Saint Teresa

[Bubbles]

Another interesting take on Mother Teresa

http://www.ibiblio.org/prism/oct97/mothert.html

One of the effects of MT removing sick poor people from the streets was that rich people did not have to look at them any more - out of sight, out of mind - and the rich paid handsomely for her to provide the service.

The answer is not give to charity to organisations  that don't fit in with your world view.

I have given to a Catholic Charity before, but because I thought it was beneficial that way, but I don't think with India the nuns overall vision fits in with my world view

The RC one I supported relied on them not converting others but building bridges between people and healing old wounds.

In fact I'd say the whole RC way of seeing things doesn't fit in with my world view.

Much better to help " save the children"or "the Red Cross."

The woman was just "a little old lady" that tried to help from a Catholic perspective.

Yes I think if she didn't have broader horizons of actually healing people she was wrong, she lacked vision.

 The Roman Catholic Church got it wrong to make her a saint, it shows a lack of their vision, given the controversy over it.

However, I still don't like Christopher Hitchens and his habit of defaming people and taking a stab at people popular with the masses to make himself money.

Mother Teresa got it wrong because she was just a little old lady with some weird ideas, who lacked the vision of the difference she "could" have made.

What a positive example that could have been for the RC.

Who's to blame here?

One little old lady who was a bit odd? Or the media and publicity department  that misrepresented what she was doing........?


Also there is an element that people like to put down public heroes because it makes them feel less bad about the things they haven't done.

Pointing the finger at others failures makes people feel better about their own.

I don't know what the truth really is, about this woman, I have read so many different accounts.

I don't trust some media celeb like Christopher Hitchins because the media are not past flogging their stories with their own twist, to sell papers.

His was to attack anyone who the public admired and trash them.

It was his trade mark, like John inmans was " are you free? "

It's something he sold.... His angle.

I don't like his angle, it sucks!

[BashfulAnthony]

Mother Teresa had her faults, but she achieved much as well, and her legacy of 20 0r 30 homes for the poor is very real.  It is always the case when someone who has been in the public eye dies the little people emerge from the woodwork with their denunciations.  They usually have achieved nothing and never could.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mother Teresa had her faults, but she achieved much as well, and her legacy of 20 0r 30 homes for the poor is very real.  It is always the case when someone who has been in the public eye dies the little people emerge from the woodwork with their denunciations.  They usually have achieved nothing and never could.

What like one of our foremost doctors who has spent his career caring for others and also was respected enough by his profession to become editor of the leading medical journal The Lancet.

This is what he said about her organisation when he visited:

'What sort of medical care do they get? It is haphazard. There are doctors who call in from time to time but usually the sisters and volunteers (some of whom have medical knowledge) 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 Theresa prefers providence to planning; her rules are designed to prevent any drift towards materialism; the sisters must remain on equal terms with the poor. So the most important features of the regimen are cleanliness, the tending of wounds and sores, and loving kindness. (One requirement is that all prescriptions be written in pencil, and subsequently rubbed out, to allow re-use of the paper.) If you give money to Mother Theresa's home, don't expect it to be spent on some little luxury. Finally, how competent are the sisters at managing pain? On a short visit I could not judge the power of their spiritual approach, but I was disturbed to learn that the formulary includes no strong analgesics. Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Theresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement. I know which I prefer.'

And this was in the early 90s when she'd been running her organisation for decades, had the ear of the great and the good and was pulling in countless millions in funding. She could have afforded to fund a high quality medical facility so that people could live, rather than die with limited pain relief and the bare minimum of medical care (basic wound care), but she chose not to.

[jeremyp]

The woman was just "a little old lady" that tried to help from a Catholic perspective.

She was only 40 when she started and by her death, she was a "little old lady" who was the CEO of an international charity that now turns over a million pounds a year in the UK alone.

I agree with you about the catholic bit though. Her Catholic faith blinded her to the fact that she was doing harm to people (that's IMO).
 

Who's to blame here?

One little old lady who was a bit odd? Or the media that misrepresented what she was doing........?

I think you are being misled by her physical appearance. I think MT was an incredibly astute operator and, if she was being misrepresented, she allowed it to happen.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mother Teresa had her faults, but she achieved much as well, and her legacy of 20 0r 30 homes for the poor is very real.  It is always the case when someone who has been in the public eye dies the little people emerge from the woodwork with their denunciations.  They usually have achieved nothing and never could.

And this testimony from someone who actually volunteered and worked at her organisation:

'This is two rooms with fifty to sixty men in one, fifty to sixty women in another. They're dying. They're not being given a great deal of medical care. They're not being given painkillers really beyond aspirin and maybe if you're lucky some Brufen or something, for the sort of pain that goes with terminal cancer and the things they were dying of ...

'They didn't have enough drips. The needles they used and re-used over and over and over and you would see some of the nuns rinsing needles under the cold water tap. And I asked one of the why she was doing it and she said: 'Well to clean it.' And I said, 'Yes, but why are you not sterilising it; why are you not boiling water and sterilising your needles?' She said: 'There's no point. There's no time.'

'... [a boy of fifteen who was dying] had a really relatively simple kidney complaint that had simply got worse and worse and worse because he hadn't had antibiotics. And he actually needed an operation. ... [The American doctor looking after him said...] 'they won't take him to hospital.' And I said: 'Why? All you have to do is get a cab. Take him to the nearest hospital, demand that he has treatment. Get him an operation.' She said: 'They don't do it. They won't do it. If they do it for one, they do it for everybody.' And I thought - but this kid is fifteen.'

Shocking.

[BashfulAnthony]

Ah, one of the little people!  How many hospices have you set up?  Have you won the Nobel Prize for your efforts?  It seems to me that whatever her failings, Mother Teresa achieved more than you could even dream of.

[ProfessorDavey]

Ah, one of the little people crawls out of the woodwork!   How many hospices have you set up?  Have you won the Nobel Prize?  When you can point to what you have done for the poor, then you might just be qualified to criticise someone who has done something.

I haven't taken millions from donors to set up hospices - and from the account of Robin Fox she set up exactly the same number of hospices as I have - in other words none. Because in his view what she was providing was a long, long way from being a hospice. Note his words:

'Along with the neglect of diagnosis, the lack of good analgesia marks Mother Theresa's approach as clearly separate from the hospice movement.'

[BashfulAnthony]

Odd how those whose legacy to the world, and in particular their legacy to suffering Mankind will amount to nothing, are so ready to criticise and vilify those who have achieved much.  Must be some sort of psychological hang-up!

[ProfessorDavey]

Odd how those whose legacy to the world, and in particular their legacy to suffering Mankind will amount to nothing, are so ready to criticise and vilify those who have achieved much.  Must be some sort of psychological hang-up!

If you take money from people to deliver care to needy people then I think you should use that money wisely. To fail to apply even the most basic of medical hygiene - for example by reusing needles without any proper attempt at sterilisation is appalling. And, of course, you have to ask (as others have) if she wasn't spending all those donated millions on disposable needles, or on employing properly trained medical staff, or on analgesics, or on diagnostic testing etc etc - where on earth did all that money go.

The problem is that her organisations have refused to release any financial details.

[BashfulAnthony]

You are vehement in your criticism.  Do you acknowledge that she, and her followers, then and now, have done, and do now, good for the poor and dying?

[ippy]

Mother Teresa had her faults, but she achieved much as well, and her legacy of 20 0r 30 homes for the poor is very real.  It is always the case when someone who has been in the public eye dies the little people emerge from the woodwork with their denunciations.  They usually have achieved nothing and never could.

Watcher Bashers, how you doing?

ippy

[ProfessorDavey]

You are vehement in your criticism.  Do you acknowledge that she, and her followers, then and now, have done good for the poor and dying?

No - not least because she failed to even determine whether people were actually dying or merely ill from easily treatable disease. Sure if she was running her organisation on a shoe string with no funds you might forgive her lack of proper care. But she wasn't - she was raking in millions - that the care given was so woeful (and in some cases deadly) was her decision.

[BashfulAnthony]

Watcher Bashers, how you doing?

ippy

 
Hi, Ippy.  Hope you're well.  They've finally let me out for good behaviour! 

[BashfulAnthony]

No - not least because she failed to even determine whether people were actually dying or merely ill from easily treatable disease. Sure if she was running her organisation on a shoe string with no funds you might forgive her lack of proper care. But she wasn't - she was raking in millions - that the care given was so woeful (and in some cases deadly) was her decision.

I repeat:    do you acknowledge that she and her followers have done much good for the deprived?

[Bubbles]

And this testimony from someone who actually volunteered and worked at her organisation:

'This is two rooms with fifty to sixty men in one, fifty to sixty women in another. They're dying. They're not being given a great deal of medical care. They're not being given painkillers really beyond aspirin and maybe if you're lucky some Brufen or something, for the sort of pain that goes with terminal cancer and the things they were dying of ...

'They didn't have enough drips. The needles they used and re-used over and over and over and you would see some of the nuns rinsing needles under the cold water tap. And I asked one of the why she was doing it and she said: 'Well to clean it.' And I said, 'Yes, but why are you not sterilising it; why are you not boiling water and sterilising your needles?' She said: 'There's no point. There's no time.'

'... [a boy of fifteen who was dying] had a really relatively simple kidney complaint that had simply got worse and worse and worse because he hadn't had antibiotics. And he actually needed an operation. ... [The American doctor looking after him said...] 'they won't take him to hospital.' And I said: 'Why? All you have to do is get a cab. Take him to the nearest hospital, demand that he has treatment. Get him an operation.' She said: 'They don't do it. They won't do it. If they do it for one, they do it for everybody.' And I thought - but this kid is fifteen.'

Shocking.

But Prof,

That's often how it is in a country where medical treatment has to be paid for upfront.

People even children don't get the treatment if their parents can't afford it, and if they have no parents then they have no way of funding it.

So the nuns were probably just telling it as it was.

It's true they could have funded it with charity money but the money wouldn't have gone very far then.

Where did the money go that they raised?

The charity?

I always assumed the RCC had it.

[ippy]

 
Hi, Ippy.  Hope you're well.  They've finally let me out for good behaviour!

Have you got your tin helmet on?

ippy

[BashfulAnthony]

Have you got your tin helmet on?

ippy

I've become very benign - I won't need one...

[Brownie]

Rose (re money):  I always assumed the RCC had it.

No, the money went directly to Mother Teresa's mission and was used to fund it.  It is an expensive business to keep going and those who work there don't want to turn anyone away. 

Though the nuns and helpers/carers do not receive a salary, they still have to be housed and fed and be kept as healthy as possible otherwise they can't do the job.

[Bubbles]

Rose (re money):  I always assumed the RCC had it.

No, the money went directly to Mother Teresa's mission and was used to fund it.  It is an expensive business to keep going and those who work there don't want to turn anyone away. 

Though the nuns and helpers/carers do not receive a salary, they still have to be housed and fed and be kept as healthy as possible otherwise they can't do the job.

It's an expensive business then and she didn't misappropriate or misuse funds.

She just she directed its use in a way that conformed to her personal Catholic beliefs.

Which is out of step with those who don't believe as she did.


People make mistakes in life, had she lived a life of luxury like some tv evangelists I'd be a lot more critical.

As it is I think I just disagree with her as to what really matters in life.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

She arranged for nearly dead people to be taken off the street, Christopher Hitchins didn't.

As far as I am aware none of the proceeds of his books went to the poor in India.

He didn't benefit them in any way other than to malign those trying to help and making people desert the very poor and sick in India.

Some help is better than none.

Criticise the way it was done, by all means, but bear it in mind that the Catholics were the ones helping no one else was interested.

Christopher Hitches hasn't helped anyone, certainly not the very poor in India.

Spreading hatred doesn't help.

No one else bothered with any of these dying people.

That's the truth of it!

What? St Chris?......The patron saint of fellow travellers.

[wigginhall]

I don't know how anyone can read those stories cited by Prof. D. and say that MT is doing good.  Cancer patients receiving aspirin, a boy with a kidney complaint not given antibiotics.   How can this be justified?   Surely not lack of money.   They killed curable people through neglect.

[Nearly Sane]

What? St Chris?......The patron saint of fellow travellers.

oh look it's an irrelevant strawman from Vlad, must be a day with a y in it.

[Bubbles]

I don't know how anyone can read those stories cited by Prof. D. and say that MT is doing good.  Cancer patients receiving aspirin, a boy with a kidney complaint not given antibiotics.   How can this be justified?   Surely not lack of money.   They killed curable people through neglect.

The reality being ignored here is that the local hospitals would not have treated those patients without payment.

The assumption is that the charity could afford to pay for it.
Can you show it could afford it?

[Gordon]

Thinking back to being involved in reviewing NHS services (in the bad old days pre-retirement) there can be instances of caring even within a failing service - but where 'not fit for purpose' applies, as seems to be the case here, then there can be no excuses made.

I presume the RCC hierarchy see her as PR fodder for the faithful, hence this recent nonsense.

[wigginhall]

The reality being ignored here is that the local hospitals would not have treated those patients without payment.

The assumption is that the charity could afford to pay for it.
Can you show it could afford it?

I think it's been pointed out that they refuse to publish their accounts.   They are supposed to receive many millions in donations, but can't afford basic drugs?