Replies

"There's absolutely nothing in the articles I found that indicate children were killed, either deliberately or by neglect!"

From the article:

"The mortality rate was 25 percent on average over the years, only seven percent for the “normal” population."

"Catherine Corless tracked down death certificates for nearly 800 children. Eighteen she discovered died of starvation; yes, they were starved to death."

A 25% mortality rate and 18 confirmed to have been starved to death while in the care of the Nuns. No proof you say?

"...confirmed to have been starved to death while in the care of the Nuns. No proof you say?...

Yes, I do say! "Starved to Death"? Yet more Yellow Journalism. Here are the results of the death certificates for all 796 children who died there:

Notice the entry in the 2nd column for "Malnutrition". It says "10" - a whopping 10 out of 800.

And do you see the line just above it? "Congenital syphilis ... 12". Those are babies *BORN* with syphilis, inherited from the mother's blood. Before you blame "Malnutrition" deaths on "Nuns deliberately starving kids," tell me if we should also blame the syphilis deaths on the Nuns?

No? And why not? Because before they ever entered the orphanage, those dying babies were already doomed by bad choices their teen mothers made, that's why. So then, how can you any more blame malnutrition-related deaths on the nuns either? Do you personally know how far gone each of those 10 babies was before moving there?

Nobody actually "dies of malnutrition" any more than one "dies of old age". Rather, they die of specific medical conditions that are partly/mostly/wholly caused by malnutrion or old age. And it's not an instant process. If one or more vital organs had already been greatly damaged by malnutrition to the point of being unhealable BEFORE they entered the home, there's precious little the nuns could do.

By your "journalistic tastes" I'm guessing you must really be a big fan of CNN & NYT & Wapo & HuffPo & DailyKos, am I right?