Pope Francis spent final day working, despite doctors' orders
Doctors had ordered two-months rest after surviving pneumonia
Pope balanced convalescence with duties, senior cardinal says
'He made sure we had a pope for Easter,' says biographer
By Joshua McElwee
On Easter Sunday, the day before his death aged 88, Francis made his first prolonged public appearance since February, entering St. Peter's Square in a white popemobile to greet cheering crowds.
And for only the second time since leaving hospital on March 23, the pope also met on Sunday with foreign leaders, welcoming U.S. Vice President JD Vance to his residence for a brief encounter.
'I was happy to see him yesterday, though he was obviously very ill,' Vance wrote on X. 'May God rest his soul.'
Croatian Prime Minister Andrej Plenkovic and his family also had a brief meeting with Francis on Sunday.
'It was a brief moment, but profoundly touching, a meeting of kindness, smiles, and blessing,' Plenkovic said in a statement on Monday.
For someone in convalescence after a prolonged illness, Francis was working himself hard.
Cardinal Michael Czerny, a senior Vatican official who was close to Francis, said he did not think Francis pushed himself irresponsibly, and needed to move about.
'Absolute rest isn't healing,' Czerny said. 'He balanced convalescence with his being the Bishop of Rome.'
Czerny said the pope was devoted to his work leading the world's Catholics.
Citing an instruction Francis often gave Catholic bishops to make sure they were close to their flocks, Czerny said: 'He died with the smell of the sheep on him.'
Austen Ivereigh, a biographer of Francis who also wrote a book with the pope in 2020, said the pontiff 'listened carefully to his doctors' advice but his first priority was his mission of presence.'
Francis, said Ivereigh, was 'a master of timing.'
'He made sure we had a pope for Easter and kept up his mission of presence to the last,' said the biographer.
During his time in hospital, Francis had suffered severe breathing crises, which his doctors later said had nearly killed him. The Vatican said on Monday evening that the pope had died of a stroke and subsequent, irreversible cardiovascular arrest.
Cardinal Kevin Farrell, announcing the death on the Vatican's TV channel earlier on Monday, said Francis had died at 7:35 a.m. (0535 GMT).
A FINAL FEW WORDS
Since returning from hospital, Francis had 24-hour care from a nurse, the Vatican said previously. The pope was receiving oxygen via a small hose under his nose overnight, and during the day as needed.
During his stay in hospital, the pope also used non-invasive mechanical ventilation, involving the placement of a mask over his face to help push air into his lungs. He was no longer using ventilation after leaving hospital, the Vatican said.
In his last public appearance on Sunday, Francis said only a few words, wishing a happy Easter in a raspy voice to about 35,000 people gathered in St. Peter's Square.
In a traditional Easter message, read by an aide, Francis reiterated his frequent call for a ceasefire in Gaza, calling the humanitarian situation in the enclave 'deplorable'.
The pope also called on Palestinian militant group Hamas to release its remaining hostages and condemned what he said was a 'worrisome' trend of antisemitism in the world.
Father Gabriel Romanelli, from the Gaza parish the pope called regularly during the Israel-Hamas war, told Vatican News: 'The pope called us for the last time on Saturday evening, shortly before the Easter Vigil began, while we were praying the Rosary. He told us that he was praying for us, he blessed us, and he thanked us for our prayers in his favour.'
As he toured the square in his popemobile on Sunday, people lined the aisles to get close to him, many holding aloft national flags and shouting 'viva il papa!' (long live the pope!). Some offered babies for him to bless.
Italy's Family Affairs Minister Eugenia Roccella said Francis had given his all, to the end.
The pope, she said in a statement, 'chose not to spare himself, transmitting in his suffering, physical closeness, a message about his whole papacy.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Maverick
5 days ago
- Daily Maverick
The philanthropy of Bill Gates must be approached with caution
Bill Gates is soothing his $200-billion headache by giving his fortune away – most of it to Africa – over the next two decades. That means increasing Gates Foundation disbursements to $9-$10-billion annually, compared with $8-billion in 2024. This nearly trebles the foundation's average charitable outlay of about $3.4-billion each year since the Gates family got into philanthropy in 1994. The increase is astounding in absolute dollar terms, but when adjusted for past and future inflation, the purchasing power of the expanded Gates largesse (supplemented by Warren Buffett's substantial billions) just about keeps pace with the real value of their original benefactions. This is still the biggest philanthropic gift in modern history. But why is Mr Gates giving away 99% of his estimated $108-billion wealth? A question of motive Perhaps the philanthropist – once the world's richest man, but now in 13th position – suffers from the same anxiety as lesser persons: securing his legacy and being remembered kindly? Or possibly, the 70-year-old is concerned for his soul as he enters the 'last chapter' of his undoubtedly brilliant career? Gates had a Catholic upbringing, but as befits a fiercely rational scientist, he is agnostic. Nevertheless, his reflection that 'to whom much is given, much is expected' suggests a spiritual base. He is also fond of quoting Andrew Carnegie's Gospel of Wealth: 'The man who dies rich dies disgraced.' The question of motivation is important in our age of suspicion where obvious goodness is not accepted at face value. Gates is the frequent target of outlandish conspiracy theories that say more about his detractors than about him. What Bill Gates does matters to us A more practical question concerns the implications flowing from his intent. Gates is entitled to do what he wants with his private wealth. But this libertarian licence is somewhat conditioned by the thought that the Microsoft co-founder amassed his fortune thanks to people like you and me buying his products and services – 345 million of us contributed $211-billion in revenue in 2023 alone, giving us a legitimate stake in Gates' affairs. His philanthropic endeavours are also our business because of his outsized influence on public policy, particularly when this sways the choices nations make to affect the life chances of 44% of the world population. They are the world's poor (those living on less than $3.65 per day) living in 128 low- and middle-income nations. However, to put this in perspective, the Gates Foundation's projected outlay of $9-billion a year is small change compared with the $294-billion needed annually to close the financing gap for the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) among the 48 developing economies covering three-quarters of the global population. Therefore, Gates' influence is not from money alone, but from how his powerful pulpit proselytises his heartfelt causes. This results in unease because of the distortionary consequences for country-level health and development. A narrow approach The causes dear to Mr Gates are: stopping preventable deaths among mothers and children; eliminating headline infectious diseases; and reducing poverty through education and agriculture. These are worthy aims with compelling evidence, garnered not least through the Foundation's own massive research and innovation investment, that they are achievable by scaling up solutions derived from fast-moving scientific and technological advances, including artificial intelligence. Mr Gates' humanitarian credentials are not in doubt. But his approach to tackling a problem 'because it is there' necessitates an all-consuming, laser-like focus on narrowly selected challenges, and lavishing vast sums of money via highly technocratic prescriptions. The venture capital method is problematic for several reasons. It means de-prioritising other equally pressing needs and making highly contentious value judgements on the issues that are more or less worthy. We normally do that through debating the choices we want our governments to make, and holding them accountable, however imperfectly. Private philanthropies are not held responsible in the same way, especially when their well-meaning interventions can shift at will or when they shut shop, as the Gates Foundation will do in 2045. Questioning cost benefits Could its legacy become an unsustainable burden for successor generations? Take, for example, the laudable Gates goal to eradicate wild polio that, after decades of successful global efforts, lurks only in Afghanistan and Pakistan. These fragile states extract high marginal costs for allowing the last wild virus to be chased down. Whether that is achievable is conditioned by prevailing social and political circumstances. So, how much is worth spending on eradication when existing strategies to protect the rest of the world through vaccination, surveillance and outbreak response could be more cost-effective? The counter-argument is that permanent polio eradication would save the world $40-50-billion. But is that sufficiently significant in a multi-trillion-dollar world? Furthermore, would it be better for long-suffering Afghans and Pakistanis to switch their earmarked polio funds into broader health and social services that bring wider progress that eventually catalyses polio eradication at a lesser eventual cost? However, this could take longer than 2045. Understandably, Mr Gates is impatient while we wish him a long life. Vertical focus on selected conditions Comparable concerns are raised by verticalised strategies that capture large Gates resources for diseases such as malaria, measles and tuberculosis. Inevitably, that skews multilateral health co-operation through boosting global funds such as for Aids, TB, malaria, and for vaccines. They also distort our global health institutions such as the World Health Organization, whose $6.8-billion budget for 2024-25 (before recent cuts) included a 10% ring-fenced allocation just for polio. The Gates focus on maternal and child mortality raises further questions because the underlying causes are difficult to shift. Take South Sudan, with the world's most appalling maternal mortality rate of 1,223 per 100,000 births. Against the country's backdrop of conflict, displacement, poverty, misgovernance, disaster, climate change, absent infrastructure and absent trained personnel, the contribution of technical healthcare innovation is useful, but relatively marginal. How much is therefore worth spending on maternal and child health alone while the all-ages crude death rate hovers above 1,190 per 100,000 population? If Mr Gates asks the people of South Sudan how to spend his money, what difficult choices would they make? Bill Gates is highly methodical as befits a smart techbro. His lodestar is metrics, which means getting only what he measures, not more, such as reducing Aids deaths by two-thirds between 2000-2023, or now aiming to halve under-fives' mortality from five million in 2019. A list of other conditions for statistically demonstrable demolition awaits. Technocratic versus holistic paradigms Reducing specific disease burdens helps, but does not equate to health. This is constitutionally defined by WHO as 'physical, mental and social wellbeing and not merely the absence of disease'. The metrics for that are not precise and, therefore, less amenable to narrow technical fixes. Take, for example, addictive behaviours and cognitive disorders such as dementia, or making reproductive health choices. Obesity was, until recently, in the same category of complex aetiology. But now we have the GLP-1 agonists revolutionising weight loss, and there are promising new therapies for dementia. Gates may yet be proved right with the invention of pills and jabs for all types of ailments. If enough resources are thrown at selected problems, some are bound to stick, but at huge opportunity costs for other important challenges. Nevertheless, at least Bill Gates is fixated on saving present humanity here, while the world's richest man, Elon Musk, is investing heavily to send sizeable numbers of refugees from a doomed Earth to Mars by the 2040s, so as to keep the human genome alive. Philanthropic influences on democratic policymaking The Gates and Musk outlook brings into focus the technocratic versus holistic approach to life. The impact of the mega-rich on American policy in the Donald Trump era is a possible harbinger of similar influences on the world stage that may lead to comparable tectonic shifts for global health and development structures, approaches, and financing. The consequences should concern us. But there is a counter-reaction. Shifting geopolitics means that top-down solutions are no longer acceptable. That applies even for poor countries suffering from heavy budgetary cuts at the WHO and bilateral donors. They may welcome more Gates support, but want the dignity of charting their own paths without constant hectoring on what is good for them. While that worked with the partially successful Millennium Development Goals, it is resented in the era of assertive nationalism, shrinking aid and failing Sustainable Development Goals. A debatable legacy Against this world mood, the Gates Foundation will face considerable headwinds despite, and perhaps because of, its supersized purse. Does it have strategies for that, or the flexibility to alter course, considering the straitjacket of its religion-like mission? Perhaps the Gates legacy would be more likely to endure if his foundation listened more, preached less, and was open-minded to extend beyond its narrow silos. Otherwise, the risk is of countries left high and dry in two decades, as is happening now with donors walking away from previous commitments. There are greater implications still of how supersized private charities end up directing our societies. Do citizens want that? Large-scale philanthropy – however humanitarian-minded – is yet another ideology in our divided world. It is best imbibed in small doses under strict advice. DM
Daily Maverick
5 days ago
- Daily Maverick
Discovery of wartime bombs prompts large-scale evacuation in Cologne, Germany
An evacuation zone with a radius of 1,000 metres (1,100 yards) was cleared from 8 a.m. (0600 GMT), impacting around 20,500 residents along with many workers and hotel guests in the city's old town and Deutz district. Three American bombs, each with impact fuses, were found during construction work on Monday in Deutz, a bustling area on the bank of the River Rhine. Bomb disposal experts plan to disarm the ordnance later on Wednesday. Unexploded bombs are often found in Germany, where many major cities sustained heavy damage during the war. The evacuation area includes one hospital, two retirement homes, nine schools, and many hotels and museums. 'Everyone involved hopes that the defusing can be completed in the course of Wednesday. This is only possible if all those affected leave their homes or workplaces early and stay outside the evacuation area from the outset on that day,' the city authority said in a statement. The measures caused major transport disruptions in the city of over a million people, with Germany's national rail operator warning that many trains would be diverted or cancelled. A stretch of the Rhine will be blocked off before the bomb disposal operation begins. The Rhine, which runs from the Swiss Alps to the North Sea via Cologne, is one of Europe's key waterways for the transportation of commodities such as grain and coal. Private television station RTL whose main office is located in the evacuation zone, interrupted its morning news programme.
eNCA
30-05-2025
- eNCA
Experts point out how TV's Dr House often got it wrong
He's the maverick medic who loved to confound the medical establishment with his brilliant, unorthodox diagnoses. But Dr Gregory House, the misanthropic genius who was the star of the long-running "House" television series, got an awful lot wrong himself, Croatian doctors claim. From a neurologist at work on the wrong end of a patient by performing a colonoscopy, or an MRI scan done by a physician who is clearly not a radiologist, Croatian researchers have pulled the American series up on its medical accuracy in a paper published this month. Denis Cerimagic, a professor at Dubrovnik University, and two fellow neurologists -- all big fans of the series -- listed 77 errors after analysing all 177 episodes of the show, which ran from 2004 to 2012. "We focused on the diagnoses of main cases, reality of clinical practice presentation and detection of medical errors," Cerimagic told AFP. He and his peers -- Goran Ivkic and Ervina Bilic -- broke the mistakes down into five categories including misuses of medical terminology, misinformation and simple weirdness -- something which the show's anti-hero, played by British star Hugh Laurie, possessed in abundance. - That limp - They included the use of mercury thermometers -- which had long given way to digital ones -- the term heart attack and cardiac arrest being used interchangeably when they are not the same, and that vitamin B12 deficiency can be corrected with just one injection. Nor is there a universal chemotherapy for all types of malignant tumours, as one episode suggested. But arguably the biggest error of all is that Laurie -- whose character's genius for deduction comes from the misdiagnosis that left him with a limp and chronic pain -- uses his cane on the wrong side. The stick should be carried on his unaffected side, Cerimagic said, though he understood why the actor had done it because "it's more effective to see the pronounced limp on the screen". Their research also found medical procedures being done by specialists who had no business being there, like an infectologist performing an autopsy. At times the series also stretched reality beyond breaking point, with the findings of complex laboratory tests done in just a few hours. And doctors rarely turn detective and take it upon themselves to enter patients' homes to look for environmental causes of illnesses. Not to mention Dr House's unethical behaviour -- "Brain tumour, she's gonna die" the paper quoted him as saying -- and the character's opiates addiction. The researchers say they may have missed other mistakes. "We are neurologists while other medical specialists would certainly establish additional errors," Cerimagic added. - Medical errors - Whatever their criticisms, the researchers say that modern medical series are far better produced than in the past, thanks to medical advisors. It is not like some 20 years ago when you had doctors looking at X-rays upside down, the neurologist said. "Now only medical professionals can notice errors," Cerimagic said. Despite its flaws, they thought the series could even be used to help train medical students. "The focus could be on recognising medical errors in the context of individual episodes, adopting the teamwork concept and a multidisciplinary approach in diagnosis and treatment," Cerimagic said. He said he and his colleagues were taken aback by the response to their paper "House M.D.: Between reality and fiction" -- which is not the first academic study to cast doubt on the good doctor and his methods. "The idea was to make a scientific paper interesting not only to doctors but also to people without specific medical knowledge."
