Abuse - Perpetrator as practicing doctor?

NYTimes

A year ago, Sweden’s most prestigious medical school found itself in an international uproar after it unknowingly admitted a student who was a Nazi sympathizer and a convicted murderer, then scrambled to find a way to expel him.

It is hard to imagine how the case could get any more bizarre. But it has.

The 33-year-old student, Karl Helge Hampus Svensson, having been banished from the medical school of the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm on the ground that he falsified his high school records, has now been admitted to a second well-known medical school — Uppsala, Sweden’s oldest university.

New twists in his and another case highlight the difficulties that three of the country’s six medical schools have had in admitting and dismissing students with serious criminal offenses in just the past two years. The cases resonate far beyond Sweden, raising fundamental questions about who is fit to become a doctor.

The circumstances of Mr. Svensson’s admission to Uppsala’s first-year class — reported in January by Swedish news organizations — are unknown, because none of the officials involved will publicly discuss his case. He apparently uses an assumed name — a customary practice for Swedes seeking to remain anonymous because of a personal threat. Last week, Uppsala officials, responding to concerns about Mr. Svensson’s admission, said he had not participated in class work, but did not say why.

In another embarrassing twist, a Swedish newspaper reported last month that much of the verdict and court files regarding Bjorn Soderberg, Mr. Svensson’s murder victim, had been cut out or replaced with blank pages. The police said they had been unable to find a culprit.

And in still another case, a 24-year-old medical student at Lund University was convicted last April of raping a 14-year-old boy while he slept. A district court sentenced the student to two years in prison, but a higher court reduced the sentence to two years’ probation and medical therapy. [...]

Snake Oil vs. Scientific Medicine

Washington Post

Our conference was being held over lunch, but Pat, a middle-aged health-care consultant, did not touch a bite of her food. When I asked if something was wrong, she revealed her lifelong battle with Crohn's disease, an inflammation of the bowels that causes diarrhea and abdominal pain.

I asked what her doctor advised. With some hesitation, she told me she was chiefly being treated by someone she called her "teacher," who helped her use her use qi gong, a Chinese system of breathing and energy exercise, to manage her illness.

She also sees a conventional doctor. But I was struck that this woman, whose job involves ensuring that hospital practices are supported by scientific evidence, had chosen to consult a provider of alternative medicine.

"My teacher looks at me as a whole person," she explained. "He looks at my emotional state, not just my diseased state. . . . He empowers me on how to care for myself. . . . My doctor looks at me just as a disease."

As an MD with two decades of experience, I felt a sense of rebuke. Personally, I am not averse to alternative medicine. Though I was raised and educated in America, I was born in India, where treatments such as ayurveda and yoga originated and where they are perceived as an equivalent method of healing many illnesses. And I use meditation and massage as aids to relaxation.[...]

Convert on beis din for conversion? - Rabbi Broyde

Rabbi Broyde has a typically excellect summary of the subject on the Hirhurim blog. Subject discussed on this blog I II III

Some Final Observations Now That the Summary is Over

It seems to me [and to preempt any questions, I am speaking just for myself and for no organization that I am involved in: neither Emory University nor its law school, nor its law and religion program, nor the Beth Din of America nor the Young Israel where I am the Founding Rabbi necessarily agree with my thoughts] that given since this dispute is without clear precedent, one can say for certain that as a matter of halachic policy it is a bad idea to allow a convert to serve on a bet din.

The rationale for this seems clear. Given the fact that there are many, many eminent poskim who think such a conversion is invalid even bedieved, it would be a terrible disservice to any convert to intentionally staff their conversion panel with such a rabbi. It makes such a conversion invalid according to many poskim for no good reason. An indisputably valid panel is a wise idea in every case and for every convert lechatchila. (This is even more so true in this matter where a hachra’ah based on logical rules seems so hard.)

The intentional decision to place a rabbi who is a convert on a conversion panel is nearly a form of rabbinic malpractice in my view; since so many competent and qualified rabbis are present in our times, why staff a rabbinical court with one whose qualifications are to be questioned as a matter of halacha?

Evil which is turned to good is greater good

Arvei Nachal(#23): G‑d created man for His honor and in order that there be reward and punishment in this world. This is the result of man having free‑will to do good or evil. However it is impossible to have free‑will unless man himself is a combination of good and evil. It is because of this man has the ability to turn from evil. Therefore when the good overcomes the evil – the evil turns to good and the reward is very great. The Zohar (2:184a) states that good exists only in turning from evil. In other words, even thought the good is inherently good, however the evil which is turned to good has a much higher quality. This is stated in Bereishis Rabbah (9:5): “very good” is referring to death. In other words that evil that is turned to good is very good and it is called “very good”. Consequently this is what G‑d wanted in the creation of man. It is impossible to accomplish this unless man is a combination of good and evil.

R' Yochanon & Raish Lakish - Rabbi Derovan

Rabbi Yochanan and Raish Lakish

Michael Freund of Shavei Israel responds to criticism

Michael Freund, Chairman, Shavei Israel responds to "RaP's criticism of proselytizing in Poland":

I would like to respond to the spurious criticism and outright lashon hara contained in the March 19 post entitled, "RaP's criticism of proselytizing in Poland".

I find it simply incomprehensible that my organization, Shavei Israel, is being labeled as "missionary" and criticized for helping people in Poland to return to their Jewish roots. Had the person who posted this tirade bothered to read the article in Mishpacha magazine in question, they would have seen quite clearly that I am quoted as saying the following: "For those interested in halachic conversion, we send them to the proper rabbinic authorities. For those who just want to learn more, we try to provide them with positive Jewish experiences.” Shavei Israel leaves the halachic aspect of each case to Israel’s Chief rabbinate. “Each case has its own set of evidence, its own level of proof or reliability,” Freund explains. “Is the Jewish line from the mother or the father? What kind of proof is there? These are things for a beis din to decide.”

There it is - in black and white - we leave these matters for a beis din to decide, because as Torah-observant Jews our fidelity is to Halacha and nothing else. We simply refer the people in question to rabbonim, and it is up to them to make the determination. Since when is referring people to a beis din considered "missionary" activity? Since when is respecting Torah law and following it cause for being the target of lashon hara?

Michael Freund
Chairman, Shavei Israel

Spirtual love vs material love

Meshech Chochma(Vayikra 19:18): Bereishis Rabba (41:1): A tzadik flourishes like a date palm… Just as a date palm and cedar tree have desires also tzadikim have desires. What are their desires – it is for G‑d…. Rav Tanchum said that there was a date palm in Chamaso which did not give forth fruit. A palm tree gardener passed by and commented that this date tree is longing for palm tree in Jericho. Once the two were grafted it bore fruit. The key to understanding this medrash is from the tradition that the yetzer harah does not have an influence except on which the eyes see (Sotah 8a). Lust for material things only is aroused by what the eye sees and then the heart desires(Bamidbar Rabbah 10:2). Similarly Megila (15a) says that the mere mention of the name of Rachab (who was very beautiful) caused a person to be sexual aroused. But that was only if the person knew what she looked like. However what the eye hasn’t seen the heart doesn’t desire.

In contrast the lust of tzadikim is not that way but comes from the power of the mind… Their desire is solely for spirituality and getting close to G‑d and not for material things. This is stated in Shemos (33:20): No man can see me and be alive. Thus we can understand the lust of the date palm and the cedar tree to which tzadikim are compared. It is not based on material desires. Therefore we see that the date palm had desire for that which it couldn’t see. The tzadik has gained control over his material nature and now has desire for that which can’t be seen – which is G‑d. This is also the proper understanding of “You shall love your fellow man as yourself I am G‑d.” Just as you have been commanded to love G‑d even though He hasn’t appeared before you – similarly you shall love and value every single Jew – even though he is so far away from you that you have never seen him.