Yeah, but...
The point about the scanner not being used is quite an important one. If you give the hospital money to buy a scanner, then that's what they have to do with it, irrespective of whether or not that's the best use of their money. And if they don't have the funds to staff it without diverting resources from other things, then it won't get used: it'll just take up space. For that reason, it would have been much better to raise money for cancer services at the hospital: that way, they could be used in the most efficient way possible. Admittedly, it might be harder to raise cash for a less well-defined project; but it'd be more useful.

(On a similar topic, I've heard of someone who paid to have an eye ward built in his will; which was all very nice, except that without the resources to staff it, there was no point. The money therefore had to sit there doing nothing until the legal means could be found to overturn the terms of the will and have it released.)

As for it's not being moved elsewhere: well, again, if other places don't need a scanner then there's no reason to keep it. You're assuming that there was a good use to which it could be put, but that's not a given. (Imagine that every hospital has a scanner; there would simply be nowhere to put it without providing more staff and building a new room for it. That could well be more trouble than it's worth. Even if not everywhere has a scanner, the point stands: it's not at all obvious that it's the best use of resources to cart it around.) Moreover, you talk in terms of it being "a couple of years" - that could mean any number of things, up to and including its functional life having expired.
( Enzyme is powered by sunlight, Fri 22 Apr 2011, 12:06, Reply)