Don't make parents choose care or custody

The Sun's editorial "'An act of desperation'" (Nov. 19) shed light on an issue that has plagued Maryland for years: families who must relinquish or lose custody of their children to gain access to intensive and costly mental health services. In the past 10 years, close to 2,000 Maryland families have given up custody of their children to get such services.

Solutions to the problem are complex and require systemic changes, such as expanding community-based services and mandating that insurance cover critical mental health services for children.

Most important, solving the problem requires legislation that enables families to get intensive mental health care for children without relinquishing custody. Other states have passed such legislation, and Maryland needs to do the same thing.

During his campaign, Gov.-elect Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. said he would sign an executive order that would prohibit the use of custody relinquishment to gain access to intensive mental health care in Maryland. Such an order wouldn't solve the problem but it would represent a public commitment to ending this practice.

We look forward to Mr. Ehrlich fulfilling his promise.

Randi Jenkins

Jane Walker Columbia

The writers are, respectively, the president and executive director of the Maryland Coalition of Families for Children's Mental Health.

Favoring drug firms, hurting our children

As a parent of a 6-year-old son who has autism, I was astonished and infuriated to find in the homeland security bill a provision that protects large pharmaceutical companies from lawsuits by families who believe their children were harmed by an additive used in children's vaccines ("Senate bill provisions criticized," Nov. 19).

The additive, thimerosal, has been linked by some people to rising levels of mercury in infants and, subsequently, to neurological impairments such as autism. I am not at all certain of the link, but many families across the United States felt strongly enough to pursue class action lawsuits on the matter - and those suits will now not be possible under the homeland security law.

So who is being protected here?

Pharmaceutical companies inject vast doses of cash into the coffers of our local and national politicians. I suppose it is paying off. But under the guise of security, too many people have their hands out.

I am very proud to be an American but I feel this provision is a vulgar example of politics as usual. Our nation's security and the needs of many families suffering from autism have been compromised.

Jeff Richardson

Reisterstown

City must do more to control AIDS

The Sun's article about AIDS in China was worthwhile ("In China, attitudes change about AIDS, albeit slowly," Dec. 1), but what about AIDS in Baltimore?

With the second-highest rate of infection in the nation, Baltimore sorely needs to make AIDS education, prevention and treatment a priority. Yet while AIDS ravages our African-American community, where is the public outcry?

Baltimore is guilty of the three S's of AIDS: silence, stigma and shame.

But we cannot allow this disease to go unchecked; we cannot be complacent. It's taking a toll on our city, financially and spiritually, and we should be doing a lot more.

Tim Lonergan

Baltimore

Lawsuits don't show culture is gluttonous

I am outraged by the well-publicized lawsuits against McDonald's filed by eight teen-agers, but I also wish we had a more capable spokesperson for that outrage than Mona Charen ("Gluttonous greed deserves no reward," Opinion-Commentary, Dec. 2).

While I agree our culture has issues with excess and gluttony, I do not think these suits are emblematic of anything but the fact that any radical can file suit about anything in America and make news.

And Ms. Charen's column does more to parade her neuroses about food than to offer an argument. I suggest she come to terms with these issues, and not implicate those of us who like to eat heartily, yet lead non-obese, even fit, lifestyles.

Mathew Lane

Baltimore

Clinton-basher misses the mark

Just when I thought the Clinton-bashing was over, I saw the letter "A public repudiation of the Clinton era" (Nov. 27), which called the recent election results "a final repudiation" of former President Bill Clinton.

The writer goes on to cite the usual goblins, "welfare, handouts and entitlements." But wasn't it Mr. Clinton who initiated welfare reform?

Charles Rammelkamp

Baltimore

Understanding anger can stop the attacks

I'm very tired of hearing our president and others proclaim that Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein and Muslim fundamentalists hate us and hate democracy and our way of life.

What Mr. bin Laden and others are killing us for is in retaliation for our placement of military assets in Muslim countries, the endless embargo on Iraq and our unqualified support for Israel.

Sure, they're also leery of American culture tainting their societies, but I doubt that this causes the rage that the continuing persecution of the Palestinian people does.

Until we see the true cause of the attacks on our society, we may stop an attack here and there, but we will never suppress their source.

Ralph Slesinski

Baltimore

And what's in Japan?

The only question I have about world affairs is: Hu's running China?

Walter Shook

Baltimore

Forcing sex trade into the streets

I believe Gregory Kane misses the point: The victims of criminalized prostitution are everyone involved - the prostitute, the "john," the neighborhood and the rest of us who must pay taxes to prosecute this "crime" instead of getting fees and taxes from a regulated profession ("'Victimless' criminal case ends with a slap on wrist," Nov. 23).

If we were concerned about the welfare of those involved in prostitution, we would regulate, license and control the practice to ensure their safety. Instead, we try to impose our moral rightness.

We thus force into the street those whose only opportunity for sex may be by paying for it. We force the women into the street where they are more likely to use drugs and be victimized in other ways.

Sex is natural and, as with many other things in life, if there is a demand there will be a supply - regardless of the law. We as a society should recognize this and mitigate the harm it does to society at large, instead of enforcing a view of what constitutes right behavior on everyone.

Bob Sartwell

Pasadena