Harford County Hospitals
We usually read Peter Jay's column with pleasure, but were thoroughly disappointed by his Sept. 15 column, "An Elegant Form of Red-Lining," on the plans of the Upper Chesapeake Health System, Inc., to build a new hospital in Harford County in lieu of Fallston General Hospital, and to downsize Harford Memorial Hospital.
Clearly, Mr. Jay is not an expert on the issue, but since his commentary addresses such a wide readership on such a sensitive subject, he would have done well to write about substantive facts, not just his opinions and hearsay from business people from Havre de Grace.
A more balanced and fair essay would have addressed a few of the following facts:
We'd like to make it clear that we are not apologists for the Upper Chesapeake Health System (UCHS). The proposed changes are being instituted by UCHS with the stated goal of improvement in thequality of care to the people of Harford County. Mr. Jay did not address this issue.
The current Fallston facility is 20 years old and is not well-suited to offer the state-of-the-art medical environment that would enable its well-trained staff and expert physician panel to deliver excellent care.
In addition, Fallston General Hospital does not currently offer pediatric and obstetric services because of state regulations. Furthermore, the current terms of the lease forbid Fallston General from making any substantial changes to the building.
Thus, the construction of a new hospital will enable UCHS and the physician community of Harford County to offer better care in a properly designed modern facility that will incorporate current technology, as well as allow pediatric and obstetric services to be offered at a more convenient location.
Although the reduction of beds at Harford Memorial Hospital is a point of contention for residents of Havre de Grace, the reality of regulatory agency oversight has already determined that there are far too many hospital beds in Maryland. Thus, a reduction on un-utilized beds is mandated by regulatory agencies.
It is far better to reduce empty beds in a planned fashion than to be forced willy-nilly to do it by compulsion. The reduction in beds is "right-sizing," as is happening in a lot of workplaces nationwide to address changes in traditional operating circumstances.
Our regret is that instead of addressing these (admittedly complex) issues, Mr. Jay chose to present a simplistic and one-sided argument.
Surely it is not too much to expect a writer of his caliber to be fair and balanced on such an important subject.
David Brick, M.D.
Vijay Abhyankar, M.D.
Fallston
Teaching Each
I read with interest the article, "Mania for magnet schools raises questions," on Sept. 18.
The phrase "teaching to enable each student to achieve his full potential" is often heard.
If we are referring to a special education class, this phrase represents a goal. When it is achieved, it is called "individualized instruction." We are happy.
If we are referring to a gifted and talented class or a magnet program, this phrase is called "elitism." We are supposed to feel guilty.
Is this fair?
Linda Pearl
Reisterstown
Being Poor
Franks A. Sumes (letter, Sept. 22) offers a number of reasons why he feels county residents are up in arms about poor people being moved to the county. He attributes the plight of the poor in Baltimore City directly to the poor.
This simplistic line of reasoning, if one uses his analogy of the characteristics of the poor, must lead to the conclusion that if you are poor you are a dirty ignorant drug user.
Surely, some of the residents currently living in Essex are poor. Do they fit the profile Mr. Sumes so viciously draws of the city's poor?
Or is there some other variable to this equation that explains why so many county folk oppose the MTO Program -- a reason many county residents surreptitiously harbor -- a reason Mr. Sume avoids but one more filthy than the garbage he says the city's poor put out after the truck has passed?
No, the poor are not disadvantaged because they live in slums and ghettos and drug-infested neighborhoods.
Rather, because they are disadvantaged, they live in slums and ghettos and drug-infested neighborhoods. I'll bet some don't even see the difference.
Raymond M. Mays
Baltimore
Why Sauerbrey
Regarding the column, "For Sauerbrey, Now Comes the Hard Part," writer Barry Rascovar may be right about Republican chances in the November election.
However, those of us who support Ellen Sauerbrey are hopeful that enough registered Democrats have by now had quite enough of their party's egregious and profligate tax-and-spend policy.
After about 25 years of having their pockets picked clean, enough Marylanders, regardless of party affiliation, may be willing to give a fiscal conservative an opportunity to eliminate at least some of the shameful waste in Annapolis.
Should Ms. Sauerbrey overcome the odds suggested by party registration figures, she could immediately begin to save tax money by reducing the governor's bloated staff. It has grown so enormously that there is not sufficient office space in the
State House to accommodate it.
Next she would have the opportunity to clean house by getting rid of much of the politically appointed staffs dominating the various departments and agencies.
These supernumeraries have high-sounding titles, receive plush salaries, qualify for costly pensions and enjoy an array of perks. They represent an unnecessary layer of bureaucratic fat that has expanded over the past three Democratic administrations.
In the early 1970s, state government underwent a reorganization to establish a cabinet form of government and to consolidate a multiplicity of state agencies into manageable departments. The promised objectives were efficiency, effectiveness and economy.
Although reorganization was accomplished, the objectives were not. Instead, government operating expenses increased as the long-discredited spoils system was reintroduced, at the expense of the career, merit system, civil service.
Today, state agencies, once managed by qualified professionals, are largely in the hands of the politically influential and their cohorts. Cutting most of this superfluous fat would result in significant savings.
Gil Crandall
Baltimore
Heat of Passion
Margaret Kim's attempt to pick apart the theology underlying our Sept. 6 abstinence ad was remarkable, considering the fact that the ad wasn't based on theology.
"In Defense of a Little Virginity" documents the case that after 20 years of government-funded "safe sex" mythology, sexually transmitted diseases are spreading at a remarkable pace. Without a change, more young people will be harmed.
Adults, like Ms. Kim, may decide that sex with infected partners is worth the risk. But should the federal government make that decision for our young people? Condoms are a risk.
Ms. Kim's argument that condoms are the miracle answer to sexually transmitted diseases is based on a faulty interpretation of a newly published study. She failed to point out that all of the study's 256 participants were supposed to use condoms each time they had sex.
Researchers didn't tell participants to use condoms only when they felt like it or when it was convenient. Volunteers were adults in monogamous relationships and got regular safe-sex counseling. Even with all of those elements in the mix, half of the participants could not consistently use condoms. How can we expect teen-agers in the heat of passion to use condoms if these adults couldn't do it?
Far from making a case for condom education, the study Ms. Kim cites suggests that we should encourage teens to remain abstinent. Adults successfully teach teens to avoid tobacco, alcohol and drugs. Teaching them to reject sexual activity is possible.
Tom Minnery
Colorado Springs, Colo.
The writer represents Focus on the Family.