I read the recommended article. Again, this is something I've only done a
little research about, so I'm learning as I go along.
Daya Dan, the care center that the article says is getting some overdue im-
provements for challenged children, was founded in 1998, a year after Theresa
died, so that's doesn't pertain to Theresa or earlier policies. The article
reaffirms one thing I thought was probably true:
"'We should remember that Mother Teresa was clear that Missionaries of Charity
was not operating a hospital. The homes are to serve the poor and give them the
basic needs,' says Sunita Kumar, wife of former India Davis Cup coach Naresh
Kumar and one who has been working with Missionaries’ sisters for over four
decades."
http://forbesindia.com/article/on-assignment/mother-teresas-legacy-is-under-a-cloud/15932/0?id=15932&pg=0
That sounds like a Salvation Army post to me.
I'm still not clear what the obligation is for the group to have been more
than that--a place for temp. shelter, bath, and food. So I can imagine the
haphazard efforts of those not trained in medical care, or not giving it, if en-
countering something drastic, same as at a Salvation Army post, or such efforts
in a transition period if they've tried to become more since Theresa's time.
“What stops them from starting a hospital? Surely, money is not a problem,”
asks Aroup Chatterjee, a London-based critic of Missionaries of Charity.
Isn't that like asking why a Salvation Army post doesn't become a hospital?
We generally don't hear complaints that they aren't.
The same Catholics already have missionaries trained for medical work (see the
links in an earlier post). What I'd still like to see these articles explain is
the policy of relationship between the simpler outposts and the Catholic groups
with missionaries trained as doctors to diagnose and treat patients.