The Salvation Army leadership has offered no explanation to the people of Chiweshe or supporters of the Howard Hospital as to why it has suddenly pulled the brakes on the exceptional model of sustainable health care. It has a moral obligation to permit the Thistles to return to their positions at the Howard Hospital. The Salvation Army leadership must take responsibility for the devastation they have caused, and restore hope and healthcare to those it professes to serve. This is a particularly great shame as The Salvation Army does inspiring and important work around the world. It is critical that this situation is rectified promptly in order to regain the trust that volunteers and donors have placed in this venerable institution.
Some might ask whether it would not it be better for Thistle to return to Canada? After all, clearly he could do dramatically better financially working as a physician in Canada where the opportunities for him are limitless. He could work in a Canadian facility where resources are plentiful and most of the inconveniences would be taken care of by a strong support network and infrastructure providing a steady source of medical supplies and equipment.
Where the work-days would be much shorter and he would have surgical colleagues to cover for him so that he could get a reasonable amount of time off. But Thistle does not want this. He wants to stay at the Howard. The only reason is because he worries about the 270,000 people in the surrounding area and how they will access affordable medical care if he leaves. Thistle once said, "I went into medical school in order to work where I can best serve, not just where I can make money." He and Pedrinah are resolute that they can't leave and abandon the community that they have grown to love and become a deep part of.
As a physician, Thistle has sworn an oath not to abandon his patients unless he can directly transfer care to another physician who has the necessary skills and is able to accept immediate responsibility. As a soldier in The Salvation Army he is being ordered to break this solemn oath. No reason for this order has been provided by The Salvation Army other than that this has been "determined by leadership." To ask for dedicated staff to break ethical principles without any specific reason being given except that it has "been determined" is an unacceptable practice for a humanitarian and religious organization.
There are very few true heroes. The term is used all too often for and by people who perform everyday good deeds that seem to suggest a strong moral sense but no great personal sacrifice. Very rarely do true heroes emerge. Paul and Pedrinah Thistle are heroes.
They have chosen to do something that involves enormous long term personal sacrifice for the benefit of their community. We need to do everything we can to support the few real heroes that God blesses us with.
Dr. Michael Silverman, MD, FRCP, FACP. Global Scholar, PAS Center for
International Health, Mount Sinai Hospital
Sarah Zelcer, Director of International Programs, Ve'ahavta: The Canadian Jewish Humanitarian and Relief Committee.
PART THREE - CONCLUSION
PART THREE - CONCLUSION
8 comments:
NEWSPAPER ARTICLE 2012
Political problems
Missionaries are quasi-foreign agencies, and since they are associated with former imperialist home countries and outlook, they have unique problems with the Zimbabwe government. The Zimbabwe government accuses aid givers of a colonial and superior attitude towards black authorities, whom they regard as responsible for the grueling poverty in a country that is rich in minerals.
Dr Paul Thistle, a radical Salvation Army Canadian missionary, who headed Howard Hospital, illustrates a typical love-hate relationship between donors and recipients of aid.
With support from Scarborough Salvation Army Corps and Canadian friends, Thistle’s fame at Howard mirrored that of Dr David Livingstone, whom he admired. Aids-related orphans needed educational funding in addition to the daily bida (nutritional porridge) rations. Medicines and supplies sourced for Howard were redirected to other needy places by church officials. The question is unanswerable.
If Thistle demands accountability from Salvation Army authorities, then he (Thistle) becomes more powerful than the SA Commissioner. On the other hand, without Thistle, the Canadian church is not interested in supporting Howard Hospital. Worse, Thistle’s village supporters were predominantly Emmerson Mnangagwa stalwarts, a ZANU-PF rival in the power struggle.
The fact that Thistle was ignorant of the politics did not excuse him from being blamed for meddling.
I don't know who has posted this article but Dr. Thistle was always A-political. during the war when Howard was the only hospital still functioning he treated everyone without question about what side they were on. He treated the wounds of Mugabe's soldiers and Zimbabwe's ambassador to Canada, representing Mugabe's government, has publicly praised the HH, TSA and Dr. Thistle for the work done in Zimbabwe.
If the poster of the previous article is suggesting Dr. Thistle was removed by TSA for political reasons because he was supporting the opposition party, this is a false allegation. But I'm not sure of the intention of the previous poster.
Canada
I have read about this issue, extensively and all from publicly available resources on the Internet.
In all the articles I have read about Dr. Thistle, at no time did any article author, Zimbabwean or non-Zimbabwean, indicated anything other than a purely apolitical standing on the part of Dr. or Mrs. Thistle.
Many of the articles penned by these sources do, however, indicate that there are high-ranking government officials who are also members of The Salvation Army. These sources have indicated that there has been talk that these governmental officials put pressure on the Zimbabwean Salvation Army leadership to remove Dr and Mrs Thistle from service at Howard Hospital.
This removal, this eviction, comes after what Americans call a whistleblower brings to light issues with missing donations of materials and monies. It is my impression that while Dr and Mrs Thistle remain apolitical and use the donations of monies and material to better the lives of the Zimbabwean people, the same could not be said of some of the other people involved in this issue.
Unfortunately, Dr and Mrs Thistle, and the Zimbabwean people they serve, end up in the middle between a Salvationist governmental offical of one party and a differing political party which is widely supported by the Zimbabweans served by Howard Hospital.
As we all know, the political arena is not all tea and cookies. In a country such as Zimbabwe, where the wheels have come off of the economy and the inflation rate changes almost hourly, politics become even more rough and tumble. And in ugly political situations, any weapon that can be used to bring down an opponent, weaken the oppenent's support base or increase your own agenda is of great value.
I believe that Dr and Mrs Thistle were removed for political reasons, yes. But not because of anything that the Thistles did, but for what they didn't do... they didn't pick a side, nor would they turn a blind eye to the misappropriation and misuse of materials and monies slated for the Howard Hospital and for the good of the Zimbabweans whose very lives have depended on the Howard Hospital.
US Former
Bravo to all three comments - each brings clarity even though post one obviously has a political bias.
It's quite clear that the SA's position is firm with no sign of compromise or reconciliation.
Assuming that, as some suggest, the acting President of Zimbabwe, herself a Salvationist and friend of SA leaders in Harare and London had a hand in the decision to remove Dr. Thistle, ought we to appeal to her Christian spirit and request that she, the Zimbabwean TC, and Dr. Thistle meet in an efforts to resolve the issue of his return to the Howard? Surely this would reflect the true spirit of the Army; the spirit of Christ.
Former officer
Liverpool
FROM YESTERDAY' COMMENTS:
'Why TSA allowed this to evolve is another conundrum that perhaps bears investigation.'
We'll be shearing additional information for the next several days.
We thank you and the thousands of blog visitors for your interest and encouragement.
It is interesting that the media in Zimbabwe reported last year that chief men of the Chiweshe region sent a delegation to Mugabe to request his intervention to get TSA to keep Dr. Thistle at the HH. This proved to be a fruitless endeavour and the government did not intervene.
Who co-operated with whom or was it of mutual benefit to remove Dr. Thistle? Did Com. Chigariro want Thistle gone or did VP Salvationist Joyce Mujuru want him gone? It doesn't really matter - it may have just been expedient for them to co-operate with each other for their differing purposes, and add in there IHQ - they were perhaps complicit because they had there own interests to defend.
It appears to me that it became expedient on many fronts to remove Dr. Thistle. Reminds one of the record of Caiaphas's words - "It is expedient that one man (Jesus) should die for the sake of the nation." There is a sense here in which Dr. Thistle is the sacrificial lamb for varying interests. But who suffers in all of this? Let's never forget it is the poor powerless people of the Chiwese region as Dr. Silverman and Sarah Zelcer's article so poignantly makes clear.
There's always the promise that all things work together for good, but it is impossible in this to see what the good is for the poor people of Chiweshe who died and have been left with inadequate health care as Silverman and Zelver's article describes. TSA has never responded to the suffering their decision has caused in private or public correspondence.
Does TSA ever admit a mistake? Do they ever apologize? Do they ever change a decision if not forced to by a court of law?
Canada
It is interesting that the media in Zimbabwe reported last year that chief men of the Chiweshe region sent a delegation to Mugabe to request his intervention to get TSA to keep Dr. Thistle at the HH. This proved to be a fruitless endeavour and the government did not intervene.
Who co-operated with whom or was it of mutual benefit to remove Dr. Thistle? Did Com. Chigariro want Thistle gone or did VP Salvationist Joyce Mujuru want him gone? It doesn't really matter - it may have just been expedient for them to co-operate with each other for their differing purposes, and add in there IHQ - they were perhaps complicit because they had there own interests to defend.
It appears to me that it became expedient on many fronts to remove Dr. Thistle. Reminds one of the record of Caiaphas's words - "It is expedient that one man (Jesus) should die for the sake of the nation." There is a sense here in which Dr. Thistle is the sacrificial lamb for varying interests. But who suffers in all of this? Let's never forget it is the poor powerless people of the Chiwese region as Dr. Silverman and Sarah Zelcer's article so poignantly makes clear.
There's always the promise that all things work together for good, but it is impossible in this to see what the good is for the poor people of Chiweshe who died and have been left with inadequate health care as Silverman and Zelver's article describes. TSA has never responded to the suffering their decision has caused in private or public correspondence.
Does TSA ever admit a mistake? Do they ever apologize? Do they ever change a decision if not forced to by a court of law?
Canada
TSA A- political? It was USA President Reagan who said, "Politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned it bears a striking resemblance to the first."
Post a Comment