Mother Teresa a Hell's angel.
Debate Rounds (3)
First round will be acceptance and an opening argument followed by rebuttal and then final with closing arguments.
Mother Teresa known for her charitable work but one cannot deny the fact that she was ultimately responsible for suffering of many poor with need of immediate medication, and her negligence towards systematic diagnosis, necessary nutrition, and failure to provide adequate analgesics to those in need.
Anyone is welcome to challenge me on my views.
Mother Teresa believed that suffering was a gift, even if caused by poverty, medical problems, or starvation. This by no way justify the state of her patients even if they were dying.Consider the fact that these patients in their final time of their life even if filled with suffering and pain had to endure a situation which could have been avoided entirely.
Most importantly there was no way for staff of knowing which patients were curable or incurable in first place.
Tuberculosis patients were not isolated.Needles were reused without proper sterilization, this treatment was for every patient who would enter the House of Dying.This do not count as a mistake this was a choice.
I really doubt this counts as good work, and seems very far from an angel.
Consider the tuberculosis patients. Perhaps the needles were reused. Do you have any specific evidence of where this created a substantial number of preventable deaths? These people were going to die, so Mother Teresa took a stand and, at great risk to herself, saved the lives of hundreds of people. How can you call someone like this a "hell's angel?"
Even though you just did.
You shouldn't have.
Because it's mean.
Note the proper use of "it's"
Hell's Angel was a critical documentary by Hitchens written in 1994.
I want to make my stance very clear this is not about religion, and i don't want this topic to get a religion angle.
Your argument seems full of contradiction. Patients died because Mother Teresa did nothing in the first place.
And most importantly you agreed to my previous argument completely. Keeping TB patients in one room, reusing needles,
does this count as saving lives? and by no way this made world a better place for the poor she claimed to help.
During the poverty, medical problems and all suffering she called a gift, her clinics received donations.
These donations were supposed to be used for medical care, systematic diagnosis, necessary nutrition,
and to provide adequate analgesics to those in need.
Estimated donations goes about 100 million dollars only about 6 to 7% of these funds were used for poor.
Questions remains, where did this money go?
And there seems to be a straight forward meaning behind not using these funds for poor,
Mother Teresa at 1981 press conference"I think it is very beautiful for the poor to accept their lot, to share it with the passion of Christ.I think the world is being much helped by the suffering of the poor people."
I in no way agreed with you. Tuberculosis kills, this much is for certain, but without Mother Theresa, who cares if they spread disease to already terminally ill patients? Mother Theresa saved lives, and without her, every one of those patients would have died.
Are there any direct linkages between contaminated medical equipment and the death of a patient that, without having been either treated by Mother Theresa or having been contaminated, would have lived?
The way I see this argument is that you feel as though it would have been better for everyone if Mother Theresa had left everybody alone. If you are not saying this, the debate is pointless, as I have already admitted that yes, Mother Theresa made some mistakes. But given the number of people who would have died had it not been for her, I say that the odd accidental death is justified. Not right, but justified.
Mother Theresa saw the beauty in suffering. I know you didn't want to get into religion, but... seeing as I have the last say... lets go into religion!
Mother Theresa believed that suffering brought you closer to God. This is a generally accepted view by many of the same faith as Mother Theresa. However, there is no evidence to support that she deliberately caused suffering in order to aid the poor on their spiritual journey.
In conclusion, I see no evidence pointing to the fact that it would have been better for Mother Theresa to have minded her own beeswax rather than aid those who were in need.
Thank you. All of you. Yes, even you, good sir!
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.