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.

Do you have a link for the Lancet article please?

Report from someone who used to work with her:

(http://www.secularhumanism.org/library/fi/shields_18_1.html)

> Were more people killed or were more people saved from the particular illness/disease the injections were treating?

Many people died long slow painful deaths. The pain was deliberate, a function of her distorted thinking.

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?

All I could find about Haiti wrt the Sisters of Mercy was that the SoM went there in 1991 (according to graphic here, http://www.mercyworld.org/mercy_network/network-map.cfm). Whilst Susan Shields left the order in 1989 after 9 years "living in the Bronx, Rome, and San Francisco" and apparently then published her story of the situation in Haiti that so shocked her another 9 years later in 1998 (http://secularhumanism.org/library/fi/index_18.html, http://www.texnews.com/1998/religion/morph0117.html).

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.