From Kevin
I don’t believe I have been doing either interrogating Newcomer or dissecting her beliefs. I merely agreed that MT (Mother Teresa) might not be as good as her PR and she entered a conversation with me. We have always gotten along fine despite that we don’t see the world the same.
I have given you eyewitness accounts and a story from a respected news outlet. I purposely skipped over the similar stories from Mr. Hitchens because some bias would be claimed because he is an noted atheist and not a big fan of any church. The fact that she accepted some of the money Charles Keating swindled from his investors, asked the prosecutor to be lenient on him and didn’t return the money when asked is all a matter of public record.
Of course these things look like sour grapes. They always do. I remember when Lance Armstrong was at the top of his popularity and a few lone reporters were saying, hey wait a minute, there is some evidence he may have been doping. The response then? Not that, hey you may have a point and we should look into that some more. The response was, hey that’s sour grapes, why are you trying to take him down?
There is plenty of good evidence in just what I provided that she may not have been everything that her PR says she was. This isn’t just some crackpot conspiracy theory, there is good information behind it. The people who raised the complaints, regardless of their views, deserve better than accusations of sour grapes.
Would you believe a Dr. who viewed her facilities and found an lack of use of anesthetic which kept people needlessly in pain and purposely operated inefficiently because of the belief in providence which most likely led to plenty of needless death? Is that good enough?
“There are doctors who call in from time to time but usually the sisters and volunteers make decisions as best they can. I saw a young man who had been admitted in poor shape with high fever, and the drugs prescribed had been tetracycline and paracetamol. Later a visiting doctor diagnosed probable malaria and substituted chloroquine. Could not someone have looked at a blood film? Investigations, I was told, are seldom permissible. How about simple algorithms that might help the sisters and volunteers distinguish the curable from the incurable? Again no. Such systematic approaches are alien to the ethos of the home. Mother Teresa prefers providence to planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards materialism…Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Teresa’s approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.”
Dr Robin Fox, The Lancet, 17 September 1994 issue
I’m sure she wouldn’t have thought herself as evil or as a sadist. But her own quotes reveal a person that thinks that poverty and suffering bring one closer to god and she dedicated her life to bringing people closer to god. Her actions would seem to be entirely consistent with that belief.
Bad things are done under good intentions all the time.
Thanks, Kevin
@Kevin
“A Student” was the one who complained about interrogating and dissecting NC’s beliefs. I agreed with him/her to the extent that disparaging someone’s arguments based on what that person believes as opposed to their facts and logic is poor form.
I like your MT/Lance Armstrong comparison. It pointed out nicely how we dismiss what we don’t want to be true. On the flip side for MT is that there are inspirational quotations attributed to her which she did not utter, ie, we also bolster up what we want to be true.
The only thing you said that MIGHT be a little weak is, “There is plenty of good evidence… that she may not have been everything that her PR says she was.” From the admittedly little research I’ve done, it appears possible that, like with the right wing anti-abortion websites, many entities are picking up the same limited number of stories and reprinting them thus leading to the impression that there are many separate and distinct critics when in reality there are only a few. A possibility.
Her alleged withholding of pain relief for the dying is still not uncommon today [cf the FDA's proposed tightening up on pain killers containing hydrocodone]. Thankfully, compassion is rapidly becoming the watch word in hospice and the acceptance if not requirement that the dying suffer in the name of some presumably higher moral goal – like not getting them “hooked on drugs” or having them see the true face of God – is fading.
Diane-
Diane says:
January 27th, 2013 at 7:50 pm “Her alleged withholding of pain relief for the dying is still not uncommon today [cf the FDA's proposed tightening up on pain killers containing hydrocodone].”
Could you back this statement up with facts, because in the real world I do not see any such withholding of pain medications,under any circumstances. To make such a statement without providing any background references is poor form.
Diane says:
January 27th, 2013 at 7:50 pm
“Thankfully, compassion is rapidly becoming the watch word in hospice and the acceptance if not requirement that the dying suffer in the name of some presumably higher moral goal – like not getting them “hooked on drugs” or having them see the true face of God – is fading.”
This statement is more recycled garbage. Never have I once witnessed anyone in the modern medical world withhold pain medication from the dying for fear of addiction or so that they could see the face of god.
Diane,
The FDA recommendations have to do with controlling those medications so they are not overused, not cutting them out completely to let the patient suffer needlessly in pain. The controls around terminal patients I’ve heard of have to do with the chance of OD, not addiction. Perhaps someone in the field could she’d more light on this. Unfortunately we live in a land where physician assisted suicide is mostly illegal but that’s a different discussion.
But the withholding of pain meds from patients without a sound medical reason is very unusual under western medical morals unless the patient requests it.
Yes, there are a few critics but they also don’t appear to be connected either. Some of the things such as working and taking money from unsavory individuals has nice physical evidence. If you would like to dig into that we can.
Some of it such as the level of care and lack of anesthesia would seem to come from several different sources including Dr. Fox publishing in a prominent medical journal.
Some of it would seem to be supposition. Without the publishing of any financial information all one can really do is compare estimated donations against the estimated expenditures and say, hey these don’t seem to add up when compared to similar organizations where the financials are known.
A lot of your feelings on this likely come down based on your feelings about god and the afterlife. For Catholics who believe that what she was doing helped them get into heaven then they may think she was justified. For those of us who believe that this life is the only one we’ve got and what you do to make people’s lives here better is what matters then she starts looking more monstrous.
Don’t get me wrong, in the realm of wrongdoing in this life, she would be a comparatively minor player or maybe more accurately just a flawed one. As I said what does interest me is the reaction that follows when even the mere hint of impropriety is hinted at.
Thanks,
Kevin
Kevin,
It matters what you do here – whether you believe in an after life or you don’t believe in an after life.
No one likes to learn that those they looked upon as almost perfect are flawed. It’s instinctive to defend them.
Note from Admin: This post was somehow lost so we have reposted it.
@LibDem #2
“Diane says:”January 27th, 2013 at 7:50 pm ‘Her alleged withholding of pain relief for the dying is still not uncommon today [cf the FDA's proposed tightening up on pain killers containing hydrocodone].’
“Could you back this statement up with facts, because in the real world I do not see any such withholding of pain medications,under any circumstances. To make such a statement without providing any background references is poor form.”
Please note that I said the practice was “not uncommon.” You said, “do not see any such” and “Never have I once witnessed anyone in the modern medical world withhold pain” ———————————————-http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/58735702-Feb-2009″
Although it is generally accepted that physicians have an ethical imperative to relieve suffering, including pain when possible, in these instances* the “War on Drugs” often prevails over the “War on Pain.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3073133/24-Feb-2011
“While there is no debate over the short term use of opiates, their use for chronic non-malignant pain is controversial and there is growing reluctance among some physicians to prescribe them.”In addition to concerns about contributing to addiction, many fear investigation, censure or even arrest for prescribing these drugs.
http://forums.webmd.com/3/pain-management-exchange/tip/173 years ago
“Physicians who “don’t believe in” using narcotic pain medication must read this comprehensive new research study. By withholding appropriate treatment, these physicians are sentencing some of their patients to an early death.” “Since doctors may be unsure of who is an addict and who is not, some patients do not get the pain medication they need because their doctors fear they are giving narcotics to active drug users.
http://www.healthcentral.com/chronic-pain/c/409513/65169/prescription
This page has complaints from 29-Mar-2009 through 31-Jan-2013. Some are amazing. People from all over
* “…patients with legitimate pain who do not achieve adequate relief through their primary treatment and, as a result, develop the aberrant drug-seeking behaviors characteristic of people with true addiction… coupled with some practitioners’ beliefs that the medical use of opioids will do little to improve pain, physical functioning, or quality of life or invariably leads to addiction, creates a reluctance to view these important medications as a viable treatment option in an ED setting.