Published on 12, July, 2020
I have huge problems taking holiday, and previously only travelled to see my mother who I didn't get on with and it was always very traumatic. I stopped visiting her years ago and have a rue that l my holidays had to be productive and learning to justify the amount of anxiety preparing for them brings out. So it's been Thai boxing camp and Berlin as I was learning German. I haven't been away for almost 8 years. This was all before I even though I might be aspie. Just the preparing, arranging a sitter for my cats, getting to the airport on time and not missing the flight makes me tense and the whole thing not worth it.
I purchased tickets to see Rammstein in Berlin on Saturday. I bought the tickets last year as I really like their music and I haven't been away for a very long time and I though I would treat myself to a nice ticket and a trip as I though since I've been learning for a while and been hyperfixated on the band plus I could practice my German would be a good way to start again. Now, if you've read anything about Rammstein you'll know what a disaster this has turned out to be! The sex offence charges against the lead singer, the protest plant for this weekend in Berlin etc. I haven't been able to do much for the last week. I'm really conflicted but because reading all the facts it looks like the singer is guilty as charged. But my ticket was really expensive, and I worked so hard preparing everything and then there's the ticket price and obviously part of me feels duty bound to get this done. I can't help it! I don't know how to feel about any of this but I'm feeling increasingly, dangerously, upset. I have people telling me I shouldn't go, people telling me I should go. I'm still doing the flight part but I haven't thought past that point. It's weird, but it doesn't feel like it's moral decision. Maybe because I was more into the music than the individuals? Maybe I'm horrible and selfish, and a bad person who only cares about her tasks. Why am I still going? Why do I still want to? Just thinking about this is making me want to just run somewhere else and hide and never come back (even though I can't. cats.) I Don't see the band as people maybe, just sounds? I'm not sure.
I think I jut need a place to get this off my chest. I don't expect to hear nice things. or anything at all. Seeing bands live was the only place Ii felt I could relax. Weird isn't it. I can't do parties or dinners. But just drowning in a sea of people anonymously listing to music you like makes me relax. Not sue I can do that again though as people will always just be people.
I think that art is fundamentally independent of the morality of the artist. Caravaggio was a murderer, Picasso treated women abominably, Yukio Mishima was a Fascist who tried to engineer a right wing coup against the Japanese government, Richard Wagner was a racist, however, I can enjoy the art that these people created. Enjoying any artform is not an endorsement of the morals of its creators, the two are separate.
I think the key word there is "was". Most of the people you mention are not currently alive and reaping the benefits of their popularity. There's a difference between consuming art from a past age where things might have been viewed differently, and knowingly consuming art from someone current who has done something illegal/immoral by current standards. It's the difference between Wagner and his antisemitism, and Gary Glitter and his child pornography.
I think the temporal dimension is immaterial. I revere Bob Dylan as an artist, but I do not think that he is particularly wonderful as a human being. He does not have to be for his work to have relevance or for me to enjoy it. No one is responsible for the moral failings of another. No one need feel any moral qualms about enjoying the artistic work of a morally reprehensible artist. Gary Glitter produced some quite catchy pop records, they remained catchy even after his moral depravity became public.
So I looked this up. The GMC has guidelines about when doctors should be referred to an interim tribunal (that might suspend them temporarily) in responce to police investigations.
The point at which doctors who are the subject of criminal investigations should be referred to an IOT varies and will depend on all the circumstances of the case. While some referrals will be indicated at the point a doctor is arrested or interviewed under caution, it may be appropriate to wait until a formal criminal charge has been brought or a conviction is secured in other cases. However, careful consideration should be given to the nature and seriousness of the alleged offence and other relevant factors such as the likely risk to patient safety or public confidence if the doctor is allowed to continue in unrestricted practice pending a charging decision.
So the answer is the GMC 'might' suspend a doctor being investigated before he's charged ... but they don't always, it's situation specific. But even if they do he get's to have a mini trial to plead his case first.
I'm not sure, I would have assumed that any investigation would preclude them from operating anywhere, they are after all the same person whether they are working for the NHS or privately. I'd ask my husband's cardiologist next time we see him but I think he'd take it wrong!
I’m not sure if technically that’s correct. Consultants often work for multiple hospitals both privately and the NHS. Provided the GMC hasn’t revoked their license to practice i’m not sure if the hospital that employs them can complain about them working elsewhere. If one consultant asked another consultant to cone over and help on a case i’m not sure if they would need any of their employers permission.
At home he doesn't let it get in his way but school are more restrictive on what work he is given as they don't want him to start next year's work now as it then has a knock on effect. If he didn't have such issue on the social and emotional side they would have considered advancing him, however it was agreed that he needed to stay in an age appropriate class to help him deal with those issues.
And yes, the hospital would absolutely suspend the doctor during the investigation, during which time they wouldn't be able to assist with cases.
BeckyThump said:Not quite the same but it's a situation involving my son. He's very bright, reading at the top of the assessment criteria, i.e. at age 16, when he's 9, is advanced across most academic subjects at school and if they allowed him, would be doing work several years above his age.
If he was allowed? lol I never allowed that to get in my way. I remember watching OU lectures at 4-5 y/o.
BeckyThump said:I also believe that whilst any allegations were being investigated by the police and the employer, particularly ones of such a serious nature, that the accused is usually placed on suspension for the duration of the investigation.
Often investigations just fizzle out but the accusations remain. Police declare no further action. Nothing is clearly resolved. Being a TERF of nazi isn't even a police matter usually. I don't believe the GMC is in the practice of suspending medical licences temporarily so while a particular hospital might put him on leave another specialist might well call him in to help on a case on which he was the world expert.
Not quite the same but it's a situation involving my son. He's very bright, reading at the top of the assessment criteria, i.e. at age 16, when he's 9, is advanced across most academic subjects at school and if they allowed him, would be doing work several years above his age. We were asked whether we'd be thinking about him doing the scholarship exams for the local public school as they thought he would thrive there, we replied that we aren't as both my husband and I are morally against the public school system, we wouldn't want to support it by having our son participate, that would be hypocritical of us.
Morals and ethics are pointless if they don't apply to you as well as everyone else.
I also believe that whilst any allegations were being investigated by the police and the employer, particularly ones of such a serious nature, that the accused is usually placed on suspension for the duration of the investigation. I could be wrong, I'll check with my husband as he's done HR work for years. So your hypothetical situation would be unlikely, the doctor would be suspended until the allegations were proven either true, when they'd be sacked, or false, then they'd be reinstated.
What people do, say and believe matters, so whilst they have the right to their own autonomy of action and thought, they don't have the right to no consequences for those things if they're abhorrent, so I also have the right to mine and can choose to not engage with them.