The Patriarch Teoctist would have survived, claimed his personal doctor, the man who had taken care of the Church official for two decades. Nicolae Ursea is a Ph.D. in medical sciences a GP and an expert in nephrology. He claims the doctor heading the team who performed the surgery on the Patriarch Teoctist had lied to him about the latter's state of health, at times when it was more than critical.
Professor Ursea takes distance from his colleague's opinions and he explains he wouldn't have recommended the surgery performed last Monday, because the Patriarch was suffering from a urinary infection to be treated by antibiotics rather than by surgery.
One more clue showing the Patriarch didn't know the surgery stood 50% chances to succeed is that he didn't proceed to confession and communion, which is unimaginable in the case of a monk aged 92. ZIUA demands the Prosecutor's Office should open official inquiry.
N.U.: I took care of him. I was his personal doctor for 21 years... Medically speaking, there were two things: 1. Not to touch him without talking to his personal doctor. They should have called me and brought me next to him from wherever I was. 2. He wasn't anybody, there should have been consultations among experts. He was suffering from urinary infection and this is why he was urinating often... They should have treated the infection, waited for a few days and then... Three weeks ago he had an episode of the kind too. I treated the infection and the frequent urinating faded... But then it came back... They should have treated it again and waited... If he needed to be operated here, we would have proceeded to the medical tests and so on...
Rep.: Did he need to be balanced and were they to bring the blood pressure back to normal ?
N.U.: Of course. What should I say? (...) I phoned Sinescu and I asked him last Monday: "I hear you did the surgery, sir". He answered: "No, I didn't". But the surgery had been performed and he was dead.
Rep.: What time was this ?
N.U.: It was 12:30. "No, I didn't do the surgery". And then I said: "Please call me when you do". He answered: "Yes, I will let you know when I do it".
Rep.: Well, this is something very serious... They kept you away from him deliberately...
N.U.: Yes, they did... (...)
Rep.: How could he ?
N.U.: He could. He dared lied to me, he dared not call me and so on. This is unacceptable. In deontological terms, one may not perform a surgery on someone when he has got a personal doctor. He was a personality, not just anyone... I kept his heart and brain all right for 21 years.
Rep.: And, thanks God, he was perfectly well...
N.U.: He was perfectly well. I took care of him appropriately and I draw a treatment scheme and he used to come... We had become friends, you know...
Rep.: Had there been no infection...
N.U.: They shouldn't have performed the surgery for a urinary infection. (...)
Rep.: We hear he would spit blood. Do you think complications might have emerged, by any chance ?
N.U.: Yes, probably.
Rep.: They didn't do the basic tests, the X-raying....
N.U.: He says they did the basic ones. That's what he says...
Rep.: I asked at the hospital about it: they would have had no time for the X-rays, because the X-ray women starts work at 9.
N.U.: He had all the medical tests done three weeks ago in the Carol Davila hospital. I had them all done. He had an infection, I proceeded to treatment, I fixed it and everything was all right. The infection came back. He needed an anti-infection treatment and then they should have talked about surgery.
Rep.: Why were they in such a hurry ?
N.U.: I don't know why they were in such a hurry. Why ? They lied to me on the phone, saying there was no surgery... Such an exceptionally valuable man, God's true envoy on Earth. So kind, so gentle, such a noble soul...
Rep.: Therefore we can say he would have survived...
N.U.: Yes, he would have survived... Without calling his personal doctor ? This is unacceptable. It is elementary. They should have called me to talk about it and I wouldn't have recommended the surgery.
Victor Roncea & Lidia Popescu
Ziua Vineri 03 Iulie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
Friday, August 03, 2007
Basescu and PD regress
Did parliamentary elections take place next Sunday, the PD (Democrat Party) would get 43% of votes and the PSD (Social-Democrat Party) would reach only 17%, according to the latest opinion poll by IMAS, accomplished in July 8-17.
According to the research, the PNL (National Liberal Party) would get 11% and the PNG (New Generation Party) would reach 10%. 5% of Romania's electors would vote for the UDMR (Democrat Union of Magyars in Romania) and 5% for the PRM ("Greater Romania" Party). The PLD (Liberal-Democrat Party) would reach some 4% and the PC (Conservative Party) just 2%.
As far as trust is concerned, President Traian Basescu tops the list due to 51% and Gigi Becali comes next with 34%, followed by Theodor Stolojan (28%). 17% is the score for Mircea Geoana, Calin Popescu Tariceanu and Emil Boc.
Trust in the Romanian President has lost 5% and the PD has lost 7% as compared to last month, the study shows. PM Tariceanu enjoys 4% more and the PSD has gained 2% more as compared to June. (...)
Roxana Andronic
Ziua Vineri 03 Iulie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
According to the research, the PNL (National Liberal Party) would get 11% and the PNG (New Generation Party) would reach 10%. 5% of Romania's electors would vote for the UDMR (Democrat Union of Magyars in Romania) and 5% for the PRM ("Greater Romania" Party). The PLD (Liberal-Democrat Party) would reach some 4% and the PC (Conservative Party) just 2%.
As far as trust is concerned, President Traian Basescu tops the list due to 51% and Gigi Becali comes next with 34%, followed by Theodor Stolojan (28%). 17% is the score for Mircea Geoana, Calin Popescu Tariceanu and Emil Boc.
Trust in the Romanian President has lost 5% and the PD has lost 7% as compared to last month, the study shows. PM Tariceanu enjoys 4% more and the PSD has gained 2% more as compared to June. (...)
Roxana Andronic
Ziua Vineri 03 Iulie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
Terrifying rudeness
A nation can be respected if it respects itself. Respect for its greatest personalities, those who made its history and identity, is one extent of it.
As far as we are concerned, it isn't always so, unfortunately. It may be painful and, furthermore, it may be a clue showing the level of civilization and maturity reached by our society. This is what counts in the international eye first. Then there count the other components of the definition: political, economic, social, military and security.
As normal, society has had a deep response to the death of the Patriarch Teoctist. It was also normal that the Romanian government should declare Friday to be a national day of mourning, in order to properly emphasize the exceptional importance and vital contribution of His Beatitude the Patriarch Teoctist, paid in the 21 years of guiding the Romanian Orthodox Church.
Unfortunately, Dumitru Dragomir, a deputy representing the "Greater Romania" Party and a president of the Romanian Soccer League, announced boycott of the government's decision, informing the soccer games would take place as scheduled. The boss of his party, a man very Christian in his public stance, didn't protest in any way. And no one protested in any way: no one who paid a last homage by the coffin of the Patriarch Teoctist, no one who signed condolence letters. You know those letters forwarded to all the press agencies at once so that they will reach the news as soon as possible. This is how our politicians are like: they know so, they feel so and they do so.
The very serious problem emerging at this point is the powerlessness of the state and state structures to impose obedience to a decision as essential as the one on the national day of mourning. The deep crisis of authority Romania is going through allows for defiance of any decision because of the very autonomous areas, very numerous, in which the one who holds local power can very well defy central authorities. Very authoritative in his field, Dumitru Dragomir shows the world not only his utter disgust with the moral values which he theoretically committed to respect by his membership of the "Greater Romania" Party, but also the fact that in today's Romania he may very well care about nothing.
Do you fancy that, when in France there was a national day of mourning when General de Gaulle was interred, they were playing soccer games and the public opinion or the political class didn't express strong opposition ? And let's hit the other side of international politics for an example. Do you fancy Italy housed any sports competition the day Pope John Paul II was interred ?
All the Romanian politicians who will be attending the funeral should feel deeply humiliated by the attitude of Dumitru Dragomir, a member of the Romanian Parliament, by his terrifying rudeness. But only in case they haven't got tickets accompanied by an invitation to the Golden Blitz Restaurant, which is good for opinion polls.
It is not the Romanian people who should feel shamed. Those thousands and thousands of Romanians who queued to pay a last tribute by the coffin show the worth of the respect and common sense that need to be admitted as such. It is the others who are a problem. In fact, they are a huge problem, just like the destructive, dramatic and spreading rudeness they embody.
Cristian Unteanu
Ziua Vineri 03 Iulie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
Romania asked to send troops to Sudan
Romanian received a solicitation to sent troops to Darfur, Sudan. Unofficial sources say it comes from French authorities.
Romanian military experts are now analyzing the solicitation. Depending on the financial resources available and the international mission commitments the Ministry of Defense has got, a technical report is to be sent to the Supreme Council for National Defenses so that a political decision will be made.
Right now there are 1,492 Romanian soldiers in missions abroad. Most of them (660) are in Afghanistan and Iraq (492). (...)
D.D.
Ziua Vineri 03 Iulie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
Romanian military experts are now analyzing the solicitation. Depending on the financial resources available and the international mission commitments the Ministry of Defense has got, a technical report is to be sent to the Supreme Council for National Defenses so that a political decision will be made.
Right now there are 1,492 Romanian soldiers in missions abroad. Most of them (660) are in Afghanistan and Iraq (492). (...)
D.D.
Ziua Vineri 03 Iulie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
An energy tax for Europe
George W. Bush's disastrous war in Iraq has put Europe in a bind. The United States long has been Europe's protector. Now, because of a war it wanted no part of, Europe finds its security undermined.
Chaos in Iraq has empowered Iran - a much more dangerous country for Europe than Iraq ever was. And, with America bogged down in Iraq, Russian President Vladimir Putin has resurrected Soviet-style bullying tactics. Would Russia otherwise have dared to threaten to re-direct its nuclear missiles at European cities ?
Not only has Bush destroyed Iran's most formidable enemy and bogged down US troops in a hopeless cause; he also has enriched energy-abundant Iran and Russia by pursuing a war that has dramatically raised energy prices. High crude oil prices make it easier for Iran to build nuclear weapons and for Russia to use energy blackmail to threaten Europe.
But Europe can fight back. By imposing a stiff tax on energy consumption, Europeans would reduce both consumption of energy and its price in world markets, in turn cutting the flow of funds to Russia and Iran.
Because crude oil is priced in US dollars, and the dollar has depreciated against the euro, European consumers have gotten off relatively easy from rising energy prices. So an energy tax roughly equal to the euro's 33% appreciation in recent years would be about right.
Europeans might be forgiven for thinking that the Americans, who pumped up oil prices in the first place with their military misadventure in Iraq, should be the ones who "pump it down" with an energy tax. But, with a "Texas oil man" in the White House, it won't happen. Perhaps after 2008, the politics in America will change in favor of an energy tax, but such a tax is needed now.
Besides, given the strength of environmentalism in Europe, the issue is tailor-made for Europeans to take the lead. Moreover, Europeans do not narrowly equate national security with military spending. They know that confiscating the checkbooks of Russia and Iran would probably make the world a lot safer than building another submarine or aircraft carrier. Indeed, an energy tax would not only effectively counter the argument that Europeans are "free riders" when it comes to defense; it would be tantamount to defense leadership.
Still, with the amount of real resources transferred to their governments already high, Europeans might balk at a further increase. That is why the energy tax must be imposed as a tax substitution, with income or payroll taxes simultaneously reduced to keep real resource transfers to government at a constant level. This would increase economic growth as well as strengthen national security.
Critics who worry about the cost of the energy tax have not thought about tax substitutions. They also do not seem to realize that an energy tax is a much cheaper way for Europe to protect itself from Iran and Russia than alternative means, such as a defense buildup.
Europe currently lacks military muscle because it made a decision a half-century ago to be protected by the US and devote the saved resources to building up its welfare state. This strategy - which worked well for decades - always carried the risk that at some point America's resources might be tied up elsewhere, leaving Europe under-protected. That risk materialized with the Iraq war.
But Europeans are showing little taste for increased defense spending, Iraq or no Iraq. Even France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy - thought by many to be a pro-American foreign policy hawk - is backing away from his campaign promise to maintain defense spending at 2% of GDP.
In a recent speech to the French defense industry, Sarkozy conspicuously failed to repeat the pledge, instead warning that he soon might cut France's defense budget. According to a respected defense industry publication, Sarkozy changed his mind after his party's smaller-than-anticipated victory in June's parliamentary election.
The reason Europeans are reluctant to increase defense spending is expense. Cutting welfare spending - where the big money is - would be painful. Solemn promises made over the years would have to be broken (people would not get the social services that they paid for with a lifetime of high taxes), lives would be shortened (less money for hospitals and nursing homes), and overall hardship increased.
Even economic growth will not prevent a tradeoff between defense and welfare spending for Europeans. Fifty years of defense dependence on the US has created a powerful "peace industry" in Europe whose primary business is to fight defense spending tooth and nail. They will want to protect all social spending, regardless of the consequences for foreign policy.
A counterweight to the "peace crowd" may be new migrants from Eastern Europe, for whom cuts in social services would break no promises, and for whom job availability and wage levels are more important. But it will take some time before the new migrants gain decisive political influence, and the problems of Iran and Russia for Europe require immediate attention.
In short, Europeans will not allow Bush's Iraq war to become a war on their welfare state. What makes the energy imposed as a tax substitution tax particularly attractive as a defense measure is that it leaves the welfare state intact while making Europe safer, greener, and richer. Why wait ?
Melvyn Krauss is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
www.project-syndicate.org
Melwyn Krauss
Ziua Vineri 03 Iulie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
Chaos in Iraq has empowered Iran - a much more dangerous country for Europe than Iraq ever was. And, with America bogged down in Iraq, Russian President Vladimir Putin has resurrected Soviet-style bullying tactics. Would Russia otherwise have dared to threaten to re-direct its nuclear missiles at European cities ?
Not only has Bush destroyed Iran's most formidable enemy and bogged down US troops in a hopeless cause; he also has enriched energy-abundant Iran and Russia by pursuing a war that has dramatically raised energy prices. High crude oil prices make it easier for Iran to build nuclear weapons and for Russia to use energy blackmail to threaten Europe.
But Europe can fight back. By imposing a stiff tax on energy consumption, Europeans would reduce both consumption of energy and its price in world markets, in turn cutting the flow of funds to Russia and Iran.
Because crude oil is priced in US dollars, and the dollar has depreciated against the euro, European consumers have gotten off relatively easy from rising energy prices. So an energy tax roughly equal to the euro's 33% appreciation in recent years would be about right.
Europeans might be forgiven for thinking that the Americans, who pumped up oil prices in the first place with their military misadventure in Iraq, should be the ones who "pump it down" with an energy tax. But, with a "Texas oil man" in the White House, it won't happen. Perhaps after 2008, the politics in America will change in favor of an energy tax, but such a tax is needed now.
Besides, given the strength of environmentalism in Europe, the issue is tailor-made for Europeans to take the lead. Moreover, Europeans do not narrowly equate national security with military spending. They know that confiscating the checkbooks of Russia and Iran would probably make the world a lot safer than building another submarine or aircraft carrier. Indeed, an energy tax would not only effectively counter the argument that Europeans are "free riders" when it comes to defense; it would be tantamount to defense leadership.
Still, with the amount of real resources transferred to their governments already high, Europeans might balk at a further increase. That is why the energy tax must be imposed as a tax substitution, with income or payroll taxes simultaneously reduced to keep real resource transfers to government at a constant level. This would increase economic growth as well as strengthen national security.
Critics who worry about the cost of the energy tax have not thought about tax substitutions. They also do not seem to realize that an energy tax is a much cheaper way for Europe to protect itself from Iran and Russia than alternative means, such as a defense buildup.
Europe currently lacks military muscle because it made a decision a half-century ago to be protected by the US and devote the saved resources to building up its welfare state. This strategy - which worked well for decades - always carried the risk that at some point America's resources might be tied up elsewhere, leaving Europe under-protected. That risk materialized with the Iraq war.
But Europeans are showing little taste for increased defense spending, Iraq or no Iraq. Even France's new president, Nicolas Sarkozy - thought by many to be a pro-American foreign policy hawk - is backing away from his campaign promise to maintain defense spending at 2% of GDP.
In a recent speech to the French defense industry, Sarkozy conspicuously failed to repeat the pledge, instead warning that he soon might cut France's defense budget. According to a respected defense industry publication, Sarkozy changed his mind after his party's smaller-than-anticipated victory in June's parliamentary election.
The reason Europeans are reluctant to increase defense spending is expense. Cutting welfare spending - where the big money is - would be painful. Solemn promises made over the years would have to be broken (people would not get the social services that they paid for with a lifetime of high taxes), lives would be shortened (less money for hospitals and nursing homes), and overall hardship increased.
Even economic growth will not prevent a tradeoff between defense and welfare spending for Europeans. Fifty years of defense dependence on the US has created a powerful "peace industry" in Europe whose primary business is to fight defense spending tooth and nail. They will want to protect all social spending, regardless of the consequences for foreign policy.
A counterweight to the "peace crowd" may be new migrants from Eastern Europe, for whom cuts in social services would break no promises, and for whom job availability and wage levels are more important. But it will take some time before the new migrants gain decisive political influence, and the problems of Iran and Russia for Europe require immediate attention.
In short, Europeans will not allow Bush's Iraq war to become a war on their welfare state. What makes the energy imposed as a tax substitution tax particularly attractive as a defense measure is that it leaves the welfare state intact while making Europe safer, greener, and richer. Why wait ?
Melvyn Krauss is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University.
www.project-syndicate.org
Melwyn Krauss
Ziua Vineri 03 Iulie 2007 http://www.ziua.net/english
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
