The news today is dominated by the story of Mohamed and Ahmed Ibrahim, conjoined twins from Egypt who were separated by doctors in Dallas during a 34-hour surgical marathon.
I'm a compassionate guy (ok, maybe I'm not), but stories like this really bother me.
To make life better - not to save their lives, even - for these two people from Egypt, some of the most talented American medical professionals swung into action. Consider these facts as presented by Children's Medical Center in Dallas on the website built to fill the public's hunger for information about Mohamed and Ahmed:
• The surgery occurred after a "year of intense preparation" that included "extensive diagnostic tests" and "customized surgical equipment"
• The surgical team included more than 60 members of the hospital's medical staff, including five neurosurgeons, two craniofacial surgeons, a pediatric plastic surgeon, a pediatric general surgeon, an oral surgeon, nine anesthesiologists, six pediatric nurses, six surgical technologists, four respiratory therapists, four anesthesia technicians and support staff
• The separated twins will now spend about a week in the hospital's pediatric critical care unit
• Follow-up care will include reconstructive surgeries that will be done in stages and could take several years. The twins will travel from Egypt to Dallas for the surgeries
• The direct costs of the initial surgery are $125,000, with total costs estimated to be $2 million. The World Craniofacial Foundation raised the initial $125,000 to pay the hospital
• The surgeons, hospital and "hundreds of professionals" involved have donated the time they have spent and will spend on the twins' care
... all to make life better for two people from Egypt.
I don't find references to public money being spent, so I'll assume this project is mostly a private effort - the money comes from donations, the hospital, surgeons and staff chose to donate their time, etc.
But how can the hospital, its surgeons and staff and the people who donated to this cause justify all of this? Sure, it's a feel-good thing to make life better for these twins, but what about the opportunity costs?
I'd hazard to guess there are plenty of children in Texas whose lives could be made significantly better if these medical resources were made available to them rather than devoted to making life better for two people from Egypt.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - ClubhouseCancer
The sentiments expressed herein are nauseating.
Firstly, the argument that "every dollar that goes to these is one dollar subtracted from others' care" is fallacious, and shows a remarkable lack of real-world knowledge about public health policy, charitable foundations and the way a hospital works.
Referring to the twins over and over again as "people from Egypt" makes clear the writer's agenda. We get it. Christian American whites with money go first, brown poor foreign Muslims last.
2 - Natalie Davis
Indeed. I can't go to doctors. No money, no insurance. And I feel thrilled, ecstatic, joyful, and grateful that these kids are getting the help they need. No disrespect is intended to the author of this posting, but wow, dude. How can anyone fault folks who are helping children, whatever their place of residence? Wow.
3 - Mac Diva
Ken, you are missing something here. The thing you are missing is the publicity machine. The medical personnel and the hospital will get 'paid' by becoming more high profile and more sought after. Donors will notice, too. So, there is really no long range economic loss to them. (For more on the topic, take a look at Wired. There's an article on why the operation on the Iranian twins was a success for Raffles Hospital and its neurosurgery star, though it should never have taken place.)
CC, though Ken is a conservative, I believe he is also a person of color. So, if he is being prejudiced, it is probably as a nativist.
4 - ClubhouseCancer
Exactly, MD. Xenophobia. Ugly.
5 - Ken Womack
Wow, y'all know a lot about me, don't you?
First off, I don't know where ClubhouseCancer comes up with the idea that I'm saying "every dollar that goes to these is one dollar subtracted from others' care" (or why that's in quotes - certainly not a quote from my post). I said nothing about the choice to undertake this surgery meaning that care is "subtracted" from others. I talked about opportunity costs.
And it's a fact that in time and money was spent to make these kids' lives better, and that was time and money that could have been put to some other use. If you feel the best way to spend that time and money is for two kids from Egypt, fine. But I disagree.
I think all that time and money would be better spent on healthcare for thousands of people. And since it's American resources, I'd rather see it go to American people, but it would also be preferable in my mind to improve the health of 1,000 Egyptian people than just these two.
Secondly, what makes you think I'm a Christian?
Thirdly, for Natalie Davis, yes, I can fault doctors and the hospital for choosing to devote all of this time and money to help two children rather than deciding to spend the time and money to help thousands of children.
Fourthly, yes, it's a PR play for the hospital. They would get very little publicity for expanding indigent care programs or doing other things that don't make world headlines. Again, I find that sad.
Fifthly, who said I was a conservative?
Sixthly, who said I was a person of color?
For the record, I'm a white guy, I'm not a Christian, Jew, Muslim or member of any particular religion and I'm a libertarian.
6 - Chris Arabia
I disagree with Ken on this one for numerous reasons. Regardless of money, these cutting-edge cases produce new medical knowledge and that alone would justify them.
At the same time, his point is worth considering, not dismissing out of hand with a wave of disdain. Where is the line between our citizens and those of other countries? What level of preference for our citizens is proper?
Excessive resort to the phobias and isms relieves people of considering the difficult and uncomfortable ideas that Ken has raised.
7 - Ken Womack
I think too much is being read into my calling these kids "two people from Egypt". Yes, I believe it would be more beneficial for these talented surgeons to be more concerned about the health of Americans, but that's a secondary point. Sorry if it muddied the waters.
My main point is look at the resources laid out for the benefit of two people and think about the impact all of those resources could have had on the lives of thousands of people had the hospital and doctors chosen to put them toward that.
I stand by that. I think it's a shame.
And as for the research aspects of doing the surgery, the type of conjoining suffered by the Egyptian twins is the rarest type of conjoining - occurring in just 1 out of every 2.5 million deliveries worldwide. How much value is there, then, in learning how to separate them?
8 - Mac Diva
My error, Ken. I am confusing you with another Ken, apparently. Hats off to the pale guy-:).
However, I stand by my concern about nativism. Businesses are no longer 'national.' Borders are porous. Much of Europe needs to import people from the Second and Third Worlds. Under those circumstances, does it make sense to think of 'us' and 'them'?
Furthermore, humans are hardwired to respond favorably to kids. That is why we take care of babies instead of abandoning them, despite all the work involved. So, you are fighting a losing battle in that regard. Children, especially very cute babies like these, will always win.
9 - Ken Womack
Diva: It's just a shame that only these two kids are "winning". Wouldn't it be nice if all of these resources were used to help improve the lives of thousands of kids who could use the resources?
10 - ClubhouseCancer
The Cap'n wrote:
"I think too much is being read into my calling these kids "two people from Egypt"."
What was your reason for using the phrase 5 times in a pretty short post?
To repeat a phrase over and over and then wonder why people make a big deal out of it is disingenuous.
As to your points that apply to me in comment 5:
1. My summary of your "argument" may not please you, but I think it reflects the spirit of (your words):
"Perhaps the $125,000 (and ultimately $2 million) donated to make life easier for two people from Egypt might do more good if donated for indigent care at Children's Hospital?" and, from your comment, "And it's a fact that in (sic) time and money was spent to make these kids' lives better, and that was time and money that could have been put to some other use."
2. I wrote that your "argument" infers primacy for White Christian Americans over black Muslim foreigners when it comes to health care. I never ascribed any such characteristics to you.
This also addresses 5 and 6.
I applaud the Diva's denunciation of "us vs. them" attitudes. She expresses the crux of the argument against views such as the Cap'n's much more succintly than I.
11 - Tom Johnson
Something to consider with regards to these types of high profile procedures: the hospital may benefit from the donations of wealthy people who saw this and wanted to do something positive with their income. So while they're making life better for these "people" (that is very odd sounding, by the way) they also raise awareness of the hospital, as well as take part in cutting edge surgery that will eventually, even if only in some small way, benefit everyone.
12 - Ken Womack
CC:
- I think too much emphasis is being put on my point that these are Egyptian kids, not American. I do believe American health care resources are most appropriately spent on residents of America before the rest of the world, but I see that my references to the kids being from Egypt clouded my overall point. My fault.
- There's a fundamental difference between the idea that "every dollar that goes to these is one dollar subtracted from others' care" (which is what you accused me of saying) and what I actually said, which is that the time and money spent on these kids could have been put toward programs that benefit a lot more than just these two kids. There's no "subtraction" here. If people are donating money and time, that's additional resources. And the donors, hospital and doctors made a choice of how to spend that money and time. Can you dispute that?
13 - Phillip Winn
I'm generally disgusted by the idea that we shouldn't take care of these kids because other kids need help, too - or help more, even. I live in Dallas, and I know that my church prayed for those two young boys yesterday, and I was glad to do so.
But though I was prepared to object to the article, Cancer-man just trips me out. "White Christian Americans?" I read the article as "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and maybe "us before them," but I don't see where the "white Christian" part comes in at all. Project much? Not once did the author reference the color of the children's skin or their religion. For all we know, they're Christian kids who happen to have the names Mohamed and Ahmed.
Cancer-man, you introduced both race and religion into this discussion, while I suspect the Cap'n would be just as offended at white Christian kids from Europe getting this sort of treatment.
For practicing compassion, consider this as a mental exercise: What if Cap'n Ken lost a baby sister when he was a younger man because his family lacked the money to have a needed operation? Would it maybe then be a little more understandable that he is annoyed that millions of dollars and large teams of doctors are working to help kids for publicity value while they let his kid sister die?
I personally suspect that the Cap'n is just hard-hearted, but I could be wrong. From a purely dollars-and-cents perspective, he makes a good point. How many cases of infant malaria could be treated for two million dollars?
Fortunately, Children's Medical Center of Dallas takes care of something like 250,000 kids every year, so I think that the kids of Dallas are well-served. And I think that if two "white Christian" kids were joined at the head as awkardly as these two Egyptian kids were, they'd get special treatment, too.
14 - Natalie Davis
Ken, for the record, I did not charge you with any phobia or ism.
Would I prefer thousands of kids to be helped? Indubitably. But I am glad these two could be helped.
Do I think Americans should get preference? No. I don't value Americans over anyone. All lives are of equal value in my worldview.
15 - Ken Womack
The problem I have with this whole situation is illustrated by the last two posts.
Phillip says perhaps I'm "hard-hearted" because of my opinions here. But then he says "From a purely dollars-and-cents perspective, he makes a good point. How many cases of infant malaria could be treated for two million dollars?". And that's my point exactly. Is it "hard-hearted" to have a preference that all of this time and money be spent to improve the lives of thousands of kids rather than just two kids? I don't get that.
Natalie says "Would I prefer thousands of kids to be helped? Indubitably." Well, if you would prefer thousands of kids be helped, you should be unhappy that they weren't.
I think most of the comments here echo the problem this represents as a whole: When a situation like this comes up, it gets attention, and then gets money and time. But people don't stop to think about what that money and time could do if applied to the significant but not uncommon problems of others.
And, again, I think this is sad.
16 - Phillip Winn
FWIW, fellow Blogcritic bookofjoe is a doctor himself, and he agrees with Ken.
17 - Phillip Winn
Ken, I have a thought on this that will perhaps help you see why I object to your reasoning, though I find it logical. I'm pretty busy right now, but I'll try to write it up and either post it here or as a new post. It might end up being long. ;-)
18 - Ken Womack
Phillip: I'd love to hear a logical rebuttal. I've been called heartless, anti-Christian, uncaring and just about everything else, but there's been very little logic coming back. :)
19 - Phillip Winn
For the record, I defended you! The seed of my though is found within my comment, but I'm leaving for lunch now. I suspect when I return I'll actually post a new post, so that I can more easily include links and quotes and type a longer post. Is that okay?
That is, is it okay with you to link back to this post? I know I could do it anyway, and I assure you that I'll be respectful, but I'll start that respect now by asking permission.
20 - Chris Arabia
Ken, some of that nonsense is sadly typical. Attacking you and classifying you as an enemy is all too often a substitute for debate. You fascist bastard.
I'd think that the research has value for applications beyond separating this type of fusion--am I wrong?
And Ken, your thing on Trot Nixon was interesting, though I differ. I see nothing wrong with him vibing off a personal relationship with JC or the G-Man (although I wouldn't mind a "one deity reference" maximum in all sports interviews).
21 - ClubhouseCancer
PW:
So what is his point? That no super-expensive surgeries be performed? If so, why the emphasis on where they're from?
As to my injecting race and skin color into this, these kids were brown and Muslim, and the Cap'n knew this when he posted. There must be a reason he emphasized "two people from Egypt" (5 times), and he won't tell us what that reason is (rather, he says the commenters are putting too much emphasis on the phrase, which he used five times). My assumption is that it is code to signal their race and/or religion, a common tool. Backing down from it when called on it is common too.
He may be against, as Phil suggests, the same situation if white Europeans were involved, but of course he has never said that.
Now who's projecting?
And Cap'n, I'd say the difference between your phrasing and mine is hardly a "fundamental" one, but if you want to exaggerate rather fine distinctions, that's cool.
22 - Ken Womack
CC: Either you're not able to see my points or I'm not able to see yours, so I'll end our string on this.
23 - Eric Olsen
Perhaps Ken's point would have been more readily made if he had pointed out the irony of the situation rather than couching it in terms of good or bad policy. The main logical problem I have with it is that the money/time involved with the procedure isn't zero sum as I understand it: it isn't EITHER yank the noggins apart OR cure cancer, etc. It's a little more fluid than that.
Also I think the "do it for the pure science" argument pretty much always holds up, and the analogy is the space program. There are all kinds of surprise uses for techniques and knowledge gleaned fom pushing the envelope in any area. The issue isn't how many people will actually ever need THIS PARTICULAR PROCEDURE, it's that what is learned in the process may be applicable elsewhere.
That said, there is still plenty of irony in spending that kind of time and money on two kids from Egypt when millions have inadequate care here. But if you follow that logic through, there would be no foreign aid, no space program, etc.
Life IS ironic.
24 - Capn Ken
Chris:
Since you brought up my Trot Nixon piece (thanks for digging deep into Cap'n Ken's Homespun Wisdom, by the way), I'll go ahead and defend my statements there, and no doubt incur the wrath of some Christians here...
I also don't see anything "wrong" with Nixon believing that Jesus was swinging the bat for him, I just find it amusing and rather ridiculous. And the point of my piece about it was to show, if we are to believe Trot, what Jesus chose to also allow to happen that Saturday when he was helping the Red Sox win their game.
And, yes, I do tend to point out things I find ridiculous about "Christians" from time to time on my blog.
For anyone wondering what Chris and I are referring to, it's a post I put on my own blog called Thank you, Jesus, for keeping the Red Sox alive.
My other offensive Christian posts:
• Will Jesus do it for 5%?
• Another Boy For Jesus
25 - Natalie Davis
"Natalie says 'Would I prefer thousands of kids to be helped? Indubitably.' Well, if you would prefer thousands of kids be helped, you should be unhappy that they weren't."
Where, with all due respect, did I say that I was not unhappy that thousands of kids were not being helped? All I said is that I am happy that these two kids were. The two are not necessarily mutally exclusive positions.
I refuse to be sad that two innocent children may have a chance at a good life and that others may as well, thanks to the knowledge doctors gained from this experience. And I will not say that I wish these kids had been left to die or with their heads joined, because I could never wish such a thing, however logical you may find that desire.
You, I suspect, are looking at this from a purely public-policy perspective. Well, there are many bad policies; it is obvious that the way in which health-related dollars are apportioned is one of them. However, if the money came from private sources, none of us has a say over how that funding is spent. I would prefer for people who spend money on porn and guns would spend it instead on donations to medical research or assistance to the poor and needy, but it isn't my call. In the case of these two kids, the money indeed could have gone to many other situations, it could have cured or helped many more children. Was helping these two the best choice? Probably not. Was it a bad one? I would say no, because, as it presently appears, two valuable lives were saved.
My only reaction can be to thank the doctors and to thank God. If that makes me illogical in your eyes, so be it.