Shots aren’t for school – they save lives
To the editor:
It is imperative that we try to dispel a myth, a serious misunderstanding about childhood immunizations perpetuated by the article "No studying required" in the Aug. 6 Health section of the Review-Journal. The myth, the serious error, is stating that children must have their shots in order to go to school.
No. They must have the shots, the immunizations, to protect them from extremely serious, dangerous, debilitating and potentially deadly diseases. Nothing – nothing in the history of medicine – has done more to preserve human life than these immunizations.
The association of "you need the shots to go to school" might lessen the objection of a 5-year-old but, unfortunately, too many parents have the same misconception. I have had parents of young infants wanting to refuse the immunization of their baby, stating "He/she is too young; I’ll have the shots when he/she is older and needs them to go to school." A heck of a lot of good that "go-to-school shot" does the infant who dies of whooping cough at age 6 months.
The child needs a measles shot so he doesn’t suffer a type of brain damage caused by measles (yes, measles is more than a rash); a polio immunization to prevent possible paralysis and even death; Hib to prevent a type of life-threatening meningitis; and on, and on, and on.
To add to this gross misunderstanding, Review-Journal columnist Vin Suprynowicz on Sunday promoted his own consistently erroneous opinion that shots are not needed at all for school attendance and that they cause brain defects in children. This has been soundly disproved by extensive medical research.
The shots are to prevent serious illness and death – not to go to school.
LEE BERNSTEIN, M.D.
LAS VEGAS
Our money
To the editor:
The messages of the presidential candidates are starting to become clear. There seems to be an agreement that the economy has been very sick and needs to be revitalized.
The Republicans are touting the success of their candidate in running businesses, rescuing an Olympics disaster and serving as a governor. Mitt Romney has described our nation’s crises and has dared to disclose a plan to reform our many failing programs, even insolvent, popular programs such as Medicare and Social Security. For this, he is being savaged, of course.
The Democrat message, in a nutshell, asks us to concentrate on Mr. Romney’s past personal financial matters and what he has done with his money, but to ignore what the president’s administration has done with our financial matters and our money. If we’re to look at Mr. Romney’s money matters, however, must we not also scrutinize what President Obama has done with our money?
Personally, I am much more interested in how Mr. Obama spends my money than what Mr. Romney has done with his money.
JOHN TOBIN
LAS VEGAS
Collapse, then crackdown
To the editor:
So the government in Greece has started to round up illegal immigrants and deport them. From this, is it safe to assume that when a government has brought its country to the brink of total collapse, then, and only then, will it start to do its job?
ROB BOWEN
LAS VEGAS
VA hospital care
To the editor:
Richard Rychtarik’s Wednesday letter on veterans’ health needs and the VA health care system are well-intentioned but a bit misguided. He feels that the VA hospitals should be privatized, allowing veterans to "get care anywhere they want." His position misses two very important points.
First, the VA hospital system does not stand alone. Each of those 175 hospitals found throughout the United States is integrated and affiliated with the teaching hospitals within its local community. In those local affiliations, there is a significant sharing of clinical staff (especially physicians), programs, services and research. This sharing supports the needs of the community’s public and private non-veteran hospitals as much as it does the VA hospitals.
Second, Mr. Rychtarik is correct that veteran care has always suffered from a geographical distribution problem, i.e., any state with only one or two VA hospitals requires vets to travel a bit for access. But his privatization solution is only going to exacerbate the problem, not solve it. He notes that his plan would call for 15 or 20 government-run regional specialty centers. Why? Those 175 hospitals provide speciality needs for veterans in psychiatry, medical rehabilitation, prosthetics, long-term care, medication and myriad other areas that the non-veteran hospitals are simply not equipped nor prepared to provide. Centralizing those services to only 15 or 20 centers for the entire country means much longer travel for those in need.
Is the VA medical system perfect? No. But it stands as truly the best response made by any country in the world to meet the needs of its veterans.
RICHARD L. STRICKLAND
NORTH LAS VEGAS
Honors veterans
To the editor:
In response to criticism of Las Vegas casino magnate Sheldon Adelson:
As a veteran, I am most grateful to Dr. Miriam and Sheldon Adelson, who honor our veterans, disabled veterans and their families each year. They open the doors of their beautiful hotels and provide them with all the luxury the hotels have to offer: food, shows, you name it.
If you have ever participated at their arrival, the reception they receive from the hotel staff and us onlookers, it gets most emotional. You know the Adelsons contributed to the USO Lounge at McCarran International Airport.
ANITA LEVY
LAS VEGAS
