Yang kedua aku tahu siapa Raja Petra...bukan tak kenal siapa dia...so apa nak kecoh lagi...
Lagi pun Dr Osman tu bukannya jauh hubungan dengan Anwar Ibrahim...Dr Osman pernah bertugas dengan RISEAP (Regional Islamic Da'wah Council of Southeast Asia and the Pacific) dari 1993 hingga 1995...secara kebetulannya pada masa yang sama Anwar Ibrahim memegang jawatan dalam Majlis Tertinggi RISEAP...so faham-faham la kan...
Lagipun tulisan Dr Osman dalam diagnose dia tu amat teruk..(biasa la tulisan doktor kan..)...so buat apa nak pakai terjemahan Raja Petra yang bukannya doktor tu...
Aku lebih percaya terjemahan yang diberikan oleh seorang doktor...so dalam pada aku berjalan-jalan ke merata blog, aku terjumpa dengan tulisan Dr Rafick ni...
First of all, it is not a medical report. It is a doctor Out Patient notes. Going by the letterhead, it could have been PUSRAWI record but I cannot be sure because in the cause of my work I have never had the opportunity of seeing any similar documents from PUSRAWI. On the document, it shows that it was signed and the rubber stamp shows the name of Dr Mohamed Osman Abdul Hamid. He is a medical officer and probably has done some PR examination in his lifetime. Obviously, it would not be as frequent as a gastroenterologist would.
....
The doctor made the diagnosis TRO Assault (Sodomise). The short form TRO is a common terminology that is use by doctors, which means “To Rule Out” . What it means here is that, the doctor is in the opinion that the diagnosis of sodomy need to be rule out and not as what RPK has interpreted that it has been rule out. ( RPK says: The doctor’s diagnosis is that he rules out or TRO (to rule out) assault (sodomised)). Again, RPK has jump the gun and made the wrong conclusion. RPK also mention that “In short: Mohd Saiful Bukhari Bin Azlan is not suffering any pain in the anus and neither was he assaulted or sodomised in the anus”. Well RPK, I feel you have put words, which the doctor did not say.
....
Please, allow me to interpret and explain what the person who wrote the notes has written. This is based on the 2-piece document that RPK published.· This is a case of a male by the name of MSB with an IC No 850706015687. He went to see a doctor about one week after being alleged assaulted with a plastic object in his anus.
· There was no mention about the plastic object details like its length, width, thickness and hardness. If it was a small and soft plastic object and has been lubricated then, it is expected that a tear did not take place. If it is a big object like a proctoscope and adequately lubricated, there will be no tear. For a tear to take place, the object must have not been lubricated and probably of a decent size. If it is a small object, it must have been sharp and was done against the persons will. If the person is experience with anal sex, his action was voluntarily, then I do not expect any tear.
· The patient did not complain that he has seen any blood in the stools. This was confirms by the examination which shows that there was no tear or ulcer.
· The examination was very limited in value as it is only a PR and not a proctoscope. It is not even mention about the prostate size, the tension of the anal sphincter or colour of stools, which means that the doctor probably did not put his finger into the patient anus.
· In most likelihood, the doctor merely does an external anus examination, which will not show longitudinal mucosal anal tear if it was present. The fact that there was no complains of seeing blood means that there is no vascular tear. There was no infection and as such, there would be no pus.
In conclusion, I would like to say that RPK has misinterpreted the facts. He has also exaggerated the interpretation of the doctor writings. I think who ever has been advising him , has not given a fair opinion His writings have come to such a skewed conclusion and now his writings is being politicised. Overall, I think this medical note has not proved or disapprove anything.
Itulah apa yang aku faham dan baca dari tulisan Dr Rafick...dan aku lebih meyakini beliau berbanding Raja Petra...korang boleh baca sepenuhnya tulisan Dr Rafick kat blog dia...
Dah la tu..si Raja Petra ni siap tuduh pulak pak menakan si Saiful tu, Uncle Pet yang sodom anak sedara dia...hehe..rasa aku la..kalau setahap mana pun gay seseorang tu..takkan dia nak 'beraksi' dengan darah daging dia sendiri kot..kan...
Sudahnya Uncle Pet dah marah dan ajak Raja Petra tentukan mana gelanggang dia nak...wow...hebat...aku respek pasal pada aku ini menunjukkan berani kerana benar...bukan nya lari ke mana-mana kedutaan...!!!hehe...apa nak dikata..
No comments:
Post a Comment