Moalims

Among the several debates that I had engaged in with my friends at Cambridge, many of whom are medical doctors of Pakistani extraction, one was about the peculiarity of the socio-cultural context of modern (allopathic) medicine. Obviously, morality forms an integral part of any socio-cultural setting. Besides, any scientific advancement becomes possible only in an enabling environment and therefore the overall impact engendered by socio-cultural conditions cannot be sequestered from the final outcome of scientific evolution of any kind.
Of course, the same holds for medical sciences and health care too. It is important to emphasise here the efficacy of good training, but one must bear in mind that in imparting knowledge or tending to the sick, some moral code which is anchored in a time-honoured tradition is vitally important.
It is worth pondering that we (Muslims) do not have that tradition in which such ‘meaningful practices’ can find roots to germinate and grow. The discussions, which usually generated extraordinary steam, centred on the indifference shown by paramedic staff towards patients needing post-operative care, which presumably neutralised the endeavours of the ‘finest’ doctors with their immaculate training and expertise (Here ‘immaculate training and expertise’ denote foreign training which in fact refers to the training either from the US or UK. Any doctor with training from Pakistan is simply not good enough according to my doctor friends.)
That indifference, I argued, emanates from cultural peculiarities, which are resistant to the modern system of healthcare, organised on the moral ethos essentially entrenched in Christianity.
Dr Mehmood Ahmed Butt, a perceptive person who currently heads the Services Institute of Medical Sciences (SIMS), Lahore, while conversing on the subject, concurred with me and said, “Unfortunately, we don’t have such role models like Florence Nightingale.”
Florence Nightingale (1820-1910) is no stranger to a majority of us. Nevertheless, it is pertinent to furnish a brief introduction here. She was a celebrated English social reformer and statistician but, more importantly, she was the founder of modern nursing. She shot to prominence while serving as the manager of nurses trained by her during the Crimean War (1853), where she made an immense contribution in tending to the wounded soldiers. She gave nursing an extremely favourable reputation and became an icon of Victorian culture, especially in the persona of ‘The Lady with the Lamp’ making rounds of wounded soldiers at night.
With the status accorded to women by the Muslims, historically, such a profession as nursing has remained a taboo. But the point that I want to make here is about the sheer absence of a compatible moral underpinning of the contemporary system of healthcare in our society. That is the fundamental reason that the system of medical care is in a state of decay.
My contention irked many of my doctor friends, particularly when the connection of the contemporary medical practice was made with the moral ethos which was specific to the Christian church. The interesting reactions of some of them, who are at the very top of their respective fields of medical profession, are still fresh in my mind. None of them was really amused. Though one admitted that the Christian nursing staff was markedly better in its attitude and professionalism, a point that corroborates my conclusion.
Any serious student of history is privy to the fact that the dissemination of knowledge (one may read it as ‘education’) and tending to the sick (or the medical practice) were the preserve and prerogative of the Church until well into the 20thcentury. Education and healthcare, in fact, constituted the most important components of the whole missionary setup. For the Christian (and particularly the Catholic) Church, control over education and healthcare was a great source of social empowerment which kept the former relevant even in the days when religion had to take a backseat as against the state apparatus.
Education and healthcare were deployed by the missionaries as the most effective tools for propagation of Christian faith in the age of colonialism. State power extended all possible support in their bid to convert the natives. Therefore, the depiction of colonial rule as a religiously neutral dispensation is nothing but a misconstrued conclusion which is quite pervasive among the literate sections of our society.
Reverting to the connection of modern healthcare with Christian morality, the visibility of Christian symbols is very prominent even now in hospitals all around the globe — in the form of the dress code of the paramedic staff and the doctors. Until quite recently, the ‘Cross’ remained inscribed on ambulances even in Pakistan. That is reminiscent of the ‘order of the hospital of St. Johns’ established in 1099, during the Crusades.
It is important to note here that it was the institutional continuity in such practices that became vital for the social sustainability of the Western individual. That is the primary difference between the Muslims and Christians (better call them Westerners). The latter have preserved their tradition with the help of history, and thus the chain of events and practices is intact to a great extent, unlike us Muslims who just have a few links with much of the chain having vanished in the mists of time. Our morality and ethos have no sustainable ground for themselves with which they are able to nurture the systems of education (Dars-i-Nizami) and healthcare (Unani/Islami Tibb).
Thus we are compelled to borrow not only the systems of education and healthcare but also the morality and ethos in which these systems are embedded. Otherwise, they will not yield any result. That, in fact, should be a moment of reflection for those constantly narrating that Islam is a complete code of life, which addresses all the needs and the problems that encounter humanity.

News Reference: http://tns.thenews.com.pk/the-christian-ethos/#.VaIlB7VlHIU