Category Archives: Ethics

Doctor saves babies caught in Romania corruption

Posted on by

Doctor saves babies caught in Romania corruption – Yahoo! News.

BUCHAREST, Romania (AP) — Dr. Catalin Cirstoveanu runs a cardio unit with state-of-the-art equipment at a Bucharest children’s hospital. But not a single child has been treated in the year-and-a-half since it opened.

The reason?

Medical staff he needs to bring in to run the machinery would have expected bribes.

So Cirstoveanu has launched a lonely crusade to save babies who come to him for care: He flies them to western Europe on budget flights so they can be treated by doctors who don’t demand kickbacks.

That’s what Cirstoveanu did last week for 13-day-old Catalin, who needed heart surgery. Cirstoveanu packed a small bag, slipped emergency breathing equipment into the baby carrier and caught a cheap flight to Italy, where doctors were waiting to perform the surgery.

The operation was successful. Two days later, though, a 3-week-old baby that Cirstoveanu whisked away to the same clinic in northwestern Italy — with tubes piercing her tiny frame — died before she was able to have lymph gland surgery.

“I was very worried it wouldn’t work,” said Cirstoveanu. “But in Romania, she would have died anyway.”

The soft-spoken Cirstoveanu is fighting an exhausting and largely solitary battle against a culture of corruption that’s so embedded in Romania that surgeons demand bribes to save infants’ lives and it’s even necessary to slip cash to a nurse to get your sheets changed.

It’s one of the reasons why the country’s infant mortality rate is more than double the European Union average, with one in 100 children not reaching their first birthday.

“To be honest, it’s so deeply rooted into our system that it’s really difficult to eliminate,” Health Minister Ladislau Ritli said in an interview with The Associated Press.

Officially, the new cardio unit that Cirstoveanu runs at the Marie Curie children’s hospital isn’t functioning because jobs have not been filled. The real reason appears to be that Cirstoveanu has banned staff from taking bribes. That means that high-tech machinery lies idle because qualified experts do not bother to apply for jobs, as they know they cannot supplement their incomes with bribes.

The zero-tolerance policy to corruption makes for a grueling work schedule for Cirstoveanu, who needs to shuttle babies abroad for surgery — and take care of them on the flight. During the two-hour flight with the girl who died, Cirstoveanu fixed tubes, sedated her and hand-pumped oxygen to keep her alive.

In the less than 24 hours Cirstoveanu had in Bucharest between returning from Catalin’s trip and departing with the little girl, he even squeezed in a shift at the Marie Curie clinic.

Patients in Romania routinely discuss the “stock market” rate for bribes. Surgeons can get hundreds of euros (dollars) and upward for an operation, while anesthetists get roughly a third of that, depending also on what a patient can afford. Nurses receive a few euros (dollars) from patients each time they administer medications or put in drips. Getting a certificate stamped to have an operation abroad can easily cost hundreds, if not thousands of euros (dollars) if you ask the wrong doctor.

While the Romanian state appears unwilling to do anything, it often ends up footing the bill.

At the Marie Curie unit, Catalin’s operation would have cost €2,000 to €3,000 ($2,700 to $4,000) without bribes. Romanian state health insurance is paying 10 times that for his operation in Italy — a small fortune in a country where the average monthly salary is 350 euros after tax.

Many disillusioned doctors have abandoned the country, which spends just 4 percent of its gross domestic product in health care — about half of the percentage of GDP spent by Western European countries.

Last year, some 2,800 Romanian doctors — discouraged by the antiquated and corrupt health system and low wages — left to work in western Europe, according to the Romanian College of Doctors.

“Ideally, we would have decent salaries and nobody would be tempted to accept informal payments,” said the Ritli, the health minister. “And the population would be educated so people would believe that this is not the only way to get proper health care.”

Bribes across Romania accounted for some $1 million a day in 2005, according to a World Bank report; more recent estimates are not available. The culture of bribes — or “informal payments” as they’re commonly known — is tacitly accepted.

But anger is rising. One of Marie Curie’s donors, Procter & Gamble, has several times gone back to the hospital and the Health Ministry to ask questions about when the unit will start functioning.

The tragic plight of Romanian children is nothing new.

In a misguided effort to boost Romania’s then-population of 23 million, Communist dictator Nicolae Ceausescu banned birth control and abortion, which led to thousands of infants being left in orphanages in harrowing conditions broadcast around the world after his execution in 1989.

Nearly a quarter-century later, the country’s shortcomings are again being seen through the gaze of children and powerless parents trapped in a web of corruption.

For those whose children die shortly after birth, grief is magnified when they do not receive a birth certificate or even see their babies alive. Angela Vasile, whose baby daughter, Cristina, only lived one day, saw her infant just once after she’d died, lying on a metal table.

She was then put in a ward of nursing mothers, adding to her anguish.

Bianca Brad, a Romanian celebrity, spoke out publicly about the pain of losing her baby at birth — calling the situation “criminal.” She founded the “EMMA Association” to help grieving parents, offering support for those who do not receive psychological counseling and remain locked in years of grief.

Yet remarkable things are happening at the Marie Curie Hospital. Cirstoveanu is personally overseeing the survival of Baby Andrei, an 8-month-old Roma baby born to underage parents. His intestines are almost nonexistent.

The tiny infant who weighs about 4.4 pounds (2 kilograms) with limbs that look like gnarled twigs was given only days to live. His bright eyes, alert gaze and lively personality have endeared him to all staff who comfort him in their arms as much as they can outside of his incubator.

Andrei can only have lifesaving surgery in the United States — and a fee of hundreds of thousands of dollars is proving prohibitive. Nurses are so fond of the bright boy that they are playing the state lottery in an attempt to raise funds for his surgery.

Even in this grim setting, there are signs that doctors are mobilizing in a bid to make things better.

Anca Mandache, a child heart surgeon, left her career in France to offer her services to the Marie Curie hospital, taking a salary one tenth of what she would have earned there. Others also are expressing an interest in working at the clinic

Cirstoveanu, who also flies sick babies to Germany and Austria, says he feels “ashamed” that he has to go to the lengths he does to save children, but talks with pride of the moment he sees the joy of relieved parents whose babies survive.

They are in awe of his dedication.

“Cirstoveanu is more than a hero — he is a god for us and the children,” said Gheorghe Meliusoiu, Catalin’s 28-year-old woodcutter father. “If there were more like him, many lives would be saved.”

Related articles
About these ads

Is the Supreme Court playing with fire? – CNN.com

Posted on by

Is the Supreme Court playing with fire? – CNN.com.

Editor’s note: Bradley Joondeph is a professor of constitutional law at Santa Clara University and a former clerk to the Sandra Day O’Connor, who served on the U.S. Supreme Court from 1981 to 2006.

(CNN) — Like everyone else who listened to the arguments at the Supreme Court last week, I have no crystal ball for predicting whether the justices will uphold or strike down the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

But it seemed clear to me, as it did to most observers, that the court’s five Republican appointees are leaning toward invalidating the act’s minimum coverage provision, the “mandate” provision that requires most Americans to acquire health insurance by January 2014. This was somewhat surprising.

Even more surprising, though, was that several of the justices also seemed inclined to strike down the entire law, all 2,700 pages of it.

Bradley Joondeph

Bradley Joondeph

This would be extraordinary. It would mark the first time in almost 80 years that the court invalidated such a significant federal law as exceeding Congress’ enumerated powers. It would also be the first time since the 1930s that it used the unconstitutionality of a law’s single provision to strike down a hugely important law in its entirety.

The justices’ apparent willingness to take such steps suggests they may not appreciate the political stakes. A decision to wash away the most important federal statute in a generation, rendered in the heat of a presidential campaign, would likely unleash a political firestorm — one that could significantly threaten the stature of the Supreme Court.

Opinion: After the mandate, a boom in government-run health care

Some justices seem to ignore public opinion. Justices Clarence Thomas and Antonin Scalia have proclaimed as much. And it would certainly be troubling if the court were take ordinary politics into account in resolving most questions coming before it.

But this is no ordinary case, and the court cannot afford to blithely ignore how the nation’s reaction might harm its long-term institutional standing.

As Alexander Hamilton wrote in the Federalist, the judiciary possesses “neither force nor will, but merely judgment.” And the court’s ability to serve its assigned role in our constitutional system as a critical check on the political process depends on the justices’ capacity to show the nation that it is exercising principled, reasoned judgment.

Opinion: Obama should know better on Supreme Court’s role

In short, the justices must maintain the nation’s faith that their decisions are grounded in legal principle rather than partisan politics. For if Americans see the court as no more than another partisan body, the justices’ capacity to persuade persons of diverse ideological hues will be lost. So will, in important respects, our conception of the rule of law.

With respect to the health care law, an ideologically predictable 5-4 decision — especially to invalidate the law in its entirety — runs the risk of creating precisely such an impression. It would be misguided, but that is beside the point. The impression alone poses serious dangers.

Opinion: Obama was too timid on health care

Moreover, the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is only one of several high-profile, highly ideological disputes heading the court’s way.

In the next few years, the justices will also be confronting Arizona’s controversial immigration law (S.B. 1070); the University of Texas’s race-based undergraduate admissions program; a sequel to Citizens United v. FEC, which allowed unlimited union and corporation spending in elections; and, most likely, the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act, the Defense of Marriage Act (which defines marriage as a union of one man and one woman) and California’s Proposition 8 (which bans same-sex marriage in that state).

A steady stream of 5-4 decisions along predictable ideological lines, led by a decision to invalidate the 2010 health law, could prove toxic.

This is not just sour grapes from those who substantively disagree with an increasingly conservative court.

Chief Justice Roberts has eloquently voiced the same concern. In his numerous paeans to Chief Justice John Marshall, Roberts has recognized that the court must attend to its institutional stature with great care. If the justices are careless with the court’s political capital, Roberts has warned, the court will “lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution.

“The justices must not just be principled and nonpartisan; they must also appear that way to the nation.”

Ultimately, the public’s faith in the justices as neutral arbiters of law is essential to the court’s legitimacy, the independence of the federal judiciary and even the rule of law. When that faith is diminished, something incredibly precious is lost — something far more important than the outcome of any one case.

I fear that the justices are playing with fire. For the sake of the court, I sure hope they are careful.

In reference to the paragraph in bold, above:

Personally, I would find this NOT to be true, in my own experience, I have found that we are bombarded with the idea that when the next Justice dies; the opinions of the court could change drastically if the current president places a person on the bench that has the same ideals and political beliefs as the person appointing them to the bench.  The seat lasts for life.  (Isn’t it nice, the death of the next Justice is awaited with baited breath!!) We already see it as a “partisan” body, though we shouldn’t. 

See this link, from a year ago: The Next Supreme Court Justice: Time for a Politician? You can read this paragraph within the story:

‘Liberals long for a justice with proven political skills in hopes that she or he could lure Kennedy — the swing vote on an ideological divided court — to abandon the conservatives. These glad-handing skills are part of the myth of Justice William Brennan, whose retirement in 1990 eventually led to Stevens becoming the leader of the court’s liberals. But as Stevens himself explained in a 2007 interview with The New York Times, “One mistake that’s often made by a lot people writing about the court, they talk about how Brennan was a master of getting five votes. … But it’s simply not right to say that he was able to craft a majority. He just had five votes on his side!”‘

Or this link, The New 5-4 Supreme Court

You can read this paragraph:

“The decision last week brought into focus the greatest hopes of conservatives and the worst fears of liberals. Is the court about to make sweeping changes in important areas of constitutional law, including in decisions expected shortly on the role of money in political campaigns and of race in the schools?”

Not picking on any party here, which is why I tried to find articles that mention the two main parties. 

So, when do we get to start seeing the “non-partisan” part and begin placing those within the Supreme Court who are the best qualified and not those who defend political beliefs???? Personally, I would feel much happier if  future generations were to have confidence that those appointed to the United States Supreme Court are the best qualified.  That they are not appointed based upon their own political beliefs and their beliefs but in fact appointed for their  beliefs in the rule of law and upholding our Constitution.

I think Mr. Joondeph either is trying to convince himself or he lives in a dream world.  :(

Four Blue Hills

Related articles

9 Common Interview Questions That Are Actually Illegal

Posted on by

9 Common Interview Questions That Are Actually Illegal | Secrets to Your Success – Yahoo! Finance.

During job interviews, employers will try to gather as much information about you as possible, so there’s bound to be some questions that will require you to think.

But it’s the simple questions that are often most harmful, and even illegal.

Any questions that reveal your age, race, national origin, gender, religion, marital status and sexual orientation are off-limits.

“If you look at the broad picture, the [interview] questions you’re asked have to be job-related and not about who you are as a person,” Lori Adelson, a labor and employment attorney and partner with law firm Arnstein & Lehr, told us.

[Related: Things You Shouldn't Say in an Interview]

If you are asked any inappropriate questions, Adelson advises not to lie, but, instead, politely decline to answer.

“Could they not give you a job because of that? Sure,” Adelson says. “But if they do, they would be doing exactly what they’re not supposed to do.”

We asked Adelson to provide us with some illegal interview questions that are often mistaken as appropriate and judicial.

Have you ever been arrested?

An employer can’t actually legally ask you about your arrest record, but they can ask if you’ve ever been convicted of a crime.

Depending on the state, a conviction record shouldn’t automatically disqualify you for employment unless it substantially relates to your job. For example, if you’ve been convicted of statutory rape and you’re applying for a teaching position, you will probably not get the job

Are you married?

Although the interviewer may ask you this question to see how much time you’d be able to commit to your job, it’s illegal because it reveals your marital status and can also reveal your sexual orientation.

Do you have children?

Again, the employer may ask you this question to see your available time commitment with the company, but this question is inappropriate.

However, they are allowed to ask you directly if you have other responsibilities or commitments that will be conflicting to your work schedule.

What country are you from?

If you have an accent, this may seem like an innocent question, but keep in mind that it’s illegal because it involves your national origin.

Employers can’t legally inquire about your nationality, but they can ask if you’re authorized to work in a certain country.

Is English your first language?

It’s not the employers lawful right to know if a language is your first language or not.

In order to find out language proficiency, employers can ask you what other languages you read, speak or write fluently.

Do you have any outstanding debt?

Employers have to have permission before asking about your credit history and, like a criminal background history, they can’t disqualify you from employment unless it directly affects your ability to perform the position you’re interviewing for.

Similarly, they can’t ask you how well you balance your personal finances.

Do you socially drink?

Employers cannot ask about your drinking, or even legal drug use, habits because these inquiries are protected under the American Disability Act.

For example, if you’re a recovering alcoholic, treatment of alcoholism is protected under this act and you don’t have to disclose any disability information before landing an official job offer.

How long have you been working?

This question allows employers to guess your age which is unlawful. Similarly, they can’t ask you what year you graduated from high school or college or even your birthday.

However, they can ask you how long you’ve been working in a certain industry.

What religious holidays do you practice?

Employers may want to ask you this to see if your lifestyle interferes with work schedules, but this question reveals your religion and that’s illegal.

They can ask you if you’re available to work on Sundays.