Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Report: Gazans treated in Israel in life-threatening cases only

06.29.2010 | YNet

Human rights organizations say patients prevented from leaving Gaza for important medical procedures ‘against ethical codes.’ Government’s coordinator in territories: Report biased; we’ve approved more than 9,000 cases a year

Muhammad Abu Mustafa, a 52-year-old Gaza resident, suffers from a spinal disc herniation, which results in pain along his arm and numbness. Israel refuses to let him leave the Strip for a medical procedure in Jerusalem. His case is one of the examples included in a report authored by several organizations, which are accusing Israel of preventing medical treatment.

“He has 10 children and his life has turned into hell. He can’t sleep at night and all the pain killers he received no longer help,” his brother-in-law, Abed Rabbo Abu Mustafa, told Ynet.

Abu Mustafa was directed to the St. Joseph Hospital in east Jerusalem, and was turned down with the claim that his condition was not life-threatening.

According to an opinion written by Dr. Nachshon Shazar, an orthopedics specialist who examined the case, Abu Mustafa’s situation “could sometimes lead to a sudden deterioration which may lead to paralysis.”

The coordinator of the government’s activities in the territories said in response that the request was denied after it was revealed that such treatment is available in the Strip.

“We don’t have this treatment in Gaza and his condition is only getting worse,” the brother-in-law insisted. “It’s true that it’s not a life-saving procedure, but it’s also true that if he won’t receive immediate care he will become paralyzed. Muhammad was never turned down for security reasons. We have no explanation for the decision not to let him in.”

The Adalah organization, Physicians for Human Rights and Palestinian human rights group al-Mizan, published a joint statement accusing Israel of “implementing a consistent policy of distinguishing between life-threatening medical cases and other medical cases, as a basis for preventing patients from leaving the Gaza Strip for medical treatment.”

According to Adalah and the Gaza-based al-Mizan group, restricting the treatment for people who are not in a life-threatening condition is against medical ethical rules and international law. The organizations said they reached this conclusion based on an analysis of the cases in which Israel turned down appeals from Gazan patients to leave the Strip for medical treatment.

Expert: Considerations political

Data compiled by the organizations point to a high correlation between the level of risk and the authorities’ tendency to accept the request. The organizations said they had received 40 complaints from Gaza patients who had been turned down over the past few days.

“Even medical cases which are not life-threatening and which were rejected by Israel may still be medically urgent and lead to the loss of vital organs, loss of sight, disability, and etcetera.

“Making a distinction between a life-threatening and a non-life threatening medical condition contradicts medical ethics, according to which any patient or injured person must be given access to the best medical care available for them, regardless of the treatment’s urgency or the severity of the medical condition.

“This distinction contradicts the rules of humanitarian law and the international human rights law which recognize the right to life, the right to the integrity of one’s body and the right to human dignity, which are recognized as basic rights in Israel law as well.”

Dr. Harel Arzi, an orthopedic surgeon and a volunteer in Physicians for Human Rights, believes the distinction is “only semantic”, adding that Israel’s considerations are not only medical but also political.

The coordinator of the government’s activities in the territories said in response, “The report is biased and was written without giving Israel the right to respond. In 2009, the coordinator of the government’s activities in the territories and the Coordination and Liaison Authority in Gaza coordinated the departure of more than 9,000 Palestinian patients and their escorts from Gaza to receive military treatment in Israel.

“We regret the organization’s decision to publish these reports in a consistent and biased manner without cooperating and coordinating with Israeli elements.”

“Making a distinction between a life-threatening and a non-life threatening medical condition contradicts medical ethics, according to which any patient or injured person must be given access to the best medical care available for them, regardless of the treatment’s urgency or the severity of the medical condition.

“This distinction contradicts the rules of humanitarian law and the international human rights law which recognize the right to life, the right to the integrity of one’s body and the right to human dignity, which are recognized as basic rights in Israel law as well.”

After Mohammed gets well, I will certainly want him to be a shahid.

shafique wrote:Your argument is with the Human Rights organisations whose reports are in the first post.

shafique wrote:a people under siege

shafique wrote:with Egypt's border opening

“Making a distinction between a life-threatening and a non-life threatening medical condition contradicts medical ethics, according to which any patient or injured person must be given access to the best medical care available for them, regardless of the treatment’s urgency or the severity of the medical condition.

“This distinction contradicts the rules of humanitarian law and the international human rights law which recognize the right to life, the right to the integrity of one’s body and the right to human dignity, which are recognized as basic rights in Israel law as well.”

shafique wrote:Again, we see fanbois can't handle the truth - just have to resort to name calling.

It is interesting to contrast a loon blogger's spin and what Humanitarian Groups say:

“Making a distinction between a life-threatening and a non-life threatening medical condition contradicts medical ethics, according to which any patient or injured person must be given access to the best medical care available for them, regardless of the treatment’s urgency or the severity of the medical condition.

“This distinction contradicts the rules of humanitarian law and the international human rights law which recognize the right to life, the right to the integrity of one’s body and the right to human dignity, which are recognized as basic rights in Israel law as well.”

No surprise that the reigning 'most extreme religious nutter' isn't happy, citing international law seems to bring out the worst in our loon fanboi contingent here.

I mean look at this for the most extreme views in terms of war crimes and killings of civilians:
philosophy-dubai/most-extreme-religous-fanatic-here-t41961.html

Cheers,
Shafique

shafique wrote:I see, another fanboi is blaming the victims again.

Please get your stories straight - either Israel is being merciful when it treats the ill people under siege in Gaza or it is being 'strong but firm' when it violates international laws as stated by the quotes above.

If Gaza and the West Bank is now an 'enemy country' then Israel should withdraw to the 1967 borders which are internationally recognised... oh, but the fanbois have a problem with this too... oh dear.

Cheers,
Shafique

One of the most significant reports Eldar produced at the time was in July 1992, about Palestinian children who were hurt during the intifada.

"Back then no one believed that there could be such a thing as the IDF hurting children," he says sarcastically. "But I filmed disabled children, wounded children in hospitals, children who had been beaten, children who talked like old people about life and death. I remember meeting two girls there from affluent homes who changed my approach to the Palestinian situation. They told me how their home had been demolished during an operation to capture wanted men. I came back with powerful material and put together a report that for the first time showed children who had been wounded by Israeli fire. When I recorded the narration, my voice cracked from emotion. I realized I had dynamite. That was the report that really got me into Gaza."

Subsequently, Eldar was appointed editor of "Mabat" and of the Friday night weekly newsmagazine.

"After a report I did about the distress of the Palestinians at the Erez checkpoint, Barel suspended me from covering Gaza and the Palestinians," Eldar says. "He called me and said, 'You let me down, friend.' But because he trusted me as an editor he appointed me the editor of the newsmagazine. A year and a half later, in 2003, I was asked by Channel 10 news chief Shilo De-Beer to join the station, which was then starting to broadcast. He wanted to make me the Gaza correspondent. I actually thought that Gaza was small-time stuff, because until then it was not covered in its own right. I told him that I accepted, but suggested I also be responsible for coverage of social-affairs issues for Channel 10 News. My idea was to devote two days a week to Gaza and the rest to social-welfare stories. But once I entered Gaza, during the second intifada, I never got around to doing the other stories."

What is fascinating is that the spin isn't working anymore - the Human Rights reports all clearly expose the illegalities of Israeli actions. You have no response other than to blame the victims.

He was wrong. Hours after the news item about Mohammed was broadcast, the hospital switchboard was jammed with callers. An Israeli Jew whose son died during his military service donated $55,000, and for the first time the Abu Mustafa family began to feel hopeful. Only then did Eldar grasp the full dramatic potential of the story. He told his editor, Tali Ben Ovadia, that he wanted to continue accompanying the family.

...Nevertheless, this idyllic situation developed into a deep crisis that led to the severance of the relations and what appeared to be the end of the filming. From an innocent conversation about religious holidays, Raida Abu Mustafa launched into a painful monologue about the culture of the shahids - the martyrs - and admitted, during the complex transplant process, that she would like to see her son perpetrate a suicide bombing attack in Jerusalem.

"Jerusalem is ours," she declared. "We are all for Jerusalem, the whole nation, not just a million, all of us. Do you understand what that means - all of us?"

She also explained to Eldar exactly what she had in mind. "For us, death is a natural thing. We are not frightened of death. From the smallest infant, even smaller than Mohammed, to the oldest person, we will all sacrifice ourselves for the sake of Jerusalem. We feel we have the right to it. You're free to be angry, so be angry."

And Eldar was angry. "Then why are you fighting to save your son's life, if you say that death is a usual thing for your people?" he lashes out in one of the most dramatic moments in the film.

"It is a regular thing," she smiles at him. "Life is not precious. Life is precious, but not for us. For us, life is nothing, not worth a thing. That is why we have so many suicide bombers. They are not afraid of death. None of us, not even the children, are afraid of death. It is natural for us. After Mohammed gets well, I will certainly want him to be a shahid. If it's for Jerusalem, then there's no problem. For you it is hard, I know; with us, there are cries of rejoicing and happiness when someone falls as a shahid. For us a shahid is a tremendous thing."

“Making a distinction between a life-threatening and a non-life threatening medical condition contradicts medical ethics, according to which any patient or injured person must be given access to the best medical care available for them, regardless of the treatment’s urgency or the severity of the medical condition.

“This distinction contradicts the rules of humanitarian law and the international human rights law which recognize the right to life, the right to the integrity of one’s body and the right to human dignity, which are recognized as basic rights in Israel law as well.”

shafique wrote:A moving and harrowing account by a woman who wishes the occupation of Jerusalem to end. Can't spin the occupation of Jerusalem or the desire of those living under occupation (and illegal annexation, don't forget) as anything other that what it is.

But coming back to the points made by the Human Right's organisations about Israel's crimes in relation to medical provision -

shafique wrote:A moving and harrowing account

event horizon wrote:You disgrace all British nationals with your views and comments.

event horizon wrote:Peace with Islam and Muslims is impossible. The only time Muslims seek peace is when they need to reload.