4 ms·

This case is similar to one where a doctor with hepatitis accidentally cuts himself while operating on a person to save his or her life. That person's life is

by beloch 13y ago

This case is similar to one where a doctor with hepatitis accidentally cuts himself while operating on a person to save his or her life. That person's life is saved, but now he has hepatitis. The doctor should not be held responsible for an accident and should be given credit for saving a life, but he should be responsible for reporting the accident and ensuring that the patient is tested so that he can be treated and doesn't spread the disease to others. Accidents happen, but if UN staff covered it up when they could have taken steps to control the spread of disease... Well, that's not good. Still, it should be individuals on trial here, not an international organization. I sincerely doubt it is official UN policy to spread cholera in disaster areas and then cover it up.

waps 13y ago
Why should an international organisation that placed soldiers from a cholera-infected region into a region that was known historically to have very bad immunity without so much as a blood screening, then have said soldiers dump their waste (which is how cholera spreads), in a local river where masses of those non-immune people drink from ? Why the hell should such an organisation be held blameless ? Seriously.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  I'll give the same answer I gave after the UN's child rape scandal in the Congo: without the UN, things would be even worse. The UN should of course fix their procedures and try to do better next time, but punishing them merely creates disincentives for engaging in necessary actions. That's to say that specific individuals involved in the coverup shouldn't be punished, however. Note that I say this as a person who hates the UN, believes the US should exit the UN, kick them out of NY, and give our security council seat to India (or perhaps a less dysfunctional large democracy).
  - gadders 13y ago
    I realise this is just crazy talk, but how about we get them to operate in countries without infecting everyone or raping children?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
k-mcgrady 13y ago
>> "This case is similar to one where a doctor with hepatitis accidentally cuts himself while operating on a person to save his or her life. That person's life is saved, but now he has hepatitis. The doctor should not be held responsible for an accident and should be given credit for saving a life..." Is this even allowed? Why would a doctor with hepatitis be allowed to operate?
- roel_v 13y ago
  This is not about an actual doctor, it's a rhetorical device to make a point. But to assuage your worries, add to the hypothetical 'the doctor contracted hepatitis the night before and didn't know yet he was infected when he operated'. (cue comments on incubation period of hepatitis...)
- gnu8 13y ago
  It is allowed but the risk of transmitting or contracting hepatitis is something the surgeon is supposed to be aware of and mitigate. http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-22.html http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-22.html
cmiles74 13y ago
This is a very poor analogy. The UN's role in Haiti was in no way analgous to a doctor "operating" on the country. The UN did not adequately manage the waste products from their own mission. This camp in Mirablais dumped their waste into the nearest waterway. The CDC has confirmed that this was the source of the cholera epidemic.[0] When soldiers at the camp began showing cholera symptoms, the UN continued to pump sewage into the river. By contrast, considering the presence of pipes pouring sewage from the MINUSTAH camp to the stream, the rapid dissemination of the disease in Meille and downstream, and the probable contamination of prisoners by the stream water, we believe that Meille River acted as the vector of cholera during the first days of the epidemic by carrying sufficient concentrations of the bacterium to induce cholera in persons who drank it. Unlike a patient who recovers from a successful surgical procedure, it's difficult to make the case that the UN improved the situation in Haiti.[1] [0] http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/7/11-0059_article.htm#discussion http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/7/11-0059_article.htm#di... [1] http://www.lethaitilive.org/news-english/2012/1/3/two-years-later-where-is-the-outrage.html http://www.lethaitilive.org/news-english/2012/1/3/two-years-...
vacri 13y ago
Something a single doctor doesn't usually need to worry about with a single patient is the rumourmill and mob justice. If you're providing aid to a desperate area, PR is an important facet of what you do. This can spill over into ignoring or papering over what may seem to be minor details at the time.
Aloisius 13y ago
That's ridiculous. I pay the doctor to operate on me. The fact that they are saving my life doesn't mean if they give me a disease that they aren't liable. If the doctor was doing it for free then under Good Samaritan laws, sure, but if I'm paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for my mechanic to replace my engine and he ruins my car frame, he sure as hell is liable for it. That said, these guys I imagine we're there for free, so...

by beloch 13y ago

waps 13y ago

Why should an international organisation that placed soldiers from a cholera-infected region into a region that was known historically to have very bad immunity without so much as a blood screening, then have said soldiers dump their waste (which is how cholera spreads), in a local river where masses of those non-immune people drink from ? Why the hell should such an organisation be held blameless ? Seriously.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
I'll give the same answer I gave after the UN's child rape scandal in the Congo: without the UN, things would be even worse. The UN should of course fix their procedures and try to do better next time, but punishing them merely creates disincentives for engaging in necessary actions. That's to say that specific individuals involved in the coverup shouldn't be punished, however. Note that I say this as a person who hates the UN, believes the US should exit the UN, kick them out of NY, and give our security council seat to India (or perhaps a less dysfunctional large democracy).
- gadders 13y ago
  I realise this is just crazy talk, but how about we get them to operate in countries without infecting everyone or raping children?
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

k-mcgrady 13y ago

>> "This case is similar to one where a doctor with hepatitis accidentally cuts himself while operating on a person to save his or her life. That person's life is saved, but now he has hepatitis. The doctor should not be held responsible for an accident and should be given credit for saving a life..." Is this even allowed? Why would a doctor with hepatitis be allowed to operate?

roel_v 13y ago
This is not about an actual doctor, it's a rhetorical device to make a point. But to assuage your worries, add to the hypothetical 'the doctor contracted hepatitis the night before and didn't know yet he was infected when he operated'. (cue comments on incubation period of hepatitis...)
gnu8 13y ago
It is allowed but the risk of transmitting or contracting hepatitis is something the surgeon is supposed to be aware of and mitigate. http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-22.html http://www.facs.org/fellows_info/statements/st-22.html

cmiles74 13y ago

This is a very poor analogy. The UN's role in Haiti was in no way analgous to a doctor "operating" on the country. The UN did not adequately manage the waste products from their own mission. This camp in Mirablais dumped their waste into the nearest waterway. The CDC has confirmed that this was the source of the cholera epidemic.[0] When soldiers at the camp began showing cholera symptoms, the UN continued to pump sewage into the river. By contrast, considering the presence of pipes pouring sewage from the MINUSTAH camp to the stream, the rapid dissemination of the disease in Meille and downstream, and the probable contamination of prisoners by the stream water, we believe that Meille River acted as the vector of cholera during the first days of the epidemic by carrying sufficient concentrations of the bacterium to induce cholera in persons who drank it. Unlike a patient who recovers from a successful surgical procedure, it's difficult to make the case that the UN improved the situation in Haiti.[1] [0] http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/7/11-0059_article.htm#discussion http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/17/7/11-0059_article.htm#di... [1] http://www.lethaitilive.org/news-english/2012/1/3/two-years-later-where-is-the-outrage.html http://www.lethaitilive.org/news-english/2012/1/3/two-years-...

vacri 13y ago

Something a single doctor doesn't usually need to worry about with a single patient is the rumourmill and mob justice. If you're providing aid to a desperate area, PR is an important facet of what you do. This can spill over into ignoring or papering over what may seem to be minor details at the time.

Aloisius 13y ago

That's ridiculous. I pay the doctor to operate on me. The fact that they are saving my life doesn't mean if they give me a disease that they aren't liable. If the doctor was doing it for free then under Good Samaritan laws, sure, but if I'm paying tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars for my mechanic to replace my engine and he ruins my car frame, he sure as hell is liable for it. That said, these guys I imagine we're there for free, so...