NationStates Jolt Archive

Every time I think I've heard the most despicable human being on the face of the Earth, another one pops up. From the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444238&in_page_id=1770):

I have been sentenced to death by my sister

By LAURA ROBERTS
Last updated at 14:12pm on 24th March 2007

A cancer victim has accused his sister of condemning him to death by refusing to donate her bone marrow for a life-saving operation. Father-of-three Simon Pretty is likely to die from leukemia within months unless he receives a transplant.

His sister Helen, 43, is a perfect match but he says she has turned down the chance to save his life. Without the donation Mr. Pretty – who has a rare tissue type – could be dead by the end of the year leaving his wife Jacqueline to raise their children Rebecca, eight, Jack, six and Benjamin, three. The human resources manager from Mobberley, Cheshire, is receiving aggressive chemotherapy in an attempt to stay alive long enough to find another donor.

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_02/041SPrettyDM_468x328.jpg

Doctors have said that to have the best chance of survival he must find a match by the end of the summer. He has already exhausted the UK bone marrow register and doctors are looking for a match from strangers on international databases.

"I am on death row," said Mr. Pretty. "I can’t believe that she would let my three children lose their father so unnecessarily by her actions. We found a prayer in Rebecca’s coat which said: 'Please don’t let my daddy die from cancer'. That brought tears to my eyes."

Helen Pretty’s Cheshire home is less than ten miles away from the British Transplantation Society which campaigns to promote organ and bone marrow donation. Her brother claims she agreed to be a donor after he was first diagnosed with the rare cancer, acute promyelocytic leukaemia, in July 2004. He went into remission but then suffered a relapse in February by which time she had changed her mind, he says. The pair have never been close although their children are similar ages and play together.

Mr. Pretty’s wife Jacqueline said: "It is appalling that Helen can stand by and watch her brother die knowing that she could do something to help him. The past few months have been hell." Mrs. Pretty approached her sister-in-law in an attempt to change her mind but lost her temper and was eventually arrested. No charge was brought.

Jacqueline Pretty said: "She opened the front door halfway and I told her that things were desperate and the children thought their daddy was going to die. She said 'Sorry, I am not doing it'. I asked her to give me a reason and she said 'I am putting my family first'. I explained that there were no risks involved. I was so upset and I said, 'Don’t you care if your brother dies?' She said 'It’s very sad', and smirked."

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/03_02/041HPretty2DM_228x249.jpg

The family then received a letter from his sister’s solicitor asking them to keep their distance. Parent governor Helen, 43, declined to comment yesterday.

She runs a private education business from her £380,00 home in Wilmslow, Cheshire, which she shares with her partner and her daughter, eight, and son, three.

Mr. Pretty, who has two masters degrees, is studying for a PhD in industrial relations while being treated in hospital. He said: "The treatment is tough and it is tortuous to go on with, especially as it would be unnecessary had she come forward. I have had a skin full of chemotherapy and all the side effects but I have a young family and I have to keep my spirits up for them." Mr. Pretty said he hoped that his plight would highlight the lack of bone marrow donors in the UK. He added: "Some people do not have a family member who is a match, even one who will not co-operate."

A spokesman for the Anthony Nolan Trust, which has a database of potential UK bone marrow donors, said: "About 30 per cent of patients could get a match from their own family – usually siblings. The chance of finding a match outside of family is very small and there are never enough donors."

A less than exact bone marrow match has a smaller chance of beating the cancer.

Trust chief executive Dr Steve McEwan added: "As with any medical procedure there are risks. However, we are not aware of long-term side effects of the process of donating bone marrow. Donors describe it as a very positive experience."

Jesus Christ. I need to watch a Mother Teresa documentary to wipe the selfishness and callousness from my mind.

Man alive, I wish I could say its hard to believe... but it isn't. Its kind of weird things like this are so common.

Every time I think I've heard the most despicable human being on the face of the Earth, another one pops up.

So.. I take it you just donated all your money to a charity like UNICEF ? After all, not doing that is equal to not saving innocent lives...

They should make real-life guro hentai out of her.

Then give him the bone marrow.

If the story is true, she is a bitch.

Just because she probably has some tiff with her brother is no reason to let him die that way.

People should sign up on the registry for donation. It's a simple procedure and your chances of getting called are not high. Well they told me that but I was actually called twice. didn't have to donate each time as they found a relative with a closer match.

So.. I take it you just donated all your money to a charity like UNICEF ? After all, not doing that is equal to not saving innocent lives...

Really? You think the two are equal?

That's like saying not donating money to firefighters is the same as not putting someone out who's on fire, when you could easily and safely do so. If you're standing over someone who's on fire, and you have a fire extinguisher, you'd be a pretty despicable person not to use it. However, not donating is hardly the same thing, now is it?

So.. I take it you just donated all your money to a charity like UNICEF ? After all, not doing that is equal to not saving innocent lives...

Have you?

Interesting you use a firefighter example, as our taxes pay for that.

In the sister's defense:
1. This is from The Daily Mail, hardly a bastion of objective journalism. The article is written in a very sensationalistic and emotive way, which is appalling journalism. Making mention of the cost of the sister's house and that she isn't married (merely has a 'partner'). What use those tidbits in this story? None, except to imply she is some sort of greedy Liberal - the usual focus of DM's hate and bile.
2. The sister herself wasn't approached, nor interviewed, for this article. So how do we know the truth behind the allegations of callousness/selfishness? We only have 1/2 the story - again an example of low-brow gutter press writing.

Until she herself is interviewed and asked not only why she is refusing, but whether the allegations are in fact true, I'll keep an open mind about this.
Of course, if she is as selfish as that portrayed in this story I can't help but hope she has a donor card, that bone marrow can be transplanted after death - and that she meets with a suitably humorous end in the very near future.

This news article's the best thing that could've happened to the man. Now the world knows his sister for the heartless bitch she is. Perhaps she would be pressured into changing her mind in the name of decency again when someone makes her life miserable whilst saying "You killed your brother".

Just to be sure, is there any risk in a bone marrow transplant for the donor?

Interesting you use a firefighter example, as our taxes pay for that.

I knew someone would bring that up, but it really has no relevance to the example. The point is, you're in a position to be the only means of help to someone, and can easily and safely do so, whereas donating all your money probably won't save a single person, if it even sees anything other than the inside of someone's pocket. Not only that, but you're not the only person who can donate to UNICEF.

Besides, where I live, both the police/highway patrol/firefighers, etc, are generally strapped for cash. At least, enough so that they have bake sales and call asking for donations, etc.

Edit: I should make clear, though, that I don't think she has a moral obligation to help, nor that you'd have a moral obligation to save a burning person. However, you'd still be a scumfuck of a person for not doing so, when there's no reason not to, other than the minor pain of a needle. Though, if the sister did agree to donate, I would say she created the obligation herself. HArd to say how morally binding that is, though.

To answer Lame Bums: There's no risk for the donor, other than the extraordinarily minimal risk that she gets an infection at the hospital.

In the sister's defense:
1. This is from The Daily Mail, hardly a bastion of objective journalism. The article is written in a very sensationalistic and emotive way, which is appalling journalism. Making mention of the cost of the sister's house and that she isn't married (merely has a 'partner'). What use those tidbits in this story? None, except to imply she is some sort of greedy Liberal - the usual focus of DM's hate and bile.
2. The sister herself wasn't approached, nor interviewed, for this article. So how do we know the truth behind the allegations of callousness/selfishness? We only have 1/2 the story - again an example of low-brow gutter press writing.

Until she herself is interviewed and asked not only why she is refusing, but whether the allegations are in fact true, I'll keep an open mind about this.
Of course, if she is as selfish as that portrayed in this story I can't help but hope she has a donor card, that bone marrow can be transplanted after death - and that she meets with a suitably humorous end in the very near future.

I couldn't remember where the mail fell in regards to news. :)

I considerate possible as I am seeing a similar situation. A friend has an extreme version of cancer. It was spotted in a kidney in November and since then it moved to the other one, liver, lungs and espophagus. It's only a few weeks before it hits his brain.

He wrote a letter to his sister and her only response was "I hope you find piece"

He is also trying to dump and sell everything so his family doesn't come knocking for his assets. :eek:

Sad.....

I'm hesitant to judge her. I'd have to read up on bone marrow transplants etc. And who knows about their relationship. Behind closed doors. Dunno. Hopefully she's not just being an asshole.

So.. I take it you just donated all your money to a charity like UNICEF ? After all, not doing that is equal to not saving innocent lives...
As others have pointed out, it's not the same. Now, if one of my kidneys produced a unique chemical that could be cultured into a cure for AIDS, say, or if I accidentally came into legal control of a UNICEF account worth billions -- and I then refused to donate it? That'd be something.

In the sister's defense:
1. This is from The Daily Mail, hardly a bastion of objective journalism. The article is written in a very sensationalistic and emotive way, which is appalling journalism. Making mention of the cost of the sister's house and that she isn't married (merely has a 'partner'). What use those tidbits in this story? None, except to imply she is some sort of greedy Liberal - the usual focus of DM's hate and bile.
How the paper reports the story doesn't change the story's facts, and the essential fact is that a woman is unwilling to undergo a minor medical procedure to save her brother's life, and allow her nieces and nephews to have a father and her sister-in-law a husband.

2. The sister herself wasn't approached, nor interviewed, for this article. So how do we know the truth behind the allegations of callousness/selfishness? We only have 1/2 the story - again an example of low-brow gutter press writing.

Until she herself is interviewed and asked not only why she is refusing, but whether the allegations are in fact true, I'll keep an open mind about this.
It said that she had "no comment".

Just to be sure, is there any risk in a bone marrow transplant for the donor?
http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/bone-marrow/CA00047

Scroll down for procedure info and a list of side-effects. They're pretty minor, about par for your average surgical procedure.

I think we should publicly burn her alive. You know, as a warning. :)

I'm hesitant to judge her. I'd have to read up on bone marrow transplants etc. And who knows about their relationship. Behind closed doors. Dunno. Hopefully she's not just being an asshole.

The donation part is easy. A needle in the back to extract it. It regenerates fairly quickly.

There are always chances for problems but I am told it's not common.

Some people are weirded out by it but I figure hey some discomfort is worth somebodies life.....

I'm hesitant to judge her. I'd have to read up on bone marrow transplants etc. And who knows about their relationship. Behind closed doors. Dunno. Hopefully she's not just being an asshole.
Even if they had some bad blood in the past, there's no reason to let him die and devastate his family like that. Besides, it said that she had agreed to donate before later changing her mind, and that their children play with eachother regularly. That's not characteristic of a hateful, dysfunctional relationship.

I won't judge against her with only this report to go on; could be HE'S the asshole, and is quite deserving of the door slammed in his face.

What could he have done that'd be sooo bad? Who knows what he did to her when she was too young to move away...rape, beatings...or maybe something totally different for all I know.

But when someone won't save a blood relative even though the procedure would be safe, I would expect that there is a very big reason.

Jesus Christ. I need to watch a Mother Teresa documentary to wipe the selfishness and callousness from my mind.

I'm surprised this hasn't been jumped on yet.

Pfft. She's a serious bitch, but hardly the mot despicable person on the planet. I spent twelve years with someone much, much worse.
But back on topic, as biased as the Daily Mail is, I really can't see how she could not be doing a cruel, sadistic thing here.

Fergi America;12467118']I won't judge against her with only this report to go on; could be HE'S the asshole, and is quite deserving of the door slammed in his face.

What could he have done that'd be sooo bad? Who knows what he did to her when she was too young to move away...rape, beatings...or maybe something totally different for all I know.

But when someone won't save a blood relative even though the procedure would be safe, I would expect that there is a very big reason.
I refer you to my previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12467115&postcount=17).

Jesus Christ. I need to watch a Mother Teresa documentary to wipe the selfishness and callousness from my mind.I'm surprised this hasn't been jumped on yet.
:confused:

To be clear, I meant that I'd have to watch the story of someone unbelievably selfless and giving to get rid of the thought of someone so heartless and terrible. I wasn't saying that she was somehow worse, or something. Though I don't see how I could have implied that...

I refer you to my previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12467115&postcount=17).
Merely having "some bad blood," as your previous post put it, does not sound nearly as grievous as what I was thinking of.

Every time I think I've heard the most despicable human being on the face of the Earth, another one pops up. From the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444238&in_page_id=1770):



Jesus Christ. I need to watch a Mother Teresa documentary to wipe the selfishness and callousness from my mind.

Damn, if this were some random bloke whom happened to be my exact type, I'd give my marrow in a second. My own brother? Hell, I wouldn't even want to know any side-effects or possible injury to myself, I'd do it even faster.

Despicable.

Fergi America;12467143']Merely having "some bad blood," as your previous post put it, does not sound nearly as grievous as what I was thinking of.
I think he was referring to the fact that at first, she was going to do it.

Damn, if this were some random bloke whom happened to be my exact type, I'd give my marrow in a second. My own brother? Hell, I wouldn't even want to know any side-effects or possible injury to myself, I'd do it even faster.

Despicable.

You do not know what happened. Maybe he did something absolutely despiseable in earlier years and never excused?

I refer you to my previous post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12467115&postcount=17).


:confused:

To be clear, I meant that I'd have to watch the story of someone unbelievably selfless and giving to get rid of the thought of someone so heartless and terrible. I wasn't saying that she was somehow worse, or something. Though I don't see how I could have implied that...

Yeah, I don't get what he was talking about either. Unless he thought someone was going to rant about how Mother Theresa's stance on birth control somehow cancels out all the good she did. I've calculated it and she'd have to also be a Nazi sympathizer and eat kittens to bring her down to a zero.

I think he was referring to the fact that at first, she was going to do it.

Oh, I had missed that part, and the part about their kids playing together.

Well, that's strange then, and just makes no sense.

Wow, what a total bitch.....It would be sweet irony if she ends up getting the same form of cancer after her brother died.

Even if she doesn't like him, or they have some serious relationship problems, condeming a person to death is not acceptable.

After all, if we (rightfully) believe that sentencing criminals to death is wrong, how can there be any justification whatsoever for what this woman is doing? Frankly, it's nothing less than murder, and in all honesty I have a hard time even considering her a human being because of such callous disregard for human life. She is so far below contempt that I can't even think of an adequate term for it.

How the paper reports the story doesn't change the story's facts, and the essential fact is that a woman is unwilling to undergo a minor medical procedure to save her brother's life, and allow her nieces and nephews to have a father and her sister-in-law a husband.
How the paper reports the story makes a massive difference in how the story is to be interpreted. You only need to watch Fox to see that.
Using emotive terms, careful wording, leaving out information and inserting other, non-relevant information all leads to the reader forming the opinion the paper wants you to have - the one you've got: That the sister is an evil selfish bitch.

It said that she had "no comment".
It said her lawyer had told the brother's family to keep their distance and that she had declined to comment. Which implies that her lawyer had told her not to say anything.
Her feeling the need to use a lawyer speaks volumes: Obviously there's a lot more to this story than this tawdry bit of hack writing shows.
Declining to donate bone marrow to your brother is one thing. But going to the lengths of employing a lawyer to warn the brother's family off is another matter entirely.

The lawyer's letter was to the brother's family, not the paper. So we are still left wondering whether the paper even tried to contact the sister at all. The decling to comment might well have been included in the letter. It's not said.
Again, extremely poor journalism - using selective comments/facts to enforce their views.

If the sister wasn't prepared to talk, then the paper should have asked the brother's family or others connected (where are the parents in all this?) why this was - what reason have they for her actions. Again the paper fails at objective journalism.

Unfortunately, this paper couldn't be arsed to find out the entire story and just ran with the 'OMG!! What a selfish bitch!' cause that's the easiest storyline to push out and will get the biggest reaction.

lousy, lousy journalism.

You do not know what happened. Maybe he did something absolutely despiseable in earlier years and never excused?

you are fucking insane, are you not?! youre telling me that if someone you knew had done "something absolutely despiseable" to you and was dying, you wouldnt feel a twinge in your body if you told people that you wouldn't donate any kind of tissue?

i mean, hell, she even smirked after having heard that he was going to die. what a bitch.

How the paper reports the story makes a massive difference in how the story is to be interpreted. You only need to watch Fox to see that.

last i checked, this isnt fox news, is it?

Using emotive terms, careful wording, leaving out information and inserting other, non-relevant information all leads to the reader forming the opinion the paper wants you to have - the one you've got: That the sister is an evil selfish bitch.

okay, if the story is skewed, then how are we supposed to be led to believe the sister is innocent?

It said her lawyer had told the brother's family to keep their distance and that she had declined to comment. Which implies that her lawyer had told her not to say anything.

it means shes guarding her ass in case of legal discourse from essentially murdering her brother.

skepticism about journalism is one thing. skepticism in all journalism is another thing entirely.

you are fucking insane, are you not?! youre telling me that if someone you knew had done "something absolutely despiseable" to you and was dying, you wouldnt feel a twinge in your body if you told people that you wouldn't donate any kind of tissue?

i mean, hell, she even smirked after having heard that he was going to die. what a bitch.

one person asserted that she smirked - you have no idea if she did or not
more evidence of the shoddy journalism used in the article

and after the evil shit my family put me through when i was a kid, i would definitely decline to donate to save one of them
(just like how my mother declined to save her father and only saw him once before he died)
some things are unforgivable

not that we know anything about the siblings in question

finally, why the hell is this piece of emotive crap in a newspaper at all? it's not news, it's sensationalism

maybe the sister declined because her brother is the kind of person who'd talk to the Daily Mail...

one person asserted that she smirked - you have no idea if she did or not
more evidence of the shoddy journalism used in the article

and after the evil shit my family put me through when i was a kid, i would definitely decline to donate to save one of them
(just like how my mother declined to save her father and only saw him once before he died)
some things are unforgivable

not that we know anything about the siblings in question

finally, why the hell is this piece of emotive crap in a newspaper at all? it's not news, it's sensationalism

maybe the sister declined because her brother is the kind of person who'd talk to the Daily Mail...

Okay... so the jist of your argument contents that:

I have no idea about the backstory of what is going on between these two people, so I will immediately assume that the sister in question is innocent until another news source prints this article. Furthermore, I assume that journalism in its entirety is sensationalist and derougative. Therefore, no matter which source makes a comment, whether it be a representative of the hospital or a family member at the scene of what occurred.

I understand your criticism of a newspaper's sensationalism. However, sensationalism doesn't mean that the story in question is untrue.

Sensationalism only sells newspapers. It's not a good reason to debunk journalism.

you are fucking insane, are you not?! youre telling me that if someone you knew had done "something absolutely despiseable" to you and was dying, you wouldnt feel a twinge in your body if you told people that you wouldn't donate any kind of tissue?

i mean, hell, she even smirked after having heard that he was going to die. what a bitch.

Imagine such 'niceties' as burying someone alive and then drive your bicycle over this person repeatedly (yes, I have heard that children did that to each other). Or just make someone's life a living hell for the entire childhood (children are creative there, beat someone up, force the head into the toilet bowl and flush, these kind of things). I did not say that family ties should not exist. I just screamed against the canon of the thread that there might be a reason.

resented bad lady

one thing is not seeing each others, talk, etc... another is to let the other die without caring

she is a bitch

i mean, hell, she even smirked after having heard that he was going to die. what a bitch.
We only have the brother's wife's word that she smirked.
The word of a person who:
Mrs. Pretty approached her sister-in-law ... but lost her temper and was eventually arrested.
losing one's temper does not lead to being arrested. So obviously she did a lot more than lose her temper.
Can we really believe the wife's story that the sister smirked, considering the wife can get so angry at the sister she's arrested?


last i checked, this isnt fox news, is it?
Daily Mail is the British equivalent of Fox. But that's beside the point. I was just using Fox to illustrate how selective use of facts and use of emotive terms can alter a story entirely.


okay, if the story is skewed, then how are we supposed to be led to believe the sister is innocent?
I never said she was. I merely pointed out that this article is so skewered towards painting her as an evil bitch and that they apprently didn't bother to find out the entire story, it's impossible to say one way or the other.

The article fails totally in providing any real objective information, and as a result I'm not prepared to condemn anyone until more information is given.

Imagine such 'niceties' as burying someone alive and then drive your bicycle over this person repeatedly (yes, I have heard that children did that to each other). Or just make someone's life a living hell for the entire childhood (children are creative there, beat someone up, force the head into the toilet bowl and flush, these kind of things). I did not say that family ties should not exist. I just screamed against the canon of the thread that there might be a reason.

You're driving your arguments on reasoning that may or may not exist; my arguments have derivatives in actual newspaper articles.

That's my point.

Absolutely sickening

Every time I think I've heard the most despicable human being on the face of the Earth, another one pops up. From the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444238&in_page_id=1770):
"Absolutely sickening" ??
"the most despicable human being on the face of the Earth" ???

That is massive overkill.
The most I can say against her is that she is probably scared of the operation,
probably the operation is not a big risk.. but some sisters are silly that way.

You're driving your arguments on reasoning that may or may not exist; my arguments have derivatives in actual newspaper articles.

That's my point.
I am not driving arguments, I am just implying the newspaper does not tell the whole truth.

Can we really believe the wife's story that the sister smirked, considering the wife can get so angry at the sister she's arrested?

considering the circumstances of her sister not helping when all she needs to do is give a simple bone marrow donation, yes. yes i do.


I never said she was. I merely pointed out that this article is so skewered towards painting her as an evil bitch and that they apprently didn't bother to find out the entire story, it's impossible to say one way or the other.

okay. fine. email the Daily Mail staff and ask them to inquire into the details of the (obviously) so-called tragedy. then ask them to print the details.

or just sit here and inquire as to how an entire life story can be left out of one small newspaper article and try to come up with some theory that disproves that people can be totally selfish assholes.

I am not driving arguments, I am just implying the newspaper does not tell the whole truth.

You're "just implying" theories that have no factual basis.

Admit it.

you are fucking insane, are you not?! youre telling me that if someone you knew had done "something absolutely despiseable" to you and was dying, you wouldnt feel a twinge in your body if you told people that you wouldn't donate any kind of tissue?


Um, no. If they had done something absolutely terrible to me (for example if they had molested me as a child) then why the hell would I?

You're "just implying" theories that have no factual basis.

Admit it.
I said if these things happened, I would have understood her actions. But I indicated that. Since when are thought experiments a bad thing?

Okay... so the jist of your argument contents that:

I have no idea about the backstory of what is going on between these two people, so I will immediately assume that the sister in question is innocent until another news source prints this article.

More along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty".

More along the lines of "innocent until proven guilty".

No, it's not. We've seen a news article published about the guiltiness of the person in question, yet you are one of the first to declare that this person is innocent.

You are going along the lines of "innocent because I imagined it so"

Okay... so the jist of your argument contents that:

I have no idea about the backstory of what is going on between these two people, so I will immediately assume that the sister in question is innocent until another news source prints this article. Furthermore, I assume that journalism in its entirety is sensationalist and derogative. Therefore, no matter which source makes a comment, whether it be a representative of the hospital or a family member at the scene of what occurred.
Where exactly does anyone thus far say the sister is innocent?
You're just applying the same tactics this paper - and other sensationalistic media - by creating an assumption that isn't there.

If you read the article closely, the Hospital representatives make no comment about this case, other than to talk about bone marrow transplants in a general sense. There inclusion is there to pad the story out and give it the air of authenticity.

Read the article and highlight ever emotive term as opposed to actual facts of this case. Most of the article is couched in emotive terms, with little facts.
It's not until the 5th paragraph that we learn she initially agreed to the transplant - but to get to that point we need to wade past such tidbits as:
"I have been sentenced to death by my sister"
"his sister condemning him to death"
"she has turned down the chance to save his life"
"I am on death row"
"she would let my three children lose their father"
"Please don’t let my daddy die"

By then we've already formed the opinion she's a bitch so any information comes too late.

And then no more mention of why the change of heart. Just more emotive terms like:
"watch her brother die"
"their daddy was going to die"
"Don’t you care if your brother dies?"
"she smirked"

And of course the tidbit about how much her house is worth - leading us to think of her as not only a selfish bitch, but a rich selfish bitch.

The entire article, there's only a few actual facts that directly relate to the story:
1. He has cancer
2. She agreed to donate bone marrow but then changed her mind
3. His wife confronted her and was arrested
4. Her lawyer has told her not to comment

That's it. Everything else is accusations, sensationalistic reporting, inferences and unsubstantiated quotes.


Basically, there's absolutely no journalistic research nor integrity in this story. Very little in the way of facts - the information from the hospital spokespersons are there for padding more than anything (no doubt the reporter was told to write xxx number of words) - and no attempt to get to the bottom of the story.
Why had she changed her mind?
What did the sister do that got her arrested?
Why won't she speak to them?
Why does she need a lawyer to speak for her?


If I was running a journalism course I'd use this article as a great example of lousy unprofessional journalism. No facts, just lots of emotions.

"Absolutely sickening" ??
"the most despicable human being on the face of the Earth" ???

That is massive overkill.
The most I can say against her is that she is probably scared of the operation,
probably the operation is not a big risk.. but some sisters are silly that way.
I agree. Personally, I find the level pharisaic moral indignation and condemnation in this thread "absolutely sickening" and most despicable; it almost shocks me every time I see threads like this (garnering responses such as "burn her"). Demented Hamsters posted a good reply above. I hope people for once can bury their bloody emotions and use sense. It seems the angry mob mentality of yore are still all well and alive.

considering the circumstances of her sister not helping when all she needs to do is give a simple bone marrow donation, yes. yes i do.
right. So we have this case:
1. Sister decides to help
2. Sister retracts offer
3. Wife gets so angry at sister, wife is actually arrested
4. We then are meant to unquestionally believe wife when she says sister smirked upon being told her brother would die.
5. We are also meant to unquestionally believe that the sister would even want to speak to the wife again after being subjected to such an angry onslaught by the wife that said wife was arrested for it.

Considering their children play together, and the sister initially agreed to help it hardly seems like she's a total selfish cow what hates her brother.
Something obviously happened which isn't mentioned in the article.

And is it such a stretch to imagine that if the wife is that angry at the sister that she gets arrested for it, that she wouldn't also make shit up to paint the sister in an even worse light?


You make claims that we are assuming the sister is innocent - even though no-one has said that - when in fact you're making the assumption that the brother and wife are totally innocent.
Where does it say in the article that they are?

~snip~

zigackly
there is no 'news story'
a woman changing her mind about undergoing a voluntary procedure is a private matter between two grown adults, and nothing more
and some of the reactions on here are as over-the-top and unsubstantiated as the article itself

zigackly
there is no 'news story'
a woman changing her mind about undergoing a voluntary procedure is a private matter between two grown adults, and nothing more
and some of the reactions on here are as over-the-top and unsubstantiated as the article itself
Thank you.

I think we should publicly burn her alive. You know, as a warning.


First of all :upyours:
That comment was completely idiotic...i am not attacking the person who made the comment so much as teh comment itself. I mean IT IS HER CHOICE not to donate people. Ok lets say i ask you for a dollar you don't give it to me BAM we burn you alive. How would that work. It is the same thing.

I fail to see how it is anyone's place to decide her course of action, or judge her for the actions or inactions she decided to take. There is no right or wrong answer in taking one life to save the many, and we would be foolish to presume that. The mere posting of this article tells me that this is an issue that the original poster is passionate about, but that the good such a topic would do on these forums is extremely limited. While it's great that debate is encouraged, the internet is not the best of places to find a worthwhile debate opponent. Someone who is worthy of a good discussion takes time to find, and in this age of instant opinion, it's nearly impossible to really determine who will and will not instantly hop on a cause due to a prior bias.

First of all :upyours:
That comment was completely idiotic...i am not attacking the person who made the comment so much as teh comment itself. I mean IT IS HER CHOICE not to donate people. Ok lets say i ask you for a dollar you don't give it to me BAM we burn you alive. How would that work. It is the same thing.

I fail to see how it is anyone's place to decide her course of action, or judge her for the actions or inactions she decided to take. There is no right or wrong answer in taking one life to save the many, and we would be foolish to presume that. The mere posting of this article tells me that this is an issue that the original poster is passionate about, but that the good such a topic would do on these forums is extremely limited. While it's great that debate is encouraged, the internet is not the best of places to find a worthwhile debate opponent. Someone who is worthy of a good discussion takes time to find, and in this age of instant opinion, it's nearly impossible to really determine who will and will not instantly hop on a cause due to a prior bias.
Yet more reasonable responses - colour me seven shades of shocked. :eek:

Thank you.

:)

No, it's not. We've seen a news article published about the guiltiness of the person in question, yet you are one of the first to declare that this person is innocent.

You are going along the lines of "innocent because I imagined it so"

I did not declare her innocent except in the sense that anyone going in for a criminal trial is considered innocent until they have been FOUND GUILTY. In criminal matters I have seen newspaper articles published about the guilt of people later exonerated by extenuating circumstances or DNA evidence. Hell for all we know she has AIDS and doesn't want anyone in her family to know.

I fail to see how it is anyone's place to decide her course of action, or judge her for the actions or inactions she decided to take.


People judge. Even our "holier then thou" libertarian does it.

There is no right or wrong answer in taking one life to save the many, and we would be foolish to presume that.


If this was a case of taking one life to save many; you would have an argument.


The mere posting of this article tells me that this is an issue that the original poster is passionate about, but that the good such a topic would do on these forums is extremely limited. While it's great that debate is encouraged, the internet is not the best of places to find a worthwhile debate opponent. Someone who is worthy of a good discussion takes time to find, and in this age of instant opinion, it's nearly impossible to really determine who will and will not instantly hop on a cause due to a prior bias.

Hey! Arguing on the internet is safe! Don't mess with it! ;)

I wonder how many people here would shoot their mouth off in person like they do here?

zigackly
there is no 'news story'
a woman changing her mind about undergoing a voluntary procedure is a private matter between two grown adults, and nothing more
and some of the reactions on here are as over-the-top and unsubstantiated as the article itself

Exactly. And for you self righteous folks talking about how bad she is without even knowing the full story . . . everyone in this thread who actually HAS donated bone marrow or an organ (no being an organ donor after you die doesn't count) raise your hand.


<raises own hand>

Let me tell you donating a kidney is the worst thing I have ever gone through. It's not something that I would do for anybody and blood relations alone are just not enough to go through that much pain and suffering.

Um, no. If they had done something absolutely terrible to me (for example if they had molested me as a child) then why the hell would I?
If he had done something that terrible to her, do you really think she'd allow her children to play with his?

Sure, we don't know all the details of the story. But I have a hard time imagining anything that could turn a distant yet amicable relationship into murder-by-neglect beyond the vilest kind of selfishness.

I wonder how many people here would shoot their mouth off in person like they do here?

You would have to ask the gang banger my wife had to pull me away from in - I think it was Kansas city - about that one . . .

Hell, I'm MORE restrained on here than I am in real life.

(no being an organ donor after you die doesn't count)
Addressing the undead members on NSG? :D

:confused:

To be clear, I meant that I'd have to watch the story of someone unbelievably selfless and giving to get rid of the thought of someone so heartless and terrible. I wasn't saying that she was somehow worse, or something. Though I don't see how I could have implied that...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Critics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa#Critics
Are you joking? Mother Theresa at her worst could not hold a candle to this story.

Exactly. And for you self righteous folks talking about how bad she is without even knowing the full story . . . everyone in this thread who actually HAS donated bone marrow or an organ (no being an organ donor after you die doesn't count) raise your hand.


<raises own hand>

Let me tell you donating a kidney is the worst thing I have ever gone through. It's not something that I would do for anybody and blood relations alone are just not enough to go through that much pain and suffering.

I almost did bone marrow twice does that count? I would have but they found better matches with relatives....

If he had done something that terrible to her, do you really think she'd allow her children to play with his?

Sure, we don't know all the details of the story. But I have a hard time imagining anything that could turn a distant yet amicable relationship into murder-by-neglect beyond the vilest kind of selfishness.

You have an inactive imagination. Her kids played with his, what if she found out that he had molested her children while they were at his house?

You would have to ask the gang banger my wife had to pull me away from in - I think it was Kansas city - about that one . . .

Hell, I'm MORE restrained on here than I am in real life.
One would hope it were the reverse. :p

Addressing the undead members on NSG? :D

No, those who might try to weasel past my point with "I'm signed up to donate after I'm dead".

There is not enough information.

We don't know WHY she isn't giving her bone marrow.

No, those who might try to weasel past my point with "I'm signed up to donate after I'm dead".
Ah. Well they would count as future donors anyway, so they'd be pretty thick to think they count.

I almost did bone marrow twice does that count? I would have but they found better matches with relatives....

Nope. Unless you know what sort of "discomfort" one goes through during a live donation then I don't think you're qualified to say she should just do it no matter what she thinks of him.

right. So we have this case:
1. Sister decides to help
2. Sister retracts offer
3. Wife gets so angry at sister, wife is actually arrested
4. We then are meant to unquestionally believe wife when she says sister smirked upon being told her brother would die.
5. We are also meant to unquestionally believe that the sister would even want to speak to the sister again after being subjected to such an angry onslaught by the wife that said wife was arrested for it.

Considering their children play together, and the sister initially agreed to help it hardly seems like she's a total selfish cow what hates her brother.
Something obviously happened which isn't mentioned in the article.You forgot to mention no charges were raised against the angry wife. Is that really the behaviour of a malicious sister?

Nope. Unless you know what sort of "discomfort" one goes through during a live donation then I don't think you're qualified to say she should just do it no matter what she thinks of him.

Well I know another and he said it's not that bad so what's your point?

It's not the same as an organ transplant....

Well I know another and he said it's not that bad so what's your point?

It's not the same as an organ transplant....

That's not what I'd heard, but I'm at least a decade out of date on what a bone marrow transplant involves. My point remains as stated: unless you empirically know what effect donating has on a person or what the potential recipient did to piss off the potential donor you don't have a lot of room to condemn her.

dp

You forgot to mention no charges were raised against the angry wife. Is that really the behaviour of a malicious sister?
Delibrately left it out in the hope someone else would pick up on that and make mention of it.
well done - cookie for you!

That's not what I'd heard, but I'm at least a decade out of date on what a bone marrow transplant involves. My point remains as stated: unless you empirically know what effect donating has on a person or what the potential recipient did to piss off the potential donor you don't have a lot of room to condemn her.

:D Nahh not buying it.

I have never been raped does that exclude me from condemning a rapist?
What does it take to be able to condemn murder?

Where exactly does anyone thus far say the sister is innocent?Let me be the First One then.

I hereby declare the sister Innocent, based on the Information given -so far- by The-Daily-Mail.
(BTW.. It does remind me of Fair-and-balanced TV network :D )

:D Nahh not buying it.

I have never been raped does that exclude me from condemning a rapist?
What does it take to be able to condemn murder?

Being murdered?

Fergi America;12467118']I won't judge against her with only this report to go on; could be HE'S the asshole, and is quite deserving of the door slammed in his face.

What could he have done that'd be sooo bad? Who knows what he did to her when she was too young to move away...rape, beatings...or maybe something totally different for all I know.

But when someone won't save a blood relative even though the procedure would be safe, I would expect that there is a very big reason.

this i agree with... you never know. much as it sounds like the sister is frankly evil in the report, the Daily Mail of all newspapers has a reputation for.... twisting the truth so to speak. journalists in general do that - its their job.

for example, just one bit that made me raise my eyebrow was when it mentioned she lived with her "partner" and kids. fairly recently my parents were in a paper and were reported to be 'partners living together' or something... which is true. however, they also happen to have been married for over 35 years as well.

the way that report was worded and structured, and the fact it came from the fucking Mail, leads me to believe there's more to that story than meets the eye... but what do i know?



however, whatever the circumstances, it is a pretty bloody shitty thing to do to your brother, or anybody for that matter

Man, even my sister's not that evil.

The sister could be a superhero - givibg the bone marrow might reveal her seceret identity and leave her and her family open to attack from her enemies. She may also not be able to carry out her super duties for worrying about her family - think of all the school busses that will go over bridges/helicopters that will fall from tall buildings unhindered. That guy is so selfish.

The sister could be a superhero - givibg the bone marrow might reveal her seceret identity and leave her and her family open to attack from her enemies. She may also not be able to carry out her super duties for worrying about her family - think of all the school busses that will go over bridges/helicopters that will fall from tall buildings unhindered. That guy is so selfish.

I think you win the thread.
And anyways. This IS an article from the Daily Mail. I don't think I know of a more biased, sensational piece of toilet paper being sold today. We never heard the sister's side of the story, she may have a good reason.
Mind you, it would have to be a fucking brilliant reason not to save your brothers life.

You forgot to mention no charges were raised against the angry wife. Is that really the behaviour of a malicious sister?

IT DOESN't MATTER.

THE NEWSPAPER SAID SHE'S EVIL SO WE MUST BELIEVE THEM.

FOUR LEGS GOOD.

TWO LEGS BAAAD.

FOUR LEGS GOOD.

TWO LEGS BAAAD.

EXCEPT if the animal in question is a Tux! :>

I think you win the thread.
And anyways. This IS an article from the Daily Mail. I don't think I know of a more biased, sensational piece of toilet paper being sold today. We never heard the sister's side of the story, she may have a good reason.
Mind you, it would have to be a fucking brilliant reason not to save your brothers life.

Perhaps he used to sodomize her during childhood, or forced her to perform felatio - I think the reasons should remain seceret in case something like that did occur. Would the family fell better if their dying daddy turned out to be an incestuos rapist into the bargain?

Have you ever tasted something, then said, "Oh, this is awful! Here, taste this, it's terrible!" No, thanks. Didn't bother to read yer thread either. Mostly, I don't need a crappy taste in my mouth :rolleyes:

Perhaps he used to sodomize her during childhood, or forced her to perform felatio - I think the reasons should remain seceret in case something like that did occur. Would the family fell better if their dying daddy turned out to be an incestuos rapist into the bargain?

Of course, the chances of that are very small.

Of course, the chances of that are very small.

What other reasons could there be? I reckon God is punishing him for past abuses.

It's her marrow and her choice no matter how much you disagree with it.

What other reasons could there be? I reckon God is punishing him for past abuses.

Bah, words fail me.

It's her marrow and her choice no matter how much you disagree with it.

Thing is, her brother's dying. Like I said, unless there's a fucking brilliant reason, she should donate to save her own brother's life.

Have you ever tasted something, then said, "Oh, this is awful! Here, taste this, it's terrible!" No, thanks. Didn't bother to read yer thread either. Mostly, I don't need a crappy taste in my mouth :rolleyes:
You should read it. It's interesting to see how some people can make snap judgements based on limited information from a source known to twist the truth. It's also good to see that some people have the sense to read between the lines when faced with a dubious source. And for that, I'm going to give Demented Hamsters a gold star. :)
http://www.mingara.com.au/media/gold%20star.jpg

Thing is, her brother's dying. Like I said, unless there's a fucking brilliant reason, she should donate to save her own brother's life.

She doesn't want to. It's her choice. The article is too biased in favour of the brother to draw conclusive reasons why she would not donate.

She doesn't want to. It's her choice. The article is too biased in favour of the brother to draw conclusive reasons why she would not donate.

I know it's far too biased. I said that in an earlier post, it's the Daily Mail. What do you expect? But surely, a family member would save another's life if given the choice? I know it's her marrow, and her choice, but I just want to know her motive for saying no.

I think you win the thread.
And anyways. This IS an article from the Daily Mail. I don't think I know of a more biased, sensational piece of toilet paper being sold today. We never heard the sister's side of the story, she may have a good reason.
Mind you, it would have to be a fucking brilliant reason not to save your brothers life.

You should read it. It's interesting to see how some people can make snap judgements based on limited information from a source known to twist the truth. It's also good to see that some people have the sense to read between the lines when faced with a dubious source. And for that, I'm going to give Demented Hamsters a gold star. :)
http://www.mingara.com.au/media/gold%20star.jpg

I want a gold star! :p

I know it's far too biased. I said that in an earlier post, it's the Daily Mail. What do you expect? But surely, a family member would save another's life if given the choice? I know it's her marrow, and her choice, but I just want to know her motive for saying no.

Happening to share DNA doesn't automatically make people consider people part of their family. It is admitted in the article that they are not close. Family, especially non-close family, doesn't automatically imply obligation. Why save someone you absolutely hate?

Why save someone you absolutely hate?

Meh, I still have SOME faith in humanity, or the milk of human kindness, or however you want to put it. Surely some can put differences aside to save another's life?

I want a gold star! :p
Heh, go do a Google search then. ;)

Nah, DH got one because he was the most vocal and most sensible in support of the sister. Sorry, only one gold star per thread.

Heh, go do a Google search then. ;)

Nah, DH got one because he was the most vocal and most sensible in support of the sister. Sorry, only one gold star per thread.

Bah, I'll have to be faster next time.

IT DOESN't MATTER.

THE NEWSPAPER SAID SHE'S EVIL SO WE MUST BELIEVE THEM.

FOUR LEGS GOOD.

TWO LEGS BAAAD.Sorry, I forgot. I'll write "Our lot is to listen and obey, never to question" 500 times and post it as my desktop background :(

Meh, I still have SOME faith in humanity, or the milk of human kindness, or however you want to put it. Surely some can put differences aside to save another's life?

'put differences aside' implies that there are things to be forgiven by both sides
but when one side is a victim and the other is unrepentant, it's not so straightforward as to just say 'they destroyed my life but i'll save theirs because they're family'
if the bond of 'family' wasn't enough to stop them causing harm, why does it justify expectations of altruism from the victim?

not saying this is the case with the siblings in the 'article'
just saying there are limits to 'kindness' - and there's also 'being deserving of kindness' in the mind of the possible donor

'put differences aside' implies that there are things to be forgiven by both sides
but when one side is a victim and the other is unrepentant, it's not so straightforward as to just say 'they destroyed my life but i'll save theirs because they're family'
if the bond of 'family' wasn't enough to stop them causing harm, why does it justify expectations of altruism from the victim?

not saying this is the case with the siblings in the 'article'
just saying there are limits to 'kindness' - and there's also 'being deserving of kindness' in the mind of the possible donor

But this is someone's life in the balance. A father, a son, an uncle, a brother, a nephew, a cousin. A living, breathing person. Frankly, unless she's got a good reason - and "I didn't really like him when we were kids" is not a good reason - then really, it's simply human kindness to save his life. Of course, we haven't heard the sister's side of the story, and I'd like to hear it.

But this is someone's life in the balance. A father, a son, an uncle, a brother, a nephew, a cousin. A living, breathing person. Frankly, unless she's got a good reason - and "I didn't really like him when we were kids" is not a good reason - then really, it's simply human kindness to save his life. Of course, we haven't heard the sister's side of the story, and I'd like to hear it.

repeating 'but it's someone's life' doesn't answer my point
neither does saying 'it's simply human kindness' again answer my assertion that kindness has limits
if one of my parents needed a transplant from me they'd have to do some serious fucking repentance and acknowlegdement of their offences against me before i could forgive them enough

Wow. Many of you are very quick to pass judgement knowing only half the story.

After all, it's only the woman's call to make, and nobody else's.

And why I don't condone or understand her reasons behind it, there's nothing anybody can do about it.

It's the Daily Mail.
If Blair brought back milk for primary school puils tomorrow, Monday's headline would be "BLAIR SENTANCES LACTOSE INTOLERANT TOTS TO DEATH".

This Lady should hook up with Michael Schiavo, they have so much in common...

It's the Daily Mail.
If Blair brought back milk for primary school puils tomorrow, Monday's headline would be "BLAIR SENTANCES LACTOSE INTOLERANT TOTS TO DEATH".

Haha, I love you :D

It's the Daily Mail.
If Blair brought back milk for primary school puils tomorrow, Monday's headline would be "BLAIR SENTANCES LACTOSE INTOLERANT TOTS TO DEATH".
Best first post ever.

Best first post ever.

This n00b has potential. ;)

Every time I think I've heard the most despicable human being on the face of the Earth, another one pops up. From the Daily Mail (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=444238&in_page_id=1770):

Jesus Christ. I need to watch a Mother Teresa documentary to wipe the selfishness and callousness from my mind.

Bitch, please!

:confused:

they think they are invincible

Bad enough that the poor ickle widdle trolly needs to attention-whore: do you all need to keep quoting it?

N00bcake.

No, he isn't. He's been bugging people for months.

Best first post ever.

I agree! :p

meh what can you do about it, it's her body after all. i agree that it's absolutly sickening, but you can't force people to donate bodyparts.

It's the Daily Mail.
If Blair brought back milk for primary school puils tomorrow, Monday's headline would be "BLAIR SENTANCES LACTOSE INTOLERANT TOTS TO DEATH".

http://i134.photobucket.com/albums/q100/TheSteveslols/Thread.jpg

You should read it. It's interesting to see how some people can make snap judgements based on limited information from a source known to twist the truth. It's also good to see that some people have the sense to read between the lines when faced with a dubious source. And for that, I'm going to give Demented Hamsters a gold star. :)
http://www.mingara.com.au/media/gold%20star.jpg
yay, a gold star!
*does a happy dance*

*thanks god no-one's around to see my spazzy dance attempt*

I want a gold star! :p
Awww....you can share mine. I don't mind.

you have to give it back though...

Awww....you can share mine. I don't mind.

you have to give it back though...

Ok, I'll have it for a couple of days, then I'll send it back to you. :)

Ok, I'll have it for a couple of days, then I'll send it back to you. :)
alrighty then.
Cost ya a cookie though.

Actually, make that a waffle since it's Våffeldagen (see Fass' thread)

To quote Terry Pratchett "All bastards are bastards, but some bastards is bastards."

No, it's not. We've seen a news article published about the guiltiness of the person in question, yet you are one of the first to declare that this person is innocent.

You are going along the lines of "innocent because I imagined it so"

Okay.

I was going to wait until I finished the thread to chastise you, because someone usually does a much better job of that kind of thing than I do, and usually on the very next page of posts. But your complete ignorance and willful blindness to the valid principle of journalistic integrity is too appalling to let go any longer.

You're actually sitting there and telling NSG that ONE news article makes something a complete and utter fact? You're honestly that gullible? If you are, please, PLEASE don't vote.

All he's saying is that the journalism engaged in by the Daily Mail is shamefully yellow, jingoistic, shoddy and designed to appeal only to the emotions of the reader. Let me make this crystal clear -- EMOTIONS ARE NOT A NEWPAPER'S JOB. This is COMMENTARY about some vague happenings that cannot be verified AT ALL using this article as your only source.

Tabloids' success depends on the gullibility and dearth of sophistication of their audiences. That combination allows one's mind to say "gee-golly, that person is awful! I HATE them!" without so much as a thorough answering of the 5 Ws, the main operative thrust of anything purporting to be even remotely informative.

Tabloids play on "what if" as if it were "it happened". UFOs, hybrid animal-children, and even horrible relatives all have explanations that are far more reasonable and true than speculation -- but far less entertaining. This artivle is designed to make its readers feel morally superior -- indeed, even morally righteous -- to the purported antagonist...whom nobody knows anything about.

We DON'T know the smirk is real. We DON'T know why the wife was arrested (we can certainly surmise that just asking the sister "why" wouldn't be enough...) -- all that and more we DON'T know because the Daily Mail did an embarrassingly incomplete job of reporting facts.

You, and many more, have swallowed it and are no doubt enjoying the feeling of righteousness and supposed moral superiority the paper sold to you.

Now, does my saying all this mean that I think the sister is somehow pure and without sin? NO! It means that the article does NOT GIVE US ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION. If I had a legitimate reason to deny my brother a lifesaving treatment (whatever that reason might be), do you think I'd be glad to share it when those who come to ask about it are already prepping the gallows for me? Hell, no! Shit, I MIGHT even hire a lawyer to ensure that the paparazzi bugger off!

I have seen fit to give someone about whom I know NOTHING the benefit of the doubt that she deserves. Now, if sister comes out and later says "he stole my doll as a child", then she is ABSOLUTELY a complete bitch who deserves everything Karma might see fit to hand her. But since WE DON'T KNOW because the paper doesn't care about journalism AT ALL, I'm reserving judgement. If that means I earn your derision, I can honestly say "so the hell what?"

If he had done something that terrible to her, do you really think she'd allow her children to play with his?

Sure, we don't know all the details of the story. But I have a hard time imagining anything that could turn a distant yet amicable relationship into murder-by-neglect beyond the vilest kind of selfishness.

(Insane amount of emphasis mine.)

And that is EXACTLY the point. "Imagining" is all you CAN do, because the article WANTS it that way because it's far less taxing on the reader.

Have you ever tasted something, then said, "Oh, this is awful! Here, taste this, it's terrible!" No, thanks. Didn't bother to read yer thread either. Mostly, I don't need a crappy taste in my mouth :rolleyes:

Yet you posted in it. What's that say about you, then?:rolleyes:

I was going to say that often transplants are much tougher on the donor than the recipient. However, having done a little bit of research it appears that the operation, at least the type that the article hints at, is a relatively hassle-free and painless one. I'll have to double check with my mother, though, who was a nurse, because sometimes articles, in an effort to make people more willing to donate, can tone down the nastier details.

It seems unfair, but who knows? Maybe her brother was a complete jerk to her all her life and she considers it an ironic blow that he should be so dependant on her generosity now. Or more likely she's just being selfish. Still, there could be an unrevealed medical history on her part, that the article doesn't go into. And I have to agree that tabloids can be very persuasive and exploitative; what does the cost of her home and her marital situation have to do with her willingness/unwilligness to donate? And if she's so unwilling to donate, then why on earth did she get tested to see if she was a match - because how else would they know for definite?

Cancer sucks; especially if you haven't done anything to provoke it. A few days ago I saw a man on television grieving at the loss of his son at the age of 48, who died 8 years ago. He said he'd died of lung cancer - and I switched off; mentally anyway. I'm afraid that I have little pity for people who've smoked knowing the phenomenal risks, especially people who have obligations to other people; they're families and their children. But leukemia - nobody's certain what causes it most of the time and that's tough to take. It's unlikely that he'll find a match and that's a horrible thing to take. If he dies his sister will have to live knowing that she signed his death sentence (if the article is true), and I'm sure that one day she'll realise that and live in shameful torment. It doesn't seem like a fair deal, but, hate to use the clichéd phrase, life isn't fair. I'd better stop gettting all preachy; suffice to say that it's a horrible thing for his family, and him to face; but this kind of thing happens daily, and I'm not one bit surprised.

To quote Terry Pratchett "All bastards are bastards, but some bastards is bastards."

To quote both Dr. Cox and Dr. Kelso, "people are bastard-coated bastards with bastard filling."

Bad enough that the poor ickle widdle trolly needs to attention-whore: do you all need to keep quoting it?

I'll remember that.

No, he isn't. He's been bugging people for months.

He's in a new incarnation. I can call him that.

The human resources manager from Mobberley, Cheshire,

That phrase always amuses me, especially in this case...

alrighty then.
Cost ya a cookie though.

Actually, make that a waffle since it's Våffeldagen (see Fass' thread)

*pays DH one waffle*
That's good, I was running out of cookies. :p

He's in a new incarnation. I can call him that.

You can't call him anything anymore. Modhammer hits hard.

It's the Daily Mail.
If Blair brought back milk for primary school puils tomorrow, Monday's headline would be "BLAIR SENTANCES LACTOSE INTOLERANT TOTS TO DEATH".

First class post!! Ever so well done :cool:

The truly sickening thing is how unethically this woman's privacy has been violated. This is her decision to make and she shouldn't have to suffer despicable attempts by a "newspaper" to shame her into it. The ones who need to be ashamed is this newspaper and this man for agreeing to slander his sister in this fashion.

Happening to share DNA doesn't automatically make people consider people part of their family. It is admitted in the article that they are not close. Family, especially non-close family, doesn't automatically imply obligation. Why save someone you absolutely hate?
I agree. To me it depends on whether or not that person matters to me. I am not depriving them of life by refusing them something from my body, no more than a woman who refuses to let herself be raped is depriving a man of his pleasure or a child or whatever. Personally, I do not get along with my brother, but not to the point where I'd refuse him help. There are certain people though that I wouldn't piss on if they were on fire.

The truly sickening thing is how unethically this woman's privacy has been violated. This is her decision to make and she should have to suffer despicable attempts by a "newspaper" to shame her into it. The ones who need to be ashamed is this newspaper and this man for agreeing to slander his sister in this fashion.
Yet again I concur. We're in agreement too much as of late. :p

The truly sickening thing is how unethically this woman's privacy has been violated. This is her decision to make and she should have to suffer despicable attempts by a "newspaper" to shame her into it. The ones who need to be ashamed is this newspaper and this man for agreeing to slander his sister in this fashion.

I agree. But that's mainstream news media for you. Privacy is a thing of the past.

I agree. But that's mainstream news media for you. Privacy is a thing of the past.

True. Ad soon for all of us.

It's probably just me, but I find trying to force your sister to do something against her will via public trial rather despicable as well..

You can't call him anything anymore. Modhammer hits hard.

Yeah. He's D-E-A-T. DEAD!

Are you joking? Mother Theresa at her worst could not hold a candle to this story.

lol, of course. But I still expected a token attack on her.

Even Lower ('http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261064,00.html')

That's abhorrent. Truly, genuinely, abhorrent. The poor man has a family and wife, not even considering the sheer selfishness involved in not saving his life for its own sake.

That's horrible, but I don't really feel I have the right to judge her actions as we don't know her perspective. I mean, I don't think there's an excuse for that, but until both sides are represented I don't want to say something bad about her.

It's probably just me, but I find trying to force your sister to do something against her will via public trial rather despicable as well..

Whereas death, and the preservation of a ludicrous moral, is infintely more preferable....:rolleyes:

It's probably just me, but I find trying to force your sister to do something against her will via public trial rather despicable as well..
No, it's not just you. I agree as well.

I was so upset and I said, 'Don’t you care if your brother dies?' She said 'It’s very sad', and smirked."
"At which point I punched her in her god damn face."

I abstain from forming a judgement on this on the grounds that there are always 2 sides to every story, and today we have only heard one. Maybe his sister is just an randomly motivated witch who hates kittens and drinks the blood of puppies for kicks. Or maybe she has a reason to deny the marrow. I know which one I expect to be the case.

That being said, the quality of her reason would want to be good. None of this"But you never loved me" shit. It has to be gold, like "But you repeatedly raped me when I was a child". That'd explain it.

People usually require big reasons to perform big gestures (even those of inaction).

Humanity sucks.

Wow. She's a total bitch, and she's one of the ugliest fuckers I've ever seen. Now that's a total package... And a very bad one, at that.

Note to self: NEVER TRUST ANYBODY WHO LOOKS LIKE HER.

I abstain from forming a judgement on this on the grounds that there are always 2 sides to every story, and today we have only heard one. Maybe his sister is just an randomly motivated witch who hates kittens and drinks the blood of puppies for kicks. Or maybe she has a reason to deny the marrow. I know which one I expect to be the case.

That being said, the quality of her reason would want to be good. None of this"But you never loved me" shit. It has to be gold, like "But you repeatedly raped me when I was a child". That'd explain it.

People usually require big reasons to perform big gestures (even those of inaction).

No, she's a bitch, and that's that. If I knew somebody who was shitty to me, and they happened to need a bone marrow transplant for which I was a perfect match, I'd bite my fucking lip and give the guy a chance at life.

Though if he did rape her repeatedly, I might be inclined to lighten up...

No, she's a bitch, and that's that. If I knew somebody who was shitty to me, and they happened to need a bone marrow transplant for which I was a perfect match, I'd bite my fucking lip and give the guy a chance at life.

Though if he did rape her repeatedly, I might be inclined to lighten up...
Right, and thats you. However, it seems she does not subscribe to the same morality as you. Nevertheless, my judgment does not preclude the possibility for having a good reason not to save someone. You are a christian right? Maybe god told her he is the anti-christ and cannot be alowed to live. Or some BS. Either way, she isn't actually killing him, she is just refusing to save him.

I know someone for whom I would afford the same treatment.

Whereas death, and the preservation of a ludicrous moral, is infintely more preferable....:rolleyes:Perhaps not infinitely so. But there might be something to be said for dying with some dignity, rather than go out in a blazing display of assholery.
If someone put me in the media like that, I'd certainly lose any doubt there might be about whether not to help him/her. It'd be a clear "go fuck yourself and die already".

I think we should publicly burn her alive. You know, as a warning. :)
Yes, we could use a trumped up reasonable charge, such as witchcraft!

I abstain from forming a judgement on this on the grounds that there are always 2 sides to every story, and today we have only heard one. Maybe his sister is just an randomly motivated witch who hates kittens and drinks the blood of puppies for kicks. Or maybe she has a reason to deny the marrow. I know which one I expect to be the case.

That being said, the quality of her reason would want to be good. None of this"But you never loved me" shit. It has to be gold, like "But you repeatedly raped me when I was a child". That'd explain it.

People usually require big reasons to perform big gestures (even those of inaction).
QFT

Even Lower ('http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261064,00.html')
Stealing dead people's money < letting people die unnecessarily...

Isn't her refusal based on the exact same principle by which woman can have abortions - automony over her body?

Why should a man, or anyone, be allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body?

I'm pretty sure the OP frowns upon people who view women who have abortions in the same way as she views this woman.
[/devils advocate]

Yeah - she's a total bitch (assuming there is nothing major not being reposrted - like him beating her as a kid or something). If someone was in a position to save my life from a terminal condition, and they were the only person able to do so and they didn't just for the sake of it, I would use my newfound conditions side affect of not really having to face up to long term consequences due to being dead to make a quick visit with a shotgun.

Give the selfish git a suicide pill if he does not want to wait on the register, his sister has her own life, everybody dies.

I don't want my little brother to grow up without a father but it is my body and I intend on keeping it mine. For those who have not seen a family member die, it is hard but it is not your problem in the end of the day.

When I am on my death bed, I don't want to be dependant on some fuckers left leg, let him commit euthanasia and stop giving him media attention.

given that leukemia has a genetic component, it could be that it runs in the family and the sister really IS looking out for her own family. one can hardly fault a parent for looking after the welfare of their children before anyone else. the same happened to my grandfather, who got into a tiff with his brother for refusing to donate to his nephew. but he quite rightly pointed out that donating an organ to someone who may have had a few extra years as a result would prevent him from donating to his own immediate family in the case of an emergency, what he views as his responsibility.

i read the title and assumed that the OP was going to state that it is despicable for the brother to have brought the fight to his sister through the DM.

Yeah - she's a total bitch (assuming there is nothing major not being reposrted - like him beating her as a kid or something). If someone was in a position to save my life from a terminal condition, and they were the only person able to do so and they didn't just for the sake of it, I would use my newfound conditions side affect of not really having to face up to long term consequences due to being dead to make a quick visit with a shotgun.
It's the Daily Mail. They never let the facts get in the way of a good story.

I V Stalin, I just read the 'funny' link in your sig. It made my day already, haha wonderful. I got this one yesterday,

An engineer, a physicist and a mathematician find themselves in an anecdote, indeed an anecdote quite similar to many that you have no doubt already heard. After some observations and rough calculations the engineer realizes the situation and starts laughing. A few minutes later the physicist understands too and chuckles to himself happily as he now has enough experimental evidence to publish a paper. This leaves the mathematician somewhat perplexed, as he had observed right away that he was the subject of an anecdote, and deduced quite rapidly the presence of humour from similar anecdotes, but considers this anecdote to be too trivial a corollary to be significant, let alone funny.

Jesus Christ. I need to watch a Mother Teresa documentary to wipe the selfishness and callousness from my mind.
If you're looking for an ESCAPE from selfishness and callousness, don't waste your time on Mother Teresa.

If you're looking for an ESCAPE from selfishness and callousness, don't waste your time on Mother Teresa.

It's amazing how many people still are fooled into thinking that wretched bitch was some sort of saint.

It's amazing how many people still are fooled into thinking that wretched bitch was some sort of saint.

"I don't know, gimme some soup"

Cookie for the reference.

What's wrong with Mother Teresa? I don't know much about her apart from, well, as Fassigen puts it, how many people think she's some sort of saint. Why does there seem to be a lot of vitriol against her around here? What did she do?

How does one go from 'most respected person of the 20th century' to 'wretched bitch'?

What's wrong with Mother Teresa? I don't know much about her apart from, well, as Fassigen puts it, how many people think she's some sort of saint. Why does there seem to be a lot of vitriol against her around here? What did she do?

There appears to be some evidence that the donations made to her were somewhat misappropriated. She also was in favor of baptizing people just before they died (most not being Christian (duh)) this is seen as a bit underhanded.

Don't take my word for it, above is all I know and I can't be bothered sourcing it but Wiki seems to have some good sources.

Isn't her refusal based on the exact same principle by which woman can have abortions - automony over her body?

Why should a man, or anyone, be allowed to tell a woman what to do with her body?

I'm pretty sure the OP frowns upon people who view women who have abortions in the same way as she views this woman.
[/devils advocate]
Allowing a living, breathing, thinking adult with a mind, personality, family, friends, and a place in society to die a slow, painful death is a far cry from destroying a nerveless, thoughtless, nameless fetus.

That being said, I do agree with late-term abortions. But anything before nervous system-development is fine.

What's wrong with Mother Teresa? I don't know much about her apart from, well, as Fassigen puts it, how many people think she's some sort of saint. Why does there seem to be a lot of vitriol against her around here? What did she do?

How does one go from 'most respected person of the 20th century' to 'wretched bitch'?
She misappropriated funds that were donated to help the poor, using them instead to build recruiting centers and nunneries that did nothing to actually help the people that the money was supposed to be helping.

She fetishized suffering, and believed that suffering brought people closer to Christ, so her "Home For The Dying" and other such centers did NOTHING to help the people that came there. They had raw pallets to lie on, and were not permitted visits from family or friends, and were provided with essentially no medical care at all. They just lay there and suffered. Mother Teresa and her nuns were primarily just concerned about converting the dying to Catholicism, not with alleviating their suffering. They also failed to distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so they actually allowed people to die needlessly.

She received honors from the Duvalier family of Haiti, and insisted that they loved the poor and were beloved by the poor as well. Read up on those assholes, and explain to me exactly what their "love for the poor" is worth.

Her "missionaries of Charity" refuse to allow public access to their financial records, and they're the only major charity in India to have such secrecy about their finances.

Mother Teresa also was fanatically opposed to fundamental human rights for women. She described abortion as the single greatest threat to world peace, and actively campaigned against safe, legal reproductive health care for women, even though such health care is single handedly the best way to improve the health, safety, and status of women around the world.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.

She misappropriated funds that were donated to help the poor, using them instead to build recruiting centers and nunneries that did nothing to actually help the people that the money was supposed to be helping.

She fetishized suffering, and believed that suffering brought people closer to Christ, so her "Home For The Dying" and other such centers did NOTHING to help the people that came there. They had raw pallets to lie on, and were not permitted visits from family or friends, and were provided with essentially no medical care at all. They just lay there and suffered. Mother Teresa and her nuns were primarily just concerned about converting the dying to Catholicism, not with alleviating their suffering. They also failed to distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so they actually allowed people to die needlessly.

She received honors from the Duvalier family of Haiti, and insisted that they loved the poor and were beloved by the poor as well. Read up on those assholes, and explain to me exactly what their "love for the poor" is worth.

Her "missionaries of Charity" refuse to allow public access to their financial records, and they're the only major charity in India to have such secrecy about their finances.

Mother Teresa also was fanatically opposed to fundamental human rights for women. She described abortion as the single greatest threat to world peace, and actively campaigned against safe, legal reproductive health care for women, even though such health care is single handedly the best way to improve the health, safety, and status of women around the world.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
... wow. Can't trust anyone these days, can you?

All right, I'm rather depressed now.

Every time I think I've heard the most despicable human being on the face of the Earth, another one pops up.

Yeah. Humankind sucks. There are people who can walk on the dying without even noticing them under their shoes.


As a side remark, I wonder about the morality of putting this kind of story, with names and addresses, on the newspapers. No, I don't think that having mobs protesting under her house will change that woman's mind. She will merely collect her part of money when her brother dies (if any), and move to another place.
I'm not defending her, mind you.

If you're looking for an ESCAPE from selfishness and callousness, don't waste your time on Mother Teresa.

Totally agreed. All the reports I've read about that nun tell the most horrible things. She was halfway between a con artist and the ultimate beggar.

Jacqueline Pretty said: "She opened the front door halfway and I told her that things were desperate and the children thought their daddy was going to die. She said 'Sorry, I am not doing it'. I asked her to give me a reason and she said 'I am putting my family first'. I explained that there were no risks involved. I was so upset and I said, 'Don’t you care if your brother dies?' She said 'It’s very sad', and smirked."

The bolded part made me think what the guy did to her...
Must have been something pretty nasty if she's not counting her brother as part of her family anymore.
And originally she meant to donate him her marrow...
I'll withold any judgment until more facts are brought to this discussion.

A bone marrow transplant is mor elike giving an organ, which is a painful and complicated process.

That being said, I'm glad my sisters and I have a different blood type, I can't ever be asked for a kidney. :P

At any rate, it is her bone marrow, her choice. The article doesn't say that she had a fight with her brother (though if he started a fight with her when she was going to give her bone marrow that's incredibly stupid of him) it says that she's putting her family first.

And really, this business of taking it to the press is extremely petty.

Just what are we to do about this, exactly? Force the woman to donate? Feh. That'll set a dangerous precedent. Yes, she's being an asshole, but last time I checked, there was no law against being an asshole. This is hardly being an accomplice to someone's death any more than a passer-by who watches someone being murdered is an accomplice to murder.

This is hardly to say that the man deserves to die. I don't know their back story and I don't claim to. For all I know, he was a bastard who made her life a living hell, and she can get her revenge by watching him die. Yes, I suppose the bigger person would donate and forgive, but forgive him and enable him to do what? If he's a model citizen now and is a wonderful father and loving husband and a hell of a good brother, then maybe he "deserves" it. But if he's a wife-beater who gets drunk and slaps his kids and cheats on his taxes, then is that why she's refusing to donate? Yes, it's a dumb reason, and cheating on one's taxes is not cause for dying a painful death, but there's nothing anyone can do about it, and the sooner we recognize this and move past it, the better.

On the other hand, stories like this strengthen the argument for requiring healthy lifers to donate things such as blood and bone marrow. Yes, it's one of the NS daily issues, but it's not a half-bad idea.

A bone marrow transplant is mor elike giving an organ, which is a painful and complicated process.

That being said, I'm glad my sisters and I have a different blood type, I can't ever be asked for a kidney. :P

At any rate, it is her bone marrow, her choice. The article doesn't say that she had a fight with her brother (though if he started a fight with her when she was going to give her bone marrow that's incredibly stupid of him) it says that she's putting her family first.

And really, this business of taking it to the press is extremely petty.

When you donate your own marrow, it grows back. So it's not like losing a kidney.

It's just an inconvenience.

If anyone is being petty, it's the sister.

If I knew I was dying of a terminal illness, and a sister did this to me, I'd drive over to her house and set her on fire. What would I have to lose?

When you donate your own marrow, it grows back. So it's not like losing a kidney.
Fine then, it's like donating part of your liver. From what I've read it has many of the same risks associated with it as organ donation.

If anyone is being petty, it's the sister.
The sister isn't crucifying him through the media. She is refusing to donate a part of herself to help him because she's looking out for her own family. As mentioned earlier, since leukemia is genetic, it's possible that one of her children might need her bone marrow down the road.

And really, if you've got a terminal illness and someone volunteers to donate whatever you need to save yourself, you're a fucking retard if you do or say anything to piss them off. Seriously, you should be in serious ass-kissing gratitude mode.

Just what are we to do about this, exactly? Force the woman to donate? Feh. That'll set a dangerous precedent. Yes, she's being an asshole, but last time I checked, there was no law against being an asshole. This is hardly being an accomplice to someone's death any more than a passer-by who watches someone being murdered is an accomplice to murder.
And if you were standing in front of a button that could slam an iron door between the victim and murderer? And the victim happened to be your brother? And his wife and kids were watching from the next room?

The sister isn't crucifying him through the media.
How the hell do people see "putting someone in the spotlight" as being worse than "putting someone in their grave"? Yes, maybe subjecting her to media scrutiny is a bit harsh, but it is in no way comparable to allowing another human being (with a family) to suffer and die.

Just what are we to do about this, exactly? Force the woman to donate? Feh. That'll set a dangerous precedent. Yes, she's being an asshole, but last time I checked, there was no <a href="http://forums.jolt.co.uk/?=law">law</a> against being an asshole.

Yea. It is stupid to try and enforce any kind of morality/ethics by law. It's her choice. In my opinion, she's wrong, but what does that matter?

On the other hand, stories like this strengthen the argument for requiring healthy lifers to donate things such as blood and bone marrow. Yes, it's one of the NS daily issues, but it's not a half-bad idea.

See above.
Maybe growing such tissues out of stem cells would be more feasible (expecially because it wouldn't mess with the right every person has to its body), and cut away compatibility problems. The BigPharmaFatCats, though, would lose some profits - less medicinals needed.

When you donate your own marrow, it grows back. So it's not like losing a kidney.


When you donate a kidney the remaining one enlarges and takes on double duty. Aside from no longer having a redundant back up system that's pretty much the same thing as growing back. Let me tell you though it's quite a bit more than an inconvenience.

And really, if you've got a terminal illness and someone volunteers to donate whatever you need to save yourself, you're a fucking retard if you do or say anything to piss them off. Seriously, you should be in serious ass-kissing gratitude mode.

The sister isn't volunteering to donate.

She's being an ass.

So if I were him, I would drive over to her house with a can of petrol and a lit cigar, and barbeque her in front of everyone.

He's terminally ill - what possible harm can the justice system do to him then?

And if you were standing in front of a button that could slam an iron door between the victim and murderer? And the victim happened to be your brother? And his wife and kids were watching from the next room?

Wow, that's an almost entirely different situation . . .


No, wait, that IS an entirely different situation!

When you donate your own marrow, it grows back. So it's not like losing a kidney.

It's just an inconvenience.

If anyone is being petty, it's the sister.

If I knew I was dying of a terminal illness, and a sister did this to me, I'd drive over to her house and set her on fire. What would I have to lose?


I assume you've donated all organs and body parts that you can do without, including your bone marrow and blood?

I assume you've donated all organs and body parts that you can do without, including your bone marrow and blood?

Funny, I don't match anyone.

This situation involves someone who is a perfect match.

Sure, if I matched someone, I would donate bone marrow.

Funny, I don't match anyone.

This situation involves someone who is a perfect match.

Sure, if I matched someone, I would donate bone marrow.

Even blood? You must have some interesting types to not match anyone.

Even blood? You must have some interesting types to not match anyone.

I donate blood once every other month. As for organs I don't know.

I'm entered into a marrow repository, because I was tested long ago (about 19 years ago) to see if I matched a distant relative. I didn't match.

If I were to match someone, I'm sure I would be notified.

How the hell do people see "putting someone in the spotlight" as being worse than "putting someone in their grave"? Yes, maybe subjecting her to media scrutiny is a bit harsh, but it is in no way comparable to allowing another human being (with a family) to suffer and die.
Do you know this woman's reasons for not wanting to donate? Do you know anything about her whatsoever?

I donate blood once every other month. As for organs I don't know.

I'm entered into a marrow repository, because I was tested long ago (about 19 years ago) to see if I matched a distant relative. I didn't match.

If I were to match someone, I'm sure I would be notified.


I am sure there are people who can make do with some of your spare organs and spare body parts.

It's easy to say that this woman should donate her bone marrow to her brother.

Wow, that's an almost entirely different situation . . .


No, wait, that IS an entirely different situation!
Indeed. It seems to me someone is full of shit.

So if I were him, I would drive over to her house with a can of petrol and a lit cigar, and barbeque her in front of everyone.
Well what this does show is that you're no better a person than her, if not worse.

I am sure there are people who can make do with some of your spare organs and spare body parts.

It's easy to say that this woman should donate her bone marrow to her brother.

It's easy because bone marrow grows back. It's not a big deal to give bone marrow.

Giving a kidney is a bigger deal.

Well what this does show is that you're no better a person than her, if not worse.

Why? If she "can't be bothered" then perhaps someone needs to light a fire under her ass.

Why? If she "can't be bothered" then perhaps someone needs to light a fire under her ass.
It's her business what she does with her body, not yours or anybody else's. That you would kill her for not wanting to donate is telling. What if a woman did not want to give you a child? You could argue she is depriving you of it. Would you just rape her to get your way and then call her a bitch for not having satisfied your needs prior to this?

Why? If she "can't be bothered" then perhaps someone needs to light a fire under her ass.

Have I missed where we found out why she isn't donating? :confused:

It's easy because bone marrow grows back. It's not a big deal to give bone marrow.

Giving a kidney is a bigger deal.

No, but there are still complications. I guess what it comes down to is that, as a human being, she has the inherent right to decide whether to donate or not.

Have I missed where we found out why she isn't donating? :confused:

She has said that she "can't be bothered".

Thats about the most f*ed thing I've heard today. There's something wrong with that woman. I'm surprised they aren't charging her with neglectant(sp?) homocide or something.

She has said that she "can't be bothered".
Which could be due to any variety of reasons.

Thats about the most f*ed thing I've heard today. There's something wrong with that woman. I'm surprised they aren't charging her with neglectant(sp?) homocide or something.

And as I pointed out before: we are all just like her. We also neglect to save others.
Unless you wish to claim that you give every penny you make to charity ? It only takes a dollar to save a life - so every dollar not given is a life lost.

She has said that she "can't be bothered".

Huh, missed that.
*searches thread*

And as I pointed out before: we are all just like her. We also neglect to save others.
Unless you wish to claim that you give every penny you make to charity ? It only takes a dollar to save a life - so every dollar not given is a life lost.
False logic. You're not the only person able to give to charity. She, on the other hand, is the only person known to have the bone marrow he needs to survive.

As I said earlier, a better charity analogy would be if you accidentally came into legal control of a large charity's multi-billion dollar bank account. You're the only person who is able to give such a large sum of money, so it'd be pretty shitty of you to refuse.

She has said that she "can't be bothered".

I've read the entire article in the OP, and didn't see where she (the sister) was interviewed, and said that. Do you have a link to such an article where she was interviewed?

Also, did it ever occur to you that she might have a legitimate reason for changing her mind? Maybe she now has a medical condition that precludes her from donating marrow. Maybe he mentally/physically/sexually abused her at some point, and that changed her mind. Since I haven't seen an interview with her, I don't know what her reasons are for changing her mind, and refuse to pass judgement on her.

She has said that she "can't be bothered".
I take it this is quoted from the good book of "Making Shit Up"?

The sister isn't volunteering to donate.
Read the article, she did at one time volunteer to donate and then changed her mind.

She misappropriated funds that were donated to help the poor, using them instead to build recruiting centers and nunneries that did nothing to actually help the people that the money was supposed to be helping.

She fetishized suffering, and believed that suffering brought people closer to Christ, so her "Home For The Dying" and other such centers did NOTHING to help the people that came there. They had raw pallets to lie on, and were not permitted visits from family or friends, and were provided with essentially no medical care at all. They just lay there and suffered. Mother Teresa and her nuns were primarily just concerned about converting the dying to Catholicism, not with alleviating their suffering. They also failed to distinguish between curable and incurable patients, so they actually allowed people to die needlessly.

She received honors from the Duvalier family of Haiti, and insisted that they loved the poor and were beloved by the poor as well. Read up on those assholes, and explain to me exactly what their "love for the poor" is worth.

Her "missionaries of Charity" refuse to allow public access to their financial records, and they're the only major charity in India to have such secrecy about their finances.

Mother Teresa also was fanatically opposed to fundamental human rights for women. She described abortion as the single greatest threat to world peace, and actively campaigned against safe, legal reproductive health care for women, even though such health care is single handedly the best way to improve the health, safety, and status of women around the world.

And this is just the tip of the iceberg.
Yep. A perfect poster-saint for catholicism.