Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (12754)	5/2/2001 7:59:01 AM
From: Solon	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

I don't think she really prevented people from getting pain relief. The extremely poor and the dying were not likely to get much in the way of medical treatment. If they did not get what comfort MT did provide many of them just would have died on the street. That may be substantially true, but it was not the point that engendered this discussion. The point brought up by E was that millions of dollars were donated for the express purpose of helping ease the malaise of the poor, while workers for the Sisters of Charity, such as Susan Shields, were dismayed to find that the money was being directed into bank accounts, rather than being used to alleviate the suffering of these poor. Although the thread appears to have extremely partisan interpretations of this behaviour, the legitimate questions still remain: Were these actions a violation of the trust of those contributing the money? Could the removal of this money from service be considered as anything other than a breech of good faith, and a violation of the standards and expectations of reasonable people? Did the religious affiliation of MT insulate her from the criticism that would normally attach to such withholding of service, and such misuse of funds? I think it is unreasonable to allow religion or status to act as barriers to equal accountability and justice. Questioning the use of funds is hardly a prohibited field of inquiry in a free citizenry. There are certainly enough red flags to justify the curiosity of an explanation, don't you think?