I was amused by the following line in Justin Peter's article and could not tell if it was written togue-in-cheek:

One out of eight Sierra Leonean mothers die in childbirth—an outcome, the article claims, that is fundamentally due to "life in poor countries: Governments don't provide enough decent hospitals or doctors; families can't afford medications."

One could write EXACTLY the same thing about the United States---the government does not provide enough decent hospitals or doctors in the United States, and families can't afford medications.

Perhaps the events of the past few weeks will make the US less heartless. We actually do have the means to provide decent medical care to everyone; we simply choose not to do it. And, for that reason, and that reason alone, we have exactly the same problem of quality and access as truly poor nations like Sierra Leone.

I don't believe we're going to see a less heartless US when it comes to medical care. The reason is because the Earth's natural resources are finate. It has been determined by many scientists, that the Earth can only sustain a human population of 500 million humans.

With this in mind, how does a government save a planet and a people? The Chinese limit births and force abortion. Is that heartless? Some countries have or allow genocide. Is that heartless?

How does the human population achieve the best heartfilled health for the planet and the people?

Americans say Universal healthcare, but isn't this all about sustaining humans at the cost of the planet? So is that heartless healthcare?