Poirot,

You dug a big hole for yourself. Doctors deal with patients face to face all the time with regards health and other issues, and are probably more qualified than anyone else to judge whether a person is lying or not. She has not quantified nor identified those illegals she says are non genuine, but it is clear that she knows that many are blatantly lying about their situation, and that their expectations are less about freedom from persecution, and more about a lifestyle they aspire to.

This is a person that has genuine sympathy for refugees and has sacrificed much to help them. Her disgust at the dishonesty of the economic refugees is far more believable than the left whingers claims that all these cashed up illegals who have destroyed their documents and have almost identical stories are genuinely fleeing persecution.

SPQR,

If I wasn't so polite, I'd call you a prat : )

That is the director's opinion.

The article in question here was the doctor's opinion.

Neither of them are assessors.

and so what?

The amazing thing here is that you lot appear to believe that humans don't at times make mass migrations. You appear to think that displacement on this level, for whatever reason - is something unusual. Ever studied even a tad of history?

You never disappoint, do you.

The main point of posting that article was to highlight Australia's insularity....the fact that the refugees are dehumanised and referred to as "the boats".

Of course, I would never expect you to "get it"...that's why I advised the rest of you to talk amongst yerselves.

Thanks, SM,

Well...I think you should write to the government pronto to inform them that they're wasting their time "processing" asylum seekers.

You should inform them that all they have to do is give them a fundamental health check upon arrival - and then ask the doctor (and maybe the nurses) if the person in question is a "refugee" or not.

Perhaps it can be simplified, and after the health check the doc can just tick a box - yay or nay.

Problem solved!

Quit while you're behind, Poirot.

Cheers :)

Joe

Poirot,

Sometimes I wonder whether you have any grey matter between your ears. I clearly stated above:

"The doctor in question is not involved in assessing asylum claims, nor should she be."

This would be clear conflict of interest and breach of patient confidentiality.

Is there anything else illegal or unethical you would care to suggest.

Dear OTB,

Neither major party has anything to be proud of
regarding asylum seekers. The two major parties
have been competing with each other for the
cruelest, harshest policies on asylum seekers -
both parties spent fortunes and neither side
was willing to discuss the moral cost (as well as
the financial cost) of maintaining a network
of prisons. Your continuation of bringing up the
costs only on one side of politics - doesn't present
the full picture. What do you think the current costs
will be - with the navy involved. - And as the problems
continue, the costs will also.

As for your reference to "putting the rubbish out of
Canberra?"

There are many people who would question
that statement of yours . People with disabilities and their
families and carers, victims of child sexual abuse,
seniors needing health care, families with children to
educate, and the list goes on.

The current government is finding out that it's one thing
to be in Opposition and telling people that the Government
doesn't work, but quite another to be in Government and
have to actually try to solve the problems that won't go
away. Suddenly the rhetoric gets toned down, as we're
witnessing.

Time will tell what sort of legacy this government this
Government will leave behind -
and whether someone will also make the statement
about them that the "rubbish has now gone from Canberra."

I hope not.