(July 17, 2014 at 7:33 pm)Lek Wrote: I don't know if any of the assertions you made were not factual, but most of them were not bad things. I'll give you some facts. She took people off the streets who were dying there by themselves and gave them shelter and comfort until they died - like hospice care. I know that was a terrible thing she did. It would have been better for them to die alone out on the street. Of course she took in people who weren't dying, but were sick and alone and gave them love and care. A huge majority of the people she brought in eventually left (alive!). One reason so many of the people she brought in died there was because they were approaching death when she found them. The Missionaries of Charity also runs an orphanage for sick kids and well kids and arranges adoptions. Then there's the home for lepers. In India lepers are "untouchables" and live lives rejected by society and lives of abandonment and loneliness as their bodies rot away. This home provides food, shelter and daily care, as well as love. Yeah, she was controversial, but all people who really do great things are controversial. You may disagree with her views on birth control, abortion, the benefits of simplicity and poverty, etc, but to say she was detrimental to the people she gave her life to serve is absurd.
She could have used those enormous stacks of cash she had to open medical facilities on par with the first world. She could have used her clout to ensure that her network of hospitals and hospices were run according to the strictest standards of health and hygiene and patient care.
She didn't do nearly as much as she could have with all of the resources she had at her disposal.
