Dear Editor;
I recently spent a few days in Pocahontas Memorial Hospital. The care and attention I received was superb – from the emergency room, throughout my stay, to my discharge.
The hospital staff was very professional and caring.
After my discharge, my follow-up appointments for the next two weeks at the Rural Health Clinic were equally superb.
It is very comforting and rewarding to have facilities such as PMH and the Rural Health Clinic in our community.
Everyone should be proud that we have these excellent facilities and capable healthcare workers available when a need for medical care arises.
I would like to thank my family and friends for the many visits, cards and well wishes I received during my illness. Your concern will never be forgotten.
I especially want to thank the staff of PMH and the Rural Health Clinic – you should be very proud of your work in your profession.
You provide great care to those in need.
Joseph W. “Joe” Smith
Marlinton
Editor:
I’m glad Joe Miller (no relation) wrote a commentary in last week’s edition of The Pocahontas Times on the ethical issues related to death and dying – specifically, whether it is ethical to help a dying person to hasten their death if that is the dying person’s true desire, or, in other circumstances, to allow someone to die without intervention, knowing that such actions, if taken, would prolong the patient’s life – even if that goes against the wishes of the person who will soon die, regardless. Whose choice should it be? The patient, the caregiver, other family members, hospital lawyers and ethicists – or politicians in Charleston?
Voters will be asked to weigh in on this matter in November when considering whether or not to approve Amendment 1 to the Weset Virginia Constitution that would, in essence, criminalize the hastening of (by “forcing”) someone’s death against their wishes. Joe Miller did not say whether he supports the amendment – leaving it to readers to decide.
For me, this is not a complicated issue, not because the issues are uncomplicated, but because the proposed amendment seems to be some politicians’ solution to a problem that does not really exist. It is already a crime to cause someone’s premature death against their wishes even if they are suffering under an incurable disease or medical condition. It’s called voluntary man-slaughter; some would say homicide.
To prohibit “forced” assisted suicide or mercy killing by medical practitioners would be to create doubtful and strained interpretations of the intentions of those involved – in a manner similar to the confusion caused by the Dobbs decision two years ago regard- ing when doctors can intervene to terminate a pregnancy when non-viable conditions threaten the life of the mother.
I consider myself fortunate in that each of my parents died suddenly one day. They were up to greet the morning sun one day and were dead before the sun rose again. The death of my mother-in-law last summer was another matter. My wife and I were visiting, playing cards at the kitchen table, when we heard her fall. She hit her head on the floor causing a massive brain bleed. She was taken to a renowned medical center in the Baltimore area where she was stabilized by a team of trauma specialists. We were shown images of the bleed and were told she probably would not survive the night.
After a couple of days, she regained consciousness and was able to engage with a startled team of specialists who saw her during morning rounds. She had lost the ability to swallow but was able to communicate with her family and hospital staff about her wishes regarding pain management and her opposition to a feeding tube or resuscitation, should they be indicated. She wanted to die on her own terms. After five days, she slipped into unconsciousness and died four days later.
She died in a hospital in what amounted to a medically unassisted suicide. The hospital’s ethical rules for end of life treatment meant she would be allowed to die. What we don’t need is a gaggle of politicians gathered around a death bed conjecturing about whether the family and medical staff are making the correct legal decision.
For me, the choice is simple: If know-it-all politicians are in favor of this constitutional amendment, I’m against it. Vote NO.
Jay Miller
Hillsboro
Dear Editor;
The cult of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, DEI, the progeny of Affirmative Action, needs to be consigned to the dustbin of history. The only beneficiary of this insane policy is to those that peddle it for financial benefit or for self-promoting political reasons. The policy by its very nature it the epitome of racism since it uses race, sexual orientation and other non-relevant characteristics in hiring and other actions. Fixing past cases of ra- cism with racism against individuals who have no guilt in this mater unifies and benefits no one to include those it claims to help.
Let’s look at college admissions to Ivy League schools, admitting individuals based on race who lack the academic ability to succeed at these institutions is a lose lose for everyone. Many DEI admissions who might have done well at less rigorous colleges fail, and academically qualified indivi- duals are denied admittance. No one wins.
Let’s look at some jobs that have been open to women that have realistic strength and height requirements that are ignored. The standards for female firefighters in many cases have been lowered to account for their lower strength as a group. One part of most tests to become a firefighter is to drag a dummy simulating a victim a certain distance. The requirement for one department I know of is 220 pounds for male applicants and 90 pounds for females. So, if you are a large person and the female fire person is your only hope – good luck.
Another example can be seen in the assassination attempt against former President Trump. At one point the agents surrounded him to protect him with their own bodies, as he stood up. The problem was that to his front the agent protecting him was a short woman exposing much of his upper body to potential fire. It’s time that standards and requirements reflect real world needs. Any woman who can meet these standards should be eligible, but the standards should not be lowered in the interest of DEI.
The impact that DEI is having on the military is also significant. I served as an Army NCO, Commissioned Officer and then as a Senior Civilian and saw the negative impact of Affirmative Action and the beginnings of DEI. Seeing poorly qualified individuals promoted or their criminal conduct ignored based on race or sex is a corrosive act to morale and retention and needs to be stopped. It makes the military less capable in a dangerous world. I believe DEI is also a major cause of significant shortfalls in recruiting that has exceeded over 41,000 recruits last year. This number should terrify you in this current world.
In all matters, we need to get back to selecting individuals on their abilities and character based on real world requirements and not this cult of unfair wishful thinking.
So how do we address the problems of many inner cities with populations of color that face poverty? Let’s fix the crime problem in these communities by removing the bad actors, local residents and the police know who they are. Let’s also address the terrible school systems serving these communities by encouraging competition from Charter Schools as well as intact family units with fathers in the home.
This country is very divided, and DEI just makes it worse, it is time for all our citizens to be treated fairly and the same standards need to apply to all with ability and competence being the only factors in selection, hiring and promotion actions.
The education system needs to achieve excellence in all communities.
It is not too late to fix this mess, but it needs to be fixed.
Joe Kaffl
Hillsboro