You've clearly never read The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory And Practice, by Christopher Hitchens.
Mother Teresa was pure evil.
You should read up on how she intentionally tortured dying people by denying them basic pain killers. How she stipulated the use of dull needles. How she claimed pain was desirable because it was the kiss of Jesus. How she refused to properly treat people that were dying in agony, while her charity hoarded massive sums of money. The stories abound, Hitchens was kind enough to document it heavily, both in book and video documentary format.
I know about all of that. That's exactly why I don't think she's a good example of someone who had excessive empathy for others, because she didn't seem to have much empathy at all.
>Hitchens was kind enough to document it heavily //
You appear to think Hitchens didn't have a huge axe to grind ...? If you had to pick someone who would be least likely to make an unbiased report of Mother Theresa's actions then he's be pretty close to top of the list.
>How she stipulated the use of dull needles. //
This seems least likely to be possibly contextually twisted; do you have a reference to a corroborating report on such things from a, shall we say, less motivated party?
As the claim is she stipulated it I expect the reasoning is in her letters or the accounts of her workers?
Dr Robin Fox wrote, in the Lancet, about her home in Calcutta. The Lancet and the BMJ covered her re-use of needles. The risk of infection is obvious, especially since there wasn't any differentiation between people with or without a terminal illness.
>The risk of infection is obvious, especially since there wasn't any differentiation between people with or without a terminal illness. //
What was the result. Were more people killed or were more people saved from the particular illness/disease the injections were treating?
Was there facilities to readily test for preexisting conditions. Were people already known to be diagnosed with [blood] communicative conditions allowed to pass those on?
Whilst the risk of infection may be obvious the action to serve the greater good doesn't appear to be obvious in the depth we have treated this situation so far.
How many? Also do you know the answer to the question you cut and pasted ... presumably you've read both those links so you know if there's a quantitative treatment?
I don't have access to the text in the Lancet (which turns out to be a letter to the editor, and so not reviewed) - do you have a link to an open access version?
I realise we're way OT, but I'm keen to investigate this.
Questioning someone's potential bias is not an "ad hominem" attack.
If requesting corroboration offends you then you need to ask yourself why.
I've searched the BMJ archive (http://www.bmj.com/archive) and can't find any reference to this particular claim; only a few retrospectives and passing references.
Also where it is mentioned in other literature, the claim is limited to reuse of hypodermics and there is no mention that she specified that hypodermics must be blunt, eg in order to increase the pain of patients - as adventureful appears to intimate.
Given the choice between not getting an innoculation or getting one from a used needle ... well that's a hard choice isn't it. As I can't find the article there is nothing to tell us what factors are at play, the seriousness of the diseases or the attempted mitigation (if there was any).
You've clearly never read The Missionary Position: Mother Teresa In Theory And Practice, by Christopher Hitchens.
Mother Teresa was pure evil.
You should read up on how she intentionally tortured dying people by denying them basic pain killers. How she stipulated the use of dull needles. How she claimed pain was desirable because it was the kiss of Jesus. How she refused to properly treat people that were dying in agony, while her charity hoarded massive sums of money. The stories abound, Hitchens was kind enough to document it heavily, both in book and video documentary format.