Medical aid mission gone wrong

So Medicins Sans Frontières has abandoned the sick and those who need them in Malta.

MSF have stated that the reason for not taking care of the illegal immigrants in Malta is because of the alleged appalling conditions in the detention centres, attributing such an unacceptable situation to the government.

Everyone knows that this is incorrect. The real reason is the regional international scenario, and the enormous influx of immigrants to our islands, which are relatively small and unable to cope with such a huge influx - a huge influx of immigrants who do not cooperate with the authorities, and are therefore legally not entitled to refugee status.

Is not one aware of the toll on Malta's finances, on social and medical services, all to the Maltese taxpayers' cost and indeed at the personal expense of Maltese patients? MSF seems insensitive also to such an issue.

Malta has been repeatedly asking European governments and elsewhere for help, to no avail. That MSF now wants to impute this state of affairs solely to Malta is most unfair. Clearly the conditions are not of the optimum. But what does the MSF expect? Did they expect them to be equal to some private Swiss clinic? It is in these types of conditions and areas that MSF gives its valuable service. It is its mission statement to do so. The present withdrawal falls far short of such a declared goal.

It is in my view understandable, where the safety of the MSF workers is at stake, that MSF abandons a location. Indeed it is also understandable if they abandon a location without giving any reason.

What is not understandable is abandoning a location and trying to unfairly place the blame thereof onto people who are totally innocent; and en passant trying to denigrate a country when the failure of providing services is totally theirs. Europe is fully aware of Malta's limited potential and the inundation of thousands of migrants. We are also aware that if the local conditions are not five-star, they are not that appalling: the basic necessities (food, shelter, space) are all provided.

The fact that MSF have upped and gone under these circumstances does not speak much of their dedication, determination and of the "charity" that they claim.

In Malta's case, the repute and status of MSF has suffered, at least doubly so: in its mission of providing medical aid to those in need; in its credibility. When in the future I will read that they have left (or been asked to leave) a location or country I will not be able to believe the reason that they give as being the true one.

The MSF's advantage in this case is that this effect of loss of credibility is internationally a minimal one seeing the small size of Malta, unless of course such lack of credibility is taken up and broadcast at an international level.