenario and 2) I would not be a combatant or in uniform

With Chula being the bastion of nationalism that it is and the fact they are refusing treatment to other Thais who happen to be wearing the wrong uniform (I stress that it is not the case of the uniform being the problem , but wearing the wrong uniform); the scenario is not so silly at all.

So the case of you having the wrong ethnic background or nationality (which could be the case if Thailand was ever invaded) is not such an unbelievable situation.

The situation would be compounded by the fact that many have a high degree of personal ethics but this can often be wiped out by the Damocles sword of the biased bureaucracy hanging over their professional heads.

Herein lies the problem we are talking about, a society where bureaucratical conformity is given precedence over personal responsibility and ethics.

[frodo]

PM promises 'independent' investigations.

There would not be anyone from the government in a committee responsible for fact-finding on Tuesday's riots, Prime Minister Somchai Wongsawat said Friday.

Mr Somchai said that an outsider is being approached to chair the committee, but refused to reveal who the person would be. He, however, insisted that the person will be politically neutral.

On the calls for him to resign or to dissolve parliament, Mr Somchai said he is willing to listen to all criticism, but added that he would think what is the best for the country. -Bangkokpost-

Independent investigations from an unknown source? Given his track record with his words of non-violent and peaceful negotiations with PAD, I for one have no confidence in these words. He'll do what he thinks is best? Again, his actions this past week speak volumes about what he thinks is best. Time to go Somchai.

Edited October 10, 2008 by frodo

[AlKing]

Before we go on further, can someone (pref people in the med circle that also work in Chula Hospital) confirm that such Oath (Hippocratic) was INDEED taken my Chula Hospital's doctors. Maybe it was optional in Thailand. I honestly don't know.

I am not a doctor. I find it interesting that you people claim that all doctors need to take such Oath. If it is complusary, it must be mandated somewhere (usually when you take it), the consiquent of not adhere to it.

Maybe the doctor did not undertand, as nobody explained to him at that time. He just took it because everyone in his class did. Just like when I install a software, I just click ACCEPT without reading what the T&Cs are. I wonder how many people do read the T&Cs. My bet is that you people are just as ignorant, and click ACCEPT too.

Please also remember that many things that seems logical or compulsary in your country may not apply in Thailand. Eg, in car baby seat not needed. If my memnory serves me right, Thailand is not even a member of the International Court of Justice anymore. Quite after loosing the temple.

[sriracha john]

cmsally ... 1) silly scenario and 2) I would not be a combatant or in uniform

With Chula being the bastion of nationalism that it is and the fact they are refusing treatment to other Thais who happen to be wearing the wrong uniform (I stress that it is not the case of the uniform being the problem , but wearing the wrong uniform); the scenario is not so silly at all.

So the case of you having the wrong ethnic background or nationality (which could be the case if Thailand was ever invaded) is not such an unbelievable situation.

The situation would be compounded by the fact that many have a high degree of personal ethics but this can often be wiped out by the Damocles sword of the biased bureaucracy hanging over their professional heads.

Herein lies the problem we are talking about, a society where bureaucratical conformity is given precedence over personal responsibility and ethics.

Perhaps this would all carry more weight if even one single actual treatment denial occurred.

[jdinasia]

cmsally ... 1) silly scenario and 2) I would not be a combatant or in uniform

With Chula being the bastion of nationalism that it is and the fact they are refusing treatment to other Thais who happen to be wearing the wrong uniform (I stress that it is not the case of the uniform being the problem , but wearing the wrong uniform); the scenario is not so silly at all.

So the case of you having the wrong ethnic background or nationality (which could be the case if Thailand was ever invaded) is not such an unbelievable situation.

The situation would be compounded by the fact that many have a high degree of personal ethics but this can often be wiped out by the Damocles sword of the biased bureaucracy hanging over their professional heads.

Herein lies the problem we are talking about, a society where bureaucratical conformity is given precedence over personal responsibility and ethics.

LOL

CMSally ... you are making up stuff out of whole cloth

but didn't we see the administration of King Chulalongkorn Memorial Hospital denounce the statement by a Dr?

as for the department of Psychiatry ... LOL ...

but it appears to be the dr in question's personal ethics that you object to

Edited October 10, 2008 by jdinasia

[sjaak327]

Perhaps this would all carry more weight if even one single actual treatment denial occurred.

IMHO, it doesn't really matter if actual treatment denial has occured, the fact that a doctor from said hospital even feels the need to publicly announce his intention, in an otherwise heated climate, should be more then enough reason for immediate suspension and lay off.

Edited October 10, 2008 by sjaak327

[Thanh-BKK]

Well I thought I'd seen a lot in my life. Forget about CSI Miami or any other forensic based show. I've just spotted the blown up wreck of the jeep in which one person was supposedly 'blown to pieces' unceremoniously dumped by the side of the road near the army barracks in Rama 5 near Set Siri Road. Ithonestly looks like an abandoned vehicle. I spend some time in Turkey and still pass the police impound yard where the vehicles blown up in the bombings in Istanbul some years ago are stored as evidence for when the day comes that they bring the bombers to trial. There is something very fishy surrounding the details of this 'car bomb' incident.

Well, it clearly is a mystery to be solved "who blew up this Jeep" and why, that is, a mystery to us. Evidently, it is no mystery to the Thai Army!

Hi

I have already written that a few pages earlier, but seems nobody noticed - i actually saw this "incident" on regular television news (not ASTV or NBT) and it looked exactly like (and was even so explained by the news lady!) that what blew up was "only" the gas tank ("gas" as in NGV or LPG) in the car after it, for yet unknown reason, caught on fire. While it was standing there, burning, there was no damage whatsoever visible (the rear door was open, but all windows still intact... which a bomb would certainly have done!) and immediately after the explosion it was clearly visible that the now-large fire was fueled by the escaping gas, nothing else.

I repeat my own personal opinion again: A terrorist who wants to wreak havoc with a car bomb would:

1) NOT use a vehicle as expensive as a Jeep Cherokee

2) NOT use a vehicle as solid as a Jeep Cherokee! What good is a bomb if it's power not even smashes the car's windows??

Best regards.....

Thanh

Edited October 10, 2008 by Thanh-BKK

[Thai at Heart]