The "Real" Victim

When a person hears of a major occurrence they are automatically going to form some sort of opinion about its morality or correctness. This was the case when six health professionals were sentenced to death in Libya charged on the basis that they deliberately infected 400 children with HIV. The charge was controversial on the grounds that many of the children were infected some time before the medics were even working at the hospital. While this is where many chose to disagree, the main controversy lies in deciding who the actual victims in the case were. The author of an editorial published in Nature, felt that the main victim(s) in this case were the Libyan public who has to deal with a poor healthcare system, whereas the author of an editorial published in the New York Times felt that the doctors and nurses sentenced to death were the only victims, and were being overlooked.

The editorial in the medical journal Nature contains facts about the case to support the writer’s claim that the real victims in the Libyan court case were the Libyan people who face a healthcare system that is medically inadequate. The writer makes it clear that he/she does agree that the trial and conviction of the prosecuted doctors and nurses was somewhat unfair, but it is obvious that their main concern is to advocate better healthcare for the country of Libya. Directly calling it a “right to safe healthcare,” the author feels that the Libyan people deserve to have better medical settings and safer medical procedures. The writer’s argument is that if HIV hadn’t been such an “invisible” problem then there wouldn’t have been a case to decide upon in the first place. In contrast to the editorial written in the New York Times about the same issue, this editorial writer feels that while the Libyan medics were faced with a trial of injustice, the rest of the world’s main concern should be the “tragic battlegrounds” that the Libyan case brought to light.

As for the editorial published in the New York Times on the Libyan court case, the writer of this publication makes it very clear that their stance on who the real victim(s) of the case is are the medical authorities who were sentenced to death for a situation that was not in their power to control. The writer expresses their feelings that there should be more international pressure for a fair trials and more scientific evidence needs to be heard in a case. The author calls the charges “preposterous” and describes the unfairness of the trial of the six doctors and nurses. While the author does recognize the fact that the United States and European nations set up funds to care for victims in the tragedy, and improve medical facilities, he goes on to call this a “grotesque outreach,” claiming that the only real victims were the convicted nurses and doctors. This is a direct disagreement with the editorial writer I mentioned previously who felt the Libyan people left to deal with poor healthcare were more victimized than the medics.

Overall, both editorial writers for the New York Times and Nature agreed on the fact that the Libyan court case was filled with injustice for the defendants. Where the two individuals disagreed was on who we should deem as the real victims in the case. The writer for Nature felt that the Libyan people were the injured party because they are faced with a very inadequate healthcare system, where the writer for the New York Times believed that the only real victims we should recognize are those who were convicted and sentenced to death; the doctors and nurses. An issue like this one raises much controversy and causes one to form an opinion for themselves.