ROANOKE TIMES
Copyright (c) 1996, Roanoke Times
DATE: Thursday, December 5, 1996 TAG: 9612050065
SECTION: EXTRA PAGE: A-10 EDITION: METRO
TYPE: LETTERS
REGISTERED nurses Lisa Vatreau and Vickie Martin should be commended for their courageous stand to ensure that people receive the highest-quality professional nursing care while hospitalized at Carilion hospitals (Nov. 24 news article, ``Nurses urge employees to speak out''). They put aside fears of retaliation to help educate other nurses and the public regarding the ongoing health-care crisis.
Wanting to be a more informed nurse, I attended a meeting held by the Kentucky Nurses Association recently. What I found were nurses not concerned about what could be done for them (i.e. higher wages and benefits), but focused on the quality of care and patients' safety. These professionals met on their own time to discuss issues that need immediate attention, such as staff shortages, duties delegated to nonlicensed personnel and other matters affecting patient care and also placing a registered nurse's license in jeopardy.
For me, as an RN in home health care, the issue of delegating skilled duties to nonlicensed personnel is taken care of by Medicare/Medicaid rules and regulations. These mandate the use of RNs to perform skilled tasks and to act as a patient's case manager. So while this isn't an issue with home health-care nurses, other issues that Vatreau and Martin addressed are.
It's time for nurses to come together and speak with one voice. We can accomplish many improvements in the way patient care is provided. When people require hospitalization, they don't care about marble floors, glass towers and hospital administration. They want to receive professional care they deserve and pay for - care that RNs are educated and trained to provide. We must protect and safeguard our patients' rights to receive such care, and it's our responsibility to let the powers-that-be know that we will accept nothing less.
LINDA M. McCRAW
ROANOKE
Misreading motives of founding fathers
DALE Arrington (Nov. 19 letter to the editor, ``Problems on river will get worse'') needs to read his history book rather than merely look at the pictures.
The American Revolution did not automatically negate centuries of English law. The founding fathers wanted to protect their rights as Englishmen, rights established over time and reinforced by two English revolutions in the 17th century. They didn't start from scratch in 1776.
They certainly did wish to protect what they had, and didn't entertain any notion of giving up any property rights or land holdings simply because the king had granted them and politics had forced them to take drastic measures.
Further, the Supreme Court ruled in 1819 that New Hampshire had no right to meddle with the king's charter for Dartmouth College just because New Hampshire didn't like it. The present Supreme Court may set a new precedent. But it will not be based on ``we can if we want to'' logic, but rather on complex legal arguments drawn from a long history of law.
Too many people oversimplify the past and misapply the assumed motives of historical figures as they think it applies to current thinking. That often results in only a superficial or confused understanding of many of today's issues.
E. ANNE PAULL
TROUTVILLE
Commercializing our public radio
THE HEADLINE clearly signaled Steve Mills' operational philosophy for public radio in his Nov. 23 letter to the editor, ``WVTF's programs reflect what the market wants to hear.''
His use of the term ``marketplace'' has an unmistakably commercial ring. It's clear his view of the mission of public radio is just a hair's breadth away from that of commercial radio.
In his most shocking statement, he sought to distance public radio from museums, art galleries and schools. The educational thrust that has inspired these other public institutions is the very same motivation that brought public radio into existence. And, in fact, is its primary justification.
Almost as shocking is his apparent acceptance of the idea that public radio can expect less and less public funding. Far from being intimidated by a few culturally deprived Congress members who talk about zero public funds, public radio and all those who want to keep the United States from becoming a cultural wasteland should fight to increase such public funding. It's logical and proper for educational endeavors to be financed by public funds.
MATTHEW W. PAXTON
LEXINGTON
The rule is good sportsmanship
SO MUCH has been written about what is wrong with Virginia Tech football, I thought it was time to comment about what is right. As a member of the Hokie Club and season-ticket holder, I obviously cheer for Tech. However, on Nov. 23, being a native West Virginian, I went to the game in my West Virginia outfit. To most, I appeared to be just another visiting West Virginia fan.
As we walked through the Hokie Club parking lots, I noticed several fans clad in blue and gold tailgating with fans in maroon and orange. Everyone was having a good time. Everyone was polite and smiling.
Of course, the game started with high intensity as the outcome was important to post-season bowl bids. However, even though the game was very physical, one soon noticed that defensive linemen were helping up the running back who had just been tackled, and defensive backs were low-fiving wide receivers in mutual respect for a good play. This sportsmanlike behavior continued the whole game, with very few exceptions.
The halftime show was a tribute to a former U.S. Marine and Tech football player who was killed in Vietnam. To honor this Marine, who received the Navy Cross, the U.S. Marine silent drill team performed. Lane Stadium was totally silent. It was a very emotional time. The halftime events concluded with the playing of the Marine Corps hymn and a standing ovation.
The second half was just as exciting. But after the game, players and coaches met on the field to congratulate each other with handshakes and hugs. As Lane Stadium was clearing, more than 100 players - equally distributed between Tech and West Virginia - knelt in prayer at the 50-yard line. I am sure they were thanking God for a good game, the sportsmanship, and that no one was seriously injured.
Even though my team-for-the-day lost, what a great day it was.
JERRY SCHENKEL
ROANOKE
Hunting for sport is bloody murder
HUNTING SEASON began on Nov. 18, but The Roanoke Times has been busy preparing its readers for this time of guns and the blood of deer for the past month or two, giving space to the pleasures of this good old sport without a word about the less beautiful and noble aspects of hunting. Is there a connection between the monies generated by hunting for the Game and Wildlife Commission, the National Rifle Association, and the many stores and businesses that gain financially and advertise in this newspaper?
Leaving that question aside, you ran a news article on Sept. 30 ("I killed Bambi and I liked it") about the excitement some women feel shooting deer. Then, Bill Cochran's Oct. 6 Outdoors column ("It's time for Va. hunters to go a little squirrely again") was on killing squirrels. I am sure I've missed other articles in your newspaper that extol this wonderful "sport" where hunters gain status, publicity, money or just plain fun by trophy hunting.
It's long past time for The Roanoke Times to give some space in its Virginia section or Outdoors section to one or more of the millions of Virginians who do not hunt. Statistically, there are far more nonhunters. Many are grossed out not only by hunting but by your newspaper's utter lack of sensitivity for those who see hunting for sport as murder. Brutality has many faces, and the violence in our society by people, and increasingly teen-agers and children, speaks loudly of lessons that need not be learned.
It would be decent, just and even better journalism if your publication, excellent in many ways, gave the other side of this controversial issue some real space, not only in letters to the editor but also news articles.
ALWYN MOSS
BLACKSBURG
LENGTH: Long : 142 linesby CNB