Finally Someone Asked the Question..."Are Missionaries Safe"

[_SteelHead]

Nah, if missionaries want to serve let them. Just don't expect them to live in conditions most if us would not allow for our dogs.

[_Bazooka]

No way on the last statement Mak.

6 billion dollar a year, 70k employee multinationals could not operate in the manner the church does with the missionaries. They would be sued into oblivion.

Would missionaries be able to sue the Church for failing in their duty of care?
Or do they have to sign some kind of disclaimer before they serve?

[_maklelan]

You have the paperwork, how many deaths per 1,000 missionaries will there need to be before the policies are deemed "not enough"?

We will always strive to improve our safety, but we are well below any conceivable red line of acceptable risk. I'm going to pretend to put a number on it, I'm just going to point out that you have no rational criticism of how the Church is handling the safety of its missionary force.

[_Runtu]

I can't account for how it was long ago, but medical care is fully covered these days (unless you have coverage yourself, in which case they let you handle it). They make available the best care they can find.

That's my point: sometimes the best they can find is either not much or nothing. The last four months of my mission I was in three towns in the Amazon rainforest where I am pretty sure there was no doctor; there certainly wasn't a hospital in any of the towns. So, they gave us a book called "Donde No Hay Doctor."

The difference is that we didn't have any health coverage. I have a friend who served with her husband in South Africa, and while they were riding in a car driven by a young elder, they were in a serious car accident and were in the hospital for weeks in intensive care. Because of bad advice from the church's legal representative, their medical expenses weren't paid for by the Canadian government (which was apparently what should have happened) or the South African health system. Instead, they went home with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, which the church refused to cover. In the end, they borrowed money from friends, family, and ward members to pay the bills. That was 10 years ago, roughly. I hope something like that never happens again.

[_SteelHead]

Missionaries are volunteers, not employees. Suits would go no where.

[_Bazooka]

You have the paperwork, how many deaths per 1,000 missionaries will there need to be before the policies are deemed "not enough"?

We will always strive to improve our safety, but we are well below any conceivable red line of acceptable risk. I'm going to pretend to put a number on it, I'm just going to point out that you have no rational criticism of how the Church is handling the safety of its missionary force.

What 'striving' is currently going on, right this minute what is being changed?
Good to know that 11 deaths this year is still "well below any conceivable red line of acceptable risk".

[_maklelan]

No way on the last statement Mak.

6 billion dollar a year, 70k employee multinationals could not operate in the manner the church does with the missionaries. They would be sued into oblivion.

Not only are you wildly misrepresenting the figures (the Church employees far more than 70,000 employees with their annual income), but you can't really point to a comparably staffed organization anywhere, so you really have no frame of reference. Nor can you point to any specific concerns that might be red flags in a secular organization of the same makeup.

[_maklelan]

That's my point: sometimes the best they can find is either not much or nothing. The last four months of my mission I was in three towns in the Amazon rainforest where I am pretty sure there was no doctor; there certainly wasn't a hospital in any of the towns. So, they gave us a book called "Donde No Hay Doctor."

And that's not really how it's done anymore.

The difference is that we didn't have any health coverage. I have a friend who served with her husband in South Africa, and while they were riding in a car driven by a young elder, they were in a serious car accident and were in the hospital for weeks in intensive care. Because of bad advice from the church's legal representative, their medical expenses weren't paid for by the Canadian government (which was apparently what should have happened) or the South African health system. Instead, they went home with tens of thousands of dollars in debt, which the church refused to cover. In the end, they borrowed money from friends, family, and ward members to pay the bills. That was 10 years ago, roughly. I hope something like that never happens again.

Mechanisms have been in place for some time to prevent that kind of thing.

[_maklelan]

What 'striving' is currently going on, right this minute what is being changed?

I've already explained this.

Good to know that 11 deaths this year is still "well below any conceivable red line of acceptable risk".

It's far below the risk involved in just going to college or working a full time job. Again, you're making monstrously irrational demands here. Of course we'd like to not have any deaths, but it's impossible to guarantee that level of safety for any group anywhere on the planet in any circumstances whatsoever.

[_Runtu]

And that's not really how it's done anymore.

What is done, then? In those towns, there were no telephones, and there was no doctor. If the policy is to make sure missionaries have adequate health care and are monitored for safety, either they close those areas or trust the missionaries to take care of themselves. Somehow I don't see the church purchasing expensive satellite phones for missionaries in such places, which would probably be stolen in short order anyway, and I don't see them closing areas like that.

Mechanisms have been in place for some time to prevent that kind of thing.

I sincerely hope so.