Letters to the Editor
imho
Published Letters: 49 Editor's Choice: 11
-
The device could no longer be detected in the woman's body!
[Read the article: The doctor is in deep trouble]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Was it ever there? How could a competent doctor insert a contraceptive device and not be able to find it again?
Absolutely nothing makes this medical mistake different from any other medical mistake. The surgeon botches a face lift; the attending triples the psychotropic drug dosage in error; the family doctor, sewing up a deep cut, severs a nerve that results in limited mobility. Yes, mistakes do happen, but why is a woman who wants (and pays for and endures) a safe but invasive contraceptive technique not entitled to the same level of medical care as any other person?
I was appalled at CL's sneering tone: the patient had an "embryonic" career (when does a career finally count?) and was left "chagrined" by the outcome of this "twisted scenario." Chagrined? How about scared and pregnant and without the reserves (remember the "embryonic" career?) to raise her child, but still unwilling to slough off her offspring onto strangers. The mother's motive was "perplexing," as if a woman who eventually wants to conceive should not have the right to choose when and by whom.
I can't believe CL would say that a man is not responsible for the child he fathered, and yet she is saying that a physician should not be held responsible for bungling a critical procedure.
The monetary damages as such are miniscule, compared to the damages that might be awarded in one of the above fictional scenarios. I really don't understand why CL is so intent on slamming the victim, blaming the woman for having sex and then not wanting to rear a child. Now only potenial mothers are allowed to be sexually active? Christian right, you have a new spokeswoman.
CL, you should be ashamed.
-
A pastor? So what!?!
[Read the article: A local pastor is on the sex offender registry]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]It's not all that "easy" to get on the sex offenders registry; it requires a conviction. But it's a damn cakewalk to become a "pastor." Many heads of congregations have taken on this role themselves with no schooling, no training, and no superiors to monitor their performance or behaviour. Others have groups of followers who provide a church for them. Et cetera. Pastors like these can be without any sort of moral compass, and can persuade their congregation of the rightness of wrong things: cases in most publicized point include Jim Jones, Roch Theriault, Jeff Lundgren, David Berg, Paul Shafer, Marshall Applewhite, David Koresh, just to begin an endless list.
Then there are the sex offenders who have been installed by their superiors with knowledge aforethought, superiors who talk a good line but conceal their sins and those of their appointees behind the blind faith of their membership. We could start here with practically the entire Roman Catholic hierarchy. Church is not always a safe place.
What he did is precisely the point. LW cannnot hope to persuade his congregation to see what they would choose to ignore, but she has no obligation to be silent or discreet about it to anyone. And, Cary, suggesting that LW's first step is to walk into a private confrontation with a convicted offender - especially when neither of you is exactly sure what occurred - is negligent and reckless advice.
-
two points
[Read the article: Left turn at Saddleback Church]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]1. I was a little taken aback at Grieve's didactic paragraph about what Obama "surely would have said, "[i]f he hadn't been rushed away from the press so quickly," and what else he "probably would have said." Did the editors cut a similar paragraph about Brownback, or does Grieve presume to know only Obama's mind so well?
2. IMHO, faith can be a positive, healing force. But historically religion has been greedy, hostile, murderous, competitive, self-aggrandizing, and culturally imperialistic. Faith preaches love and religion practices hate. Faith brings people together, religion divides them. Only the political leaders who won't abide by its rules anyway (does anyone see the Bush family titheing?) would think a theocracy is a good idea. If Obama can pick his way through this labyrinth, he will be doing us all a great and goodly favor.
-
by the book
[Read the article: How to care for my aging mother?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Please, before you make any decisions, please beg, borrow, or steal a copy of _Another Country_ by Mary Pipher. It is an invaluable guide to understanding the variables that go into the decision you now struggle with.
It sounds like your mom already needs more health care and personal intervention than you and a duplex can offer. While the attached apartment alternative is a very kind and loving thing to attempt, in some cases the poor health of the parent precludes this option. Sooner or later, she'll have an unattended fall (Parkinson's), ischemic attack (heart disease), etc., and no one will be there to help. If not now, then soon. And the guilt - that you weren't home, or didn't hear, or didn't also add a home health care nurse, or a 24 hour aide - will be tremendous.
In assisted living, OTOH, as angry as some people are when they arrive, they can soon find the companionship of their peers to be familiar and comforting; the availability of personal care options and readily available emergency care can also be unexpectedly reassuring. While there's certainly a range of quality in assisted living situations, there are many that will give your mother a safer, more attentive environment than one single person, even you, could ever hope to.