Doctor Assaulted Suicidal Transgender Patient

[Natasha]

Doctor Assaulted Suicidal Transgender Patient

http://www.samesame.com.au/news/local/3265/Doctor-Assaulted-Suicidal-Transgender-Patient.htm
11/24/2008

A Melbourne Doctor has been found guilty of performing an indecent act upon a suicidal transgender patient only a day before International Transgender Day of Remembrance.

In June 2007, 53-year-old Sulieman Hamid was accused of touching a suicidal transgender woman in a Sunshine Hospital. Hamid was also accused of raping the woman back at her home the following day. Earlier in the trial the court heard that the woman propositioned Hamid, whilst he was treating her for a slashed wrist. The patient has a long history of suicidal tendencies and is also suffering a borderline personality disorder.

[whatsername]

Um. WHAT

[Annwyn]

Um. WHAT

Lol.

Sounds like she was offering, and he left all professional and moral decency behind and took her up on it.  Then she changed her mind and thought she'd get some attention by pressing charges.

[NicholeW.]

Um. WHAT

Lol.

Sounds like she was offering, and he left all professional and moral decency behind and took her up on it.  Then she changed her mind and thought she'd get some attention by pressing charges.

Yep, one could read it that way.

Or one could read it that he saw a situation he could take advantage of due to the volatile nature of BPD and acute suicidality and also probably figured her mental state would give him prophylaxis from prosecution and getting into exactly what he got into: the abuse of his power and position to commit rape (having sex with a person unable to give legal consent to the act.). He pressed his attention, following his penis. She allowed him in; and then in a more lucid state filed a police complaint indicating she was raped.

If she was simply thinking "she'd get some attention by pressing charges" one would imagine that her name would have been used and even commonplace in the location of the report; and that she would not still be anonymous. Anonymity is usually a very poor way to get "attention."

I presume that had he used rufinol in her drink in a club that you might imagine that it would still devolve on her for accepting the drink?  

Our wilingness to dismiss rape as being somehow "her fault" simply allows men like him to imagine that they can continue to behave in this fashion.

Nichole

[Dennis]

In addition to being sexual assault, it's also a gross violation of professional ethics. Who better to know she's in a vulnerable state than her doctor?

Dennis

[Annwyn]

Um. WHAT

Lol.

Sounds like she was offering, and he left all professional and moral decency behind and took her up on it.  Then she changed her mind and thought she'd get some attention by pressing charges.

Yep, one could read it that way.

Or one could read it that he saw a situation he could take advantage of due to the volatile nature of BPD and acute suicidality and also probably figured her mental state would give him prophylaxis from prosecution and getting into exactly what he got into: the abuse of his power and position to commit rape (having sex with a person unable to give legal consent to the act.). He pressed his attention, following his penis. She allowed him in; and then in a more lucid state filed a police complaint indicating she was raped.

If she was simply thinking "she'd get some attention by pressing charges" one would imagine that her name would have been used and even commonplace in the location of the report; and that she would not still be anonymous. Anonymity is usually a very poor way to get "attention."

I presume that had he used rufinol in her drink in a club that you might imagine that it would still devolve on her for accepting the drink? 

Our wilingness to dismiss rape as being somehow "her fault" simply allows men like him to imagine that they can continue to behave in this fashion.

I'm sorry Nichole, but cases of falsely accusing someone for sexual misconduct seems to be just as large a problem as the original one.  Considering that, facts are what matters, not he said she said and she said he said.  Given that she's already propositioned him, I can't feel too much sympathy for her.  But I completely agree in complete distaste for the doctor, hence the, "left all professional and moral decency."  I could add an attachment of insults but, I think that statement covers it all.  Out of the two people, the doctor is by far the guiltiest.
I was simply pointing out that the, "victim," really isn't that much of a victim considering her actions.  Propositioning him, granting permission of him into her own home after he'd made his intentions clear at the hospital, I mean come on even a druggy can add that up.

[soldierjane]

"Sir, have you no sense of decency?"

[NicholeW.]

The blame-sharing no doubt seems quite reasonable. Obviously it's been awhile since you were "not rational" due to a mental health condition like mania or dissociation.

Blame-sharing for an act like this in my book, Annwyn, is simply another excuse for saying "she wanted it." That idea is totally reprehensible. We agree on the doctor and I did read that part. Where we disagree is that someone unable to rationally give any sort of consent to the act itself should shoulder a part of the blame for the reprehensible behavior of the man who tried, and at least temporarily succeeded, in misusing his knowledge and his "power" to gratify an urge.

That he "almost certainly" will not continue practicing is perhaps the most astounding part of the aftermath. Would there be any doubt at all?!!

Rape is still viewed as a "double-blame" situation here. That it is is ludicrous, particularly from intelligent human beings and in situations like this.

Nichole

[Annwyn]

The blame-sharing no doubt seems quite reasonable. Obviously it's been awhile since you were "not rational" due to a mental health condition like mania or dissociation.

Blame-sharing for an act like this in my book, Annwyn, is simply another excuse for saying "she wanted it." That idea is totally reprehensible. We agree on the doctor and I did read that part. Where we disagree is that someone unable to rationally give any sort of consent to the act itself should shoulder a part of the blame for the reprehensible behavior of the man who tried, and at least temporarily succeeded, in misusing hos knowledge and his "power" to gratify an urge.

That he "almost certainly" will not continue practicing is perhaps the most astounding part of the aftermath. Would there be any doubt at all?!!

Rape is still viewed as a "double-blame" situation here. That it is is ludicrous, particularly from intelligent human beings and in situations like this.

Nichole

He was not convicted of rape, so no rape occurred here for purposes of discussion, unless you'd like to remit on the courts decision and accept that you're more qualified?

I've been in mental hospitals before and I've had my fair share of chemicals before, so please don't act as if I haven't been in any of those situations.  Probably the fact that I have is why I can immediately jump to this conclusion on my part.

How are you supposed to establish when her judgment was more faulty, when she propositioned him/allowed him into her home or when she decided to go press charges?  Furthermore, if drugs were being administered to her to treat mental disorders, how are you to determine in which mental condition she's got better judgment in: the undrugged mentally unstable one or the therapeutic drugged one?

The question of the doctors honor is of no question, as far as I'm concerned he took advantage of a situation that he was supposed to be remedying, twisting to his own sexual gratification.  Not only is that shedding responsibility as a health professional but it's morally indecent as well, I would personally say he should be getting mental treatment as well.  The question of whether to victim is as pitiful as she played off is something else to consider entirely, and there's way too much in the air to immediately dismiss her as being completely innocent whereas he's completely guilty.

[NicholeW.]

Annwyn, go technical in terms of what the conviction was for. Can you actually read the article and find no "rape" regardless of what he was convicted for?

If there comes a day when someone you know or yourself goes through the experience and then the experience of basically having your credibility destroyed afterwards after your body has been violated, then perhaps, you'll find that your easy dismissals are not so easy after all.

Many first-degree murders show convictions for 1) nothing, 2) 2nd-degree murder 3) some variety of manslaughter. Please, yes, in some areas I will absolutely "remit on the court's decision." My only puzzlement right now is why, given your history, you'd think that a dose of medication would effectively change a dissociative or unstable condition within one day.

In all of my years working with people who do take meds the absolute least time tends to be a week or two for meaningful changes to show up in behavior, judgement, etc.

BTW, going to school for a few years never made me an expert in Education. Going to church doesn't make me an expert in religion, etc, etc. And yes, experiencing rape does give me a regard for the woman in this case.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but please do not claim some "rational high-ground." having sex with a child or adult who's unable to give consent is a rape, regardless of what the conviction is for.

O, btw, howya feel about OJ? Just asking.

Nichole  

[Annwyn]

Nichole, I will be PMing you shortly to continue our discussion as we've seriously deviated from original points in the thread.

I will be deleting all deviant posts so they don't elicit further replies, I hope you'll follow suit.

[NicholeW.]

As a rational human being I would ask you to cite just how "Anti-psychotics/anti-seizures such as Haledol and Risperdol have immediate effects.That's not even going into barbituates such as valium, klonopin, or ativan which have very immediate effects." Applies in this case?


Sedating her is basically giving her rufinol and then taking advantage of the fact. None of those drugs "stabilize" a patient's thoughts, they stabilize her bodily reactions and basically sedate her to one or another extent. In a case like this making it more likely that she was amenable to being raped. Laccdaisical about it even.

Surely you're not suggesting that should be a non-factor in the discussion, are you?
 
You have your ideas and are, of course, entitled to them. *shrug*


Nichole

And you've also your ideas about a "relevant" discussion of rape? That you find my posts to be "unrelated" simply puzzles me. But, as you will.

[Annwyn]

 few questions I'd like you to think on for me:

During rough sex, when does the woman who's been playfighting it and saying no ACTUALLY start fighting it and meaning, "no?"
During extreme sub/dom activities, when does the consent given prior to the activity become negligible and the submissive party become a victim of being an unwilling participant of abuse or rape?

In the above two situations, who is guilty?

When a woman who willingly takes drugs and submits consent under the influence of those drugs is taken on the basis of her consent, assuming the man played no part in administering or advising those drugs, why should she be able to claim rape?


You're not the only one who's been the victim here, more than once either.  So as far as all those posts earlier about me not knowing what it's like or this or that, those won't even be further considered in this discussion.


Very few drugs have to build up to a level in the blood, a therapeutic threshold.  Lithium, Lexapro, a few other SSRI's.  Most drugs, especially the stronger ones like valium, haledol, klonopin, risperdol, manifest themselves immediately.  I would be weary of discussing pharmaceuticals with a pharmacy student and not getting it handed to you    Your, "rufinol," or rather Rohypnol, is not used by medical institutions for the purpose of sedation, if it is then that's an off label use for it and a possible case for malpractice right there.


Now, we are to presume that rape occurred when he pled not guilty and she accused him?  I mean jeez, I know it's splitting hairs here but when you're going to take the word of a hospitalized, mentally unstable woman over a licensed MD, evidence has to be considered.  The dude was 53, assuming he got his degree at a late age of 35, that's still 18 years of practicing right there with a clean record. 

Sedating her is basically giving her rufinol and then taking advantage of the fact. None of those drugs "stabilize" a patient's thoughts, they stabilize her bodily reactions and basically sedate her to one or another extent. In a case like this making it more likely that she was amenable to being raped. Laccdaisical about it even.

You still haven't supported your theory as to her deliberate intoxication by him one bit.

And you've also your ideas about a "relevant" discussion of rape? That you find my posts to be "unrelated" simply puzzles me. But, as you will.

Relevant discussion of rape always needs to consider that the defendant might just be innocent.

[Ashtara]

Nichole, having fun yet?

Annwyn, don't take the ban bait.

[Annwyn]

Nichole, having fun yet?

Annwyn, don't take the ban bait.

Hiyah Kelley.

You sure came back around quickly enough.

Might as well say my goodbyes right now, as I doubt you'll be around much longer.

[Truth Seeker]

Our wilingness to dismiss rape as being somehow "her fault" simply allows men like him to imagine that they can continue to behave in this fashion.

Nichole

And our willingness to believe that simply allows men to get automatically blamed for every situation in which the word rape is so much as whispered without being given a fair chance, as well as condoning the life-destroying witchtrials that inevitably take place as a result.

There are two sides to every story, Nichole, and I assure you, men live in as much fear of being accused of rape unfairly as women do of being raped. Both are an unfair, psychological assault, and both can ruin a life with no possibility of protecting yourself against it.

If a woman *were* to decide she has changed her mind right after sex, and claim it was rape, the man simply wouldn't stand a chance, he would be judged by everyone as guilty simply because men are easier to hate and look down on. And let's be honest, a situation like that *could* easily take place.

For you to look at that situation and pressume upon how it happened is no different than someone pressuming that it was, in fact, her fault. The only difference is you feel righteous for your presumption - neither speculation is really treating the situation fairly or without some kind of bias.

And just to play devil's advocate, I imagine that she *would* want to remain anonymous even if this were a stunt. She probably wouldn't want to draw attention to the fact that she is transgendered, and rather than publicity, she might simply have been aiming for a settlement.

Consider all angles before you come to a conclusion, and if after that there is no fair conclusion to make, then don't make any.


Truth Seeker

[NicholeW.]

 few questions I'd like you to think on for me:

During rough sex, when does the woman who's been playfighting it and saying no ACTUALLY start fighting it and meaning, "no?"
During extreme sub/dom activities, when does the consent given prior to the activity become negligible and the submissive party become a victim of being an unwilling participant of abuse or rape?

In the above two situations, who is guilty?

When a woman who willingly takes drugs and submits consent under the influence of those drugs is taken on the basis of her consent, assuming the man played no part in administering or advising those drugs, why should she be able to claim rape?


You're not the only one who's been the victim here, more than once either.  So as far as all those posts earlier about me not knowing what it's like or this or that, those won't even be further considered in this discussion.


Very few drugs have to build up to a level in the blood, a therapeutic threshold.  Lithium, Lexapro, a few other SSRI's.  Most drugs, especially the stronger ones like valium, haledol, klonopin, risperdol, manifest themselves immediately.  I would be weary of discussing pharmaceuticals with a pharmacy student and not getting it handed to you    Your, "rufinol," or rather Rohypnol, is not used by medical institutions for the purpose of sedation, if it is then that's an off label use for it and a possible case for malpractice right there.


Now, we are to presume that rape occurred when he pled not guilty and she accused him?  I mean jeez, I know it's splitting hairs here but when you're going to take the word of a hospitalized, mentally unstable woman over a licensed MD, evidence has to be considered.  The dude was 53, assuming he got his degree at a late age of 35, that's still 18 years of practicing right there with a clean record. 

Sedating her is basically giving her rufinol and then taking advantage of the fact. None of those drugs "stabilize" a patient's thoughts, they stabilize her bodily reactions and basically sedate her to one or another extent. In a case like this making it more likely that she was amenable to being raped. Laccdaisical about it even.

You still haven't supported your theory as to her deliberate intoxication by him one bit.

And you've also your ideas about a "relevant" discussion of rape? That you find my posts to be "unrelated" simply puzzles me. But, as you will.

Relevant discussion of rape always needs to consider that the defendant might just be innocent.

Yes, there are times that the defendant is, no doubt, innocent, and should be adjudged so. This just doesn't seem to be one of those times.

The fact of his relative position and her relative sanity has probably already gotten him a lesser sentence than you or Kelley would have recived in the same situation.

Yes, I am aware that Rohypnol has no medical usages at present. Did I suggest he'd used it. I compared a number of possible sedative choices with that drug. Smart girl you are, you are aware of that. The fact remains she was sedated to some extent when he came to the home, which was, of course, sleazy response number two.

Sedation and a change of "thought" are two unconnected things. Giving you a Valium doesn't do anything much more than relaxing you, or, if I give you enough it'll also addict you. Those Anxiety meds work on the basis of narcotic sedation and are used primarily as ways to treat a symptom and not what underlies the symptom. I believe you are also aware of that.

Like you said and I agreed with, the guy's a sleaze. His social standing relative to a formerly hospitalized and decidedly still unstable person doesn't make him in any way innocent. In fact, from a professional perspective it makes him even more guilty.

Nichole

@ Truth Seeker:
Your even-handed approach is quite appreciated. Although is probably not relavant in any way to criminal justice. To sieve through every possible reason and explanation for an act and to make, in doing so, a case that a sleazy act, somehow deserves understanding or a rehearsal of possibilities as to why the perp could be innocent seems to be a matter for his attorney.


I suppose I am not much "even-handed" when it comes to rape or to other violations of an individual's body.


As for "men getting blamed for rape?" OK, you have stats on how many women rape men? or other women? I have at least one friend who was drugged and raped by another woman.

She didn't find it as absolutely brutal as was her rape by a man, but she does have a problem with unconsenting sex, even if it's a woman.

To read some of this is basically, to me, to read any number of "reasons" why rape doesn't occur at all. It's just guys getting blamed for things they don't do.



I have some real problems with that kind of "rationality."  
Nichole

[whatsername]

During rough sex, when does the woman who's been playfighting it and saying no ACTUALLY start fighting it and meaning, "no?"

When she actually starts fighting and means no.

During extreme sub/dom activities, when does the consent given prior to the activity become negligible and the submissive party become a victim of being an unwilling participant of abuse or rape?

When the Dom ignores the safe word.  Which is exactly why BDSMers use a safe word.

In the above two situations, who is guilty?

The person who doesn't stop when their partner alters their participation or ignores their safe word.  I'm sorry but there is a marked difference in people that any half way decent partner can feel or read when they are not into it, or mean it when they say no.

When a woman who willingly takes drugs and submits consent under the influence of those drugs is taken on the basis of her consent, assuming the man played no part in administering or advising those drugs, why should she be able to claim rape?

If a woman was raped she was raped.  I don't even understand your question.  Why "should" she be able to "claim" rape?  What "should" she "claim" if she is raped besides that she is?

Now, we are to presume that rape occurred when he pled not guilty and she accused him?

Why would we presume he's not guilty because he says so?

the word of a hospitalized, mentally unstable woman over a licensed MD, evidence has to be considered.

This is exactly why some men pick suicidal women and trans women for their victims.  They know they have access to them because "who will believe you over me".  I see absolutely no reason to trust a licensed MD over a mentally unstable woman, specifically because there is a pattern we can see throughout history of men with power over women abusing it, doctors especially.

You still haven't supported your theory as to her deliberate intoxication by him one bit.

She was in the hospital receiving treatment for a slashed wrist, you really don't think she was heavily medicated?  And that the doctor knew this and took advantage of her confused and vulnerable state?

There are two sides to every story, Nichole, and I assure you, men live in as much fear of being accused of rape unfairly as women do of being raped.

That's an incredible generalization, and in my experience quite false.  Most men don't ever even consider that this could happen to them.  I say that as a wife of a man falsely accused of rape.

If a woman *were* to decide she has changed her mind right after sex, and claim it was rape, the man simply wouldn't stand a chance, he would be judged by everyone as guilty simply because men are easier to hate and look down on.

For every one time that this happens there are fifty more cases like in Santa Barbara a couple years ago of multiple witnesses to a gang rape where all the rapists have their charges dismissed.

For you to look at that situation and pressume upon how it happened is no different than someone pressuming that it was, in fact, her fault.

For us to look at a man who was convicted of a crime against this woman is the same as presuming with no evidence one way or the other?  How?

[Truth Seeker]

That's an incredible generalization, and in my experience quite false.  Most men don't ever even consider that this could happen to them.  I say that as a wife of a man falsely accused of rape.

Well yes it was a generalization, I was deliberately being general, didn't think I would be taken that literally. In the same sense, not *all* woman walk around scared of being raped, I'm sure. I just meant that being accused of rape is pretty much as scary to men as the prospect of being raped is to women.

Let's use some common sense shall we. You don't need to take every word literally, just try to understand the message that's being sent.

For every one time that this happens there are fifty more cases like in Santa Barbara a couple years ago of multiple witnesses to a gang rape where all the rapists have their charges dismissed.

Exactly, and the sheer likelyhood of that makes the latter situation even less likely to be recognized, don't you think?

My case is not that every case of rape is a false alarm, or even the opposite, all I'm saying is that any kind of uninformed presumption either way could ruin lives.

For us to look at a man who was convicted of a crime against this woman is the same as presuming with no evidence one way or the other?  How?

Okay, that was badly worded, fair enough.

What I meant is that for us to assume -conviction aside- that he did do it is no different than someone assuming he did not do it, and taking the biassed attitude that Nichole was protesting against. I was merely pointing out that it works both ways, we shouldn't make any assumptions.


Truth Seeker

[NicholeW.]

That's an incredible generalization, and in my experience quite false.  Most men don't ever even consider that this could happen to them.  I say that as a wife of a man falsely accused of rape.

Well yes it was a generalization, I was deliberately being general, didn't think I would be taken that literally. In the same sense, not *all* woman walk around scared of being raped, I'm sure. I just meant that being accused of rape is pretty much as scary to men as the prospect of being raped is to women.
 
Let's use some common sense shall we. You don't need to take every word literally, just try to understand the message that's being sent.

For every one time that this happens there are fifty more cases like in Santa Barbara a couple years ago of multiple witnesses to a gang rape where all the rapists have their charges dismissed.

Exactly, and the sheer likelyhood of that makes the latter situation even less likely to be recognized, don't you think?
 
My case is not that every case of rape is a false alarm, or even the opposite, all I'm saying is that any kind of uninformed presumption either way could ruin lives.

For us to look at a man who was convicted of a crime against this woman is the same as presuming with no evidence one way or the other?  How?

Okay, that was badly worded, fair enough.
 
What I meant is that for us to assume -conviction aside- that he did do it is no different than someone assuming he did not do it, and taking the biassed attitude that Nichole was protesting against. I was merely pointing out that it works both ways, we shouldn't make any assumptions.
 
 
Truth Seeker

 

Does a rape "ruin a life?"


I also disagree that most men worry about being accused of rape as there are women worry about being raped. Where do you find any evidence of that? Rape statistics are certainly not in your favor. Evidently all sorts of guys "think" they will get away with it.
What "assumption" is being made here, Truth Seeker? That's the real problem I am having understanding what you've written.


TBH, guys can often seem much more "logical and rational" about rape simply because it's not in their minds that they'll ever experience it. Doncha think?


The "objective observer" stance can be really nice when one doesn't have a dog in the fight. That hardly makes the observer "objective" though. It simply makes him immune to the experience, at least in his own thoughts.

Nichole