Letters to the Editor
surprised
Published Letters: 146 Editor's Choice: 20
-
On c-sections and costs
[Read the article: Elective C-sections: Convenient or chancy?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]First of all, domini, good luck with everything. I wishing the best for you. Do let us know what happens and how you are doing. All things being equal, non-c-section delivery is best, of course, but all things in childbirth are not equal. If you wind up with a c-section, remember, scheduled is better than the unscheduled, last-minute emergency kind.
I also appreciate the info from the midwife.
But I would quibble with one of her recommendations -- that insurance premiums be adjusted for women who choose so-called "elective" c-sections, or that there be some other financial consequence for such a choice. First of all, due to some crappy insurance policies, there already are financial consequences. Some policies don't even cover basic prenatal care, by the way. But secondly, one woman's "elective" c-section could be another woman's absolutely, positively necessary c-section. The definition of "elective" is, obviously, vague and subjective. I'm not sure that finances should factor, at least very much, into personal decisions about what is the right medical treatment. Basically, I don't think patients should be punished financially for getting what they sincerely believe is the proper and necessary medical treatment.
In an ideal world, patients would be given all the relevant, objective information and would be trusted to make their own informed, medically appropriate decisions without undue financial or social pressures.
-
truthiness
[Read the article: Why is Brit Hume treated like a real journalist and news anchor?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To me, Brit Hume is the very embodiment of "truthiness." His face and his ponderous style of pontificating is exactly what springs to my mind when someone utters the word "truthiness." I have a feeling that Brit is a great inspiration for Steven Colbert.
-
seems like some basic legislation is possible
[Read the article: Ask the pilot]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]There's a health, safety and, at the very least, sanitation threat when people are trapped in a grounded plane for a long period of time. It seems like it would be possible to legislate some reasonable kind of time limits after which passengers must be allowed to exit the plane. There are time limits and break periods mandated in other forms of transportation -- for truck drivers, oil-tanker crews, even airline pilots. Why not for airline passengers? It's not like passengers have no experience being subjected to regulation.
You have to avoid micromanaging, but obviously, several hours trapped inside a plane is outrageous, not to mention counterproductive for the airlines. That's the kind of situation that occurs during hijackings.
-
It's a child, not a financial windfall/financial liability
[Read the article: Tom Brady and the "relationship Hail Mary"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Whew! Some of the snide comments made about this particular pregnancy are so disrespectful of the baby who's about to be born that they almost make me want to join up with the pro-lifers (comments not so much here, but elsewhere, let me point out, dear Salon readers).
The proper thing to say to people expecting a new baby is, as Miss Manners will tell you, "Congratulations." Sure, the situation here may not be 100 percent ideal, but many aren't. There's no reason to believe that both of these parents, though not with each other anymore, won't absolutely love and cherish this baby as much as any other parents love and cherish their babies. For outsiders to use this case as a launching pad for diatribes about supposedly gold-digging baby mamas, entrapped baby daddies or deadbeat dads or whatever is just crass and reveals more about the outsiders than anything else.
Speaking of revealing too much, yes, that's a very good point. Not only Parson Jim but many others have been using this letters section to say things that are better left to super-confidential consultations with priests, therapists or attorneys. This may seem like an anonymous forum, but really, it isn't, and it's poor judgment to just let it rip here about your deeply personal grievances, real or imagined. It may feel momentarily good to Jim or Brightstar or others to whip off some angry letter to Salon, but they have to consider that: 1. some of their letters come off as creepy to the average reader, and 2. this letters-to-the-editor section is a public forum really not a lot different from the letters-to-the-editor section of any local newspaper, and any correspondent's real identity can be easily revealed for everyone to know, including neighbors, potential employers and family court judges.
-
legislation
[Read the article: Tom Brady and the "relationship Hail Mary"]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I haven't read the legislation or listened to any of the hearings on these particular bills, and I don't live in California, so I'm in no position to comment on the merits, much less the motives of those on the various sides. (I do have some experience in working with my own state's legislature, enough to know that it's very difficult to be effective when you impugn your opponents' motives.)
But in general, I think experience has shown us to be wary of overly specific but broadly applied legislative mandates, be they concerning education (No Child Left Behind Act), criminal justice (mandatory sentencing rules) or child custody. Sometimes these mandates, even if crafted with the best of intentions, turn out to be unwieldy instruments that are too inflexible to address real-life situations. It doesn't surprise me that judges were unenthusiastic about further mandates in child-custody law. They might believe that the only really important mandate is that they do what is the best interest of the child in each individual case, and that anything else would be counterproductive micromanagement.