On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 19:28, Nandalal Gunaratne wrote: > I am not sure about these arguments. Migration is one > issue as it is a possible permanent loss of a skilled > person from one country to another. > > There is a loss of British, Australian, Austrian and > others who also move to the USA for example. This is > promoted by the USA too. The number of British > scientists who have been recruited in such a manner to > the US is well known. Do you think the British have > not lost?
Yes, but countries like Britain and Australia are better able to make up that loss than less wealthy countries. That was my point. > > The other problem is that the skilled medical or > others in the poorer countries are not given the > facilities to work. They can be thoroughly frustrated > as a result. Their knowledge and skill is NOT > appreciated in their own country. They maybe too > qualified and skilled for the country of their origin. > They try really hard to do something useful but nobody > cares to help - particularly the administrators. Sure. But the solution to that problem is not for rich countries to try to attract these disaffected health professionals to migrate. The solution is more aid to help build and/or reform the health systems in poorer countries. > > They can be lost to their own citizens. What if some > other country can make use of them to help their own > people, and they want to have a better health care > system, and can and will give them the conditions they > need to work to the best of their skill and knowledge? > Must they be lost to everyone? See above. > > Take away migration. Many of them do NOT want to > migrate, They want to work w few years in another > country which will allow them to improve their skills > and knowledge and also earn enough to save something > and go back to their own country. This is good for > both countries. If this is encouraged and made easier > to do, but migration is not, then neither side will > lose. Sure, I have no problem with that, as long as it is not a permanent loss. Nor am I in favour of banning migration of skilled professionals from poorer countries to richer countries. I am just against richer countries actively promoting and assisting such migration flows. Tim C > > Nandalal > > > On Wed, 2004-10-13 at 05:41, Andrew Ho wrote: > > > On Tue, 12 Oct 2004, Karsten Hilbert wrote: > > > > > > > > > When the UK, Canada or Australia recruits > > such a person to work in the > > > > > > UK, Canada or Australia, do they reimburse > > the South African government > > > > > > for the cost > > > > > > > > > > Double standard you use. > > > > No. Or rather, yes. Question is WHY a double > > standard is used. > > > > Tim believes applying a double standard is the > > morally right > > > > thing to do in this particular situation. > > > > > > This discussion needs to include consideration of > > personal freedom and > > > discrimination (or preferential treatment) based > > on country of origin. > > > > Indeed, and our argument is that there should NOT be > > preferential > > treatment, through active recruitment and assisted > > migration, of skilled > > health care professionals from needy countries to > > wealthy countries. I > > think we are in violent agreement. > > > > -- > > > > Tim C > > > > PGP/GnuPG Key 1024D/EAF993D0 available from > > keyservers everywhere > > or at > > http://members.optushome.com.au/tchur/pubkey.asc > > Key fingerprint = 8C22 BF76 33BA B3B5 1D5B EB37 > > 7891 46A9 EAF9 93D0 > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today! > http://vote.yahoo.com -- Tim C PGP/GnuPG Key 1024D/EAF993D0 available from keyservers everywhere or at http://members.optushome.com.au/tchur/pubkey.asc Key fingerprint = 8C22 BF76 33BA B3B5 1D5B EB37 7891 46A9 EAF9 93D0
