The Parable of Dr. Lazarus and the Rich Man

Starring Donald Trump, who sent a series of tweets about the missionaries being treated for ebola in the U.S.



"(Typo in the previous comment.)You'd have to ask people who actually make that claim.It's interesting, ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."
"Is not there an international law that says that asylum seekers have a right to ..."

All that Happened at the Border ..."
"You'd have to ask people who actually make that claim.It's interesting, though, that the Trump ..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."
"Trump and his ilk can never be responsible, because..."

Lying Mob Boss pauses to change ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!

What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • Joe

    Can’t see anything. Though the empty spot is symbolic of the void which is Trump’s mind.

  • Mark S. (not for Shea)

    Are those genuine or a joke? They’re so cluelessly stupid, I’m leaning toward joke. Then again, this is Donald Trump … so I wonder.

    • D.T. McCameron

      The man is a joke; the comments are genuine.

      • Marthe Lépine

        I would not mind being a “joke” myself if I had his money!

  • David Gerard Smith

    Looking at this from the standpoint of a risk/benefit analysis, moving an ebola patient further than absolutely necessary is just irresponsible. Granted, ebola is not easily transmitted, yet the current outbreak is near 1000 cases. Other than the experimental treatment tried on the 2 patients coming to the U.S, treatments are not very complex and can be administered as well in a grass hut as at Emory University. We know that the experimental treatment is as easily administered in Africa as in North America because that is exactly where is was administered. From a practical, medical standpoint there is no benefit to be achieved by transporting an ebola victim more than necessary. I am not insensitive to the emotional desires to have a gravely ill loved one near, but how can we reasonably balance that consideration against the enormous costs of doing this and the danger of infection imposed on other innocent people who would otherwise have risk exposure as close til nil as you can get. It is not merely imprudent but immoral to uselessly expand the risk pool in this way. These 2 patients are obviously generous and caring individuals which makes me wonder why they would agree to be moved in light of the danger they present.

    • HornOrSilk

      We know the medical universities in the US have more ability to experiment than field work in Africa. This is where the US medical system is at its best. The long term effect of not trying to get the best research done, in the US, with the best doctors and equipment might be to make this into a larger threat. The risk analysis says to stop the threat ASAP, not to let it grow “over there” with less medical examination to halt it. So even the Ann Coulter attitude ignores the fact that this is the best way to deal with it, and might prevent a greater outbreak if we get it stopped now.

      • David Gerard Smith

        I would willingly debate this point if it were not already moot. Having given these patients an experimental treatment already they are of little to no use for studying the disease. Their outcomes may reveal something about the treatment, but those findings could be reported from Africa as well as here. Your argument would be more valid had they brought over a large enough group of patients thus far only given conventional treatments and begun studying a statistically significant group. No one is advocating “let it spread over there.” Containment is the best way to stop it ASAP. The research you advocate is the work of years. In the immediate case in boils down to this: The preventive meassures these patients used to avoid infection are as good as the ones available at Emory and they failed. Extending the geography of the infection provides no benefits to these or other patients and recklessly expands the potential victim pool.

        • Marthe Lépine

          On the other hand, it is quite possible that closely following two real-life cases could bring about useful information, long before it would be possible to do official trials with control groups. In addition, trials with control groups would be very problematic from an ethical point of view: How could you justify giving a placebo or a less efficient drug to some study participants in order to verify that the drug really works on those who receive the actual treatment being tested? And since this is a high mortality rate for Ebola, there would arise very difficult problems with the choice of the people in each group, such as race, gender, continent of origin, age, etc. etc. Studying those two cases is a starting point, and maybe the US hospitals have better equipment to do such precise studies and find factors and apparently unrelated details that could be overlooked in Africa if the same level of specialists and equipment was not available there.