Paul K. Gladfelder's letter in The Sun Aug. 9 requires an immediate rebuttal.
Sen. Barbara Mikulski's tremendous support of family values is legendary and certainly a matter of record. Her empathy has been demonstrated time and again by the introduction and support for legislation on the needs of the American family and by action as well.
No congressional or senatorial office does more to assist constituents more promptly or efficiently than the senator and her staff.
As far as political contributions are concerned, Mr. Gladfelder's naivete is amazing. Is he not aware that many corporations contribute equally to opposing candidates and parties, as is their privilege?
As far as Alan Keyes' candidacy is concerned, we are all waiting with bated breath for proposals for remedial legislation he might have forthcoming. We voters want ideas -- not personal vituperation against Senator Mikulski and the Democratic Party. Any criticism about rap recordings should be directed against Time-Warner, if it is warranted, not against the senator.
Norton B. Schwartz
Edward T. Heise's Aug. 3 letter, "What Pro-Choice Is," used such terms as fantasy, distortions and absurdities to describe a Cal Thomas column. These terms could likewise describe his letter.
First, let me up front state I am pro-life. I believe abortion is realistic if the mother's life is at stake, and I can understand abortion in cases of rape and incest.
What I find absurd about pro-choice and Mr. Heise's letter is that nowhere do I find any reference to the fetus, to the unborn, to the baby.
As a nurse, I am well aware that science has acknowledged the preborn as human. As a new mother, I was privileged to view sonograms at 10 and 20 weeks, and the fingers and toes I saw on the sonograms are the ones I see now. I think it is absurd that pro-choice people do not recognize the preborn's human-ness.
Maybe Cal Thomas' reverence for life makes his reference to children who were almost aborted but survived to become cherished seem idealistic. The examples Mr. Heise cited of the 12- and 13-year olds suddenly finding themselves mothers, or the poor pregnant woman with the brutish husband and six other overwhelming children are real situations, but should we add the tragedy of abortion to them?
Do we assume because it appears that a baby is going to come into a rough world that there are no solutions, that there is no hope, and to end that life would be better just because the mother "chooses" to do so?
And Mr. Heise speaks of distortions. We are not talking about having a tooth pulled, we are talking person here.
Once we speak a different language, one that isn't distorted by ** the upbeat patriots of choice and rights, it gets down to whether we are going to protect the preborn.
If we leave it as a private matter, then we are not. If we call on government to give us laws and guidelines on abortion we might just get to protect the preborn. Without laws, anything goes.
Cynthia A. Price
Making Jobs Work
Sara Engram's Sunday column "Consuming the Seeds of the Future" (July 26) warrants some additional comments. She nicely pointed out the shortcomings and potential dangers of utilizing teen-agers in our work force.
On the other hand, carefully planned, executed and evaluated work experiences can be both enjoyable and profitable all the way around.
Such a process begins with a well-trained work coordinator. This person must truly embrace the educational and personal value of work, and is able to make contact with employers who are willing to participate.
Student job activities, with spelled-out skills and habits to be learned, have to be agreed upon by all. A weekly schedule, based on the needs of the employer and employee within the limits of child-labor laws, would then be established.
Frequent observation of the youngster in the work place, as well as assessments of the progress toward achievement of the arrangement's intentions, would put the finishing touches to the arrangement.
The idea that working youngsters are prone to doing less well in and out of school is wrong. In most instances, the ones who work excessive hours and get into trouble also have other problems, mostly related to poverty circumstances.
Indeed, having a part-time job where work learning goes on may be the salvation for many youngsters.
Viewing our younger set as "seeds of the future" cannot be argued. And we can do much more about planting them in fertile ground that can end up enhancing their growth into adults.
It makes jobs real and helps connect schooling and the rest of life.
Such work experience arrangements, already available to a limited degree in such places as the Anne Arundel County schools, should be made available to the majority of high school students.
Farmers have always known that investing in fertilizer helps to improve the future crop. Let's take a leaf from their book.
Angelo C. Gilli Sr.
Firings at Shock Trauma
I am writing to express my outrage at the firing of Dr. Ameen Ramzy and two other longtime physicians on the staff of Maryland Shock Trauma Center because of their opposition to ** changes being made by the new director.
I believe strongly that I would be dead today if it had not been for the superb quality of the care I received from Dr. Ramzy and his staff during the three months I spent as a patient there in 1984.
I was taken to the unit on Aug. 20, 1984, after being severely injured in an accident on my family's southern Delaware farm. Dr. Ramzy remained at the hospital to monitor my condition around the clock for three days. During my three months there as a critical care patient, he operated on me 24 times.
The kind of skill, dedication and competence he exhibits is not something you can pay someone for. It is a gift from God. I can only say that the departure of this man and his two colleagues from the staff of the Shock Trauma Center will leave the people of Maryland and the surrounding region with a great void when it comes to emergency medical care.
Brent M. Adams
I am quite distressed about the recent turmoil that hadeveloped at the Shock Trauma unit. The recent firings may threaten the stability of that unit, thereby jeopardizing a valuable asset of the state of Maryland.
According to your reports, these firings were not "anything clinical, moral or ethical, they were just terminated." Dr. Kimball I. Maull was quoted as saying, "I think that there is absolutely no question that since Dr. [R. Adams] Cowley was forced out, the institute has been lagging behind. But that's why I'm here."
I myself was a patient at Shock Trauma in 1990. I have received follow-up treatment at Shock Trauma since Dr. Cowley retired. I found the treatment I received in both instances to be excellent and prompt.
I have spoken with other people, including physicians, who said that I was in the very best place that I could be for the treatment I needed. I have continued to be treated by the physicians in Shock Trauma and have seen absolutely no evidence of deterioration or lagging in the care I received.
Could it be that the present problems are as a result of an ego problem on the part of Dr. Maull? Dr. Maull was described in one article as "a very strong-willed, heavy ego person, who kind of does his own thing and doesn't perhaps listen to his peers' advice."
The article further states that Dr. Maul tried to get his University of Tennessee hospital designated as the single front-line trauma center.
In Maryland, we don't have a single front-line trauma center, but a system of care involving many hospitals and people. This system has been in place for a long time and requires a smooth interaction between each segment of the system.
Could it be that Dr. Maull's attempt to "fix" this system is really an attempt by him to put his hospital completely in charge of what is actually an excellent system as it now exists?
I believe a thorough investigation and review of the present situation is warranted.
Harlan D. Margolis