(Human) baby used as security deposit

Never in my whole life have I read anything like this. I had to read it twice before it sank in that it was not just a plot for another wild story or Hollywood film.

Hospital holds baby for payment

Israel's justice ministry is deciding whether to prosecute a hospital that held a new born baby for two months as a "guarantee" until a bill was paid. The ministry intervened last week to force Jerusalem's al-Muqaddas hospital to return the girl to her mother, an Israeli Arab married to a Palestinian. The hospital said it was not certain Israel's national insurance would cover the $2,150 (£1,250) treatment bill.

The mother, an Israeli citizen, gave birth to triplets two months ago. The births were premature and the babies required extensive hospital treatment.

Israeli Arabs, Israeli citizens of Palestinian descent, often complain of discrimination by Israeli institutions.

Because the children's father was a Palestinian resident of the West Bank, the hospital demanded payment of the bill as it was not certain of recovering the costs from the National Insurance Institute (NII). When the woman said she was unable to pay, the hospital released only two of the babies, keeping the third as a "guarantee".

The baby kept by the hospital was not in need of medical treatment. The mother left with the babies and last week and approached the justice ministry.

"We looked into the matter with the hospital," the ministry's head of legal aid, Eyal Globus, told Haaretz. "And it turned out that things were exactly as the mother said they were - the third baby was being held there." Mr Globus was told by the hospital director that this was the normal procedure for ensuring payment.

The ministry ordered the release of the child and said it would ensure the insurance fund reimbursed the hospital.

The woman's family told Haaretz that two other Israeli hospitals had turned her away because she could not pay a deposit of $72,500 (£40,000) before being admitted.

Given reports that anti-semitism (real anti-semitism, not just ordinary criticism of Israelite policies) is again on the rise, you would be forgiven for thinking that the Israelites would want to avoid as much negative publicity as possible. But no. I mean, keeping a baby as a security deposit???? Where is the human kindness, consideration for the plight of the parents? Whatever happened to that very scarce commodity, empathy? Which Israelite would want to be forced to leave his/her newborn child in a hospital because of poverty, perceived or otherwise? And why would an insurance company not honour its obligations and pay out the sums involved for the hospital care?

This, dear readers, is the way of the world. Nothing more, nothing less. I have never heard anything like this in my life. I wonder how Israelites feel when they read these things in their papers? I guess they would have kept all three babies if the woman had not been a citizen of Israel, not that that appears to count for much. So does the National Insurance Institute routinely refuse to grant payments for treatments to Israelites with Palestinian connections? Why else would the hospital be uncertain of recovering the costs from the insurance office?