Copyright 2000 The Hartford Courant Company
THE
HARTFORD COURANT
December 30, 2000 Saturday, STATEWIDE
SECTION: EDITORIAL; Pg. A12
LENGTH: 2017 words
HEADLINE:
LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
BODY:
Pharmacists' Future
Uncertain
I applaud the fact that in a Nov. 24 editorial, "A
Prescription For Pharmacies," The Courant recognized the serious shortage of
pharmacists in Connecticut.
It's nice to simply assume
that University of Connecticut is the cause of
the problem, with resolution
only a graduating class away. However, there are
more forces at work here,
and this shortage is a nationwide dilemma.
I agree, public
health is threatened when people do not have access to
pharmacy services.
Access, however, does not mean simply making a bag of
medication available
for a clerk to hand to the patient. Access without a
pharmacist's
supervision will seriously threaten public health. If, as the
editorial
suggests, we close dispensing areas and have clerks hand out
medications,
patients with questions or problems will clutter the hospital
emergency
rooms and clinics.
The problem is one of simple economics,
not enough pharmacists and too many
prescriptions. The number of
prescriptions filled in the United States in four
years will double the
number today and will rise further when President-elect
George W. Bush
expands prescription benefits to seniors. However, the number
of pharmacists
will increase only about 6 percent. Six percent more
pharmacists can't
safely fill double, or more, the number of prescriptions.
Why a shortage? The profession, with its long hours and
working conditions,
is not all that glamorous. Working weekends, nights and
holidays is expected
with no breaks of any kind, including lunch or dinner.
Each pharmacist is
filling more prescriptions than ever before for the
lowest third-party
reimbursement in history. Although the required six-year
pharmacy program does
not have students lining up for admission, as the
profession evolves they will
work more closely with individual patients.
This is what will make the
profession appealing to new students.
The solution is not in loosening the law or waiting for
the graduating
classes to catch up, but in redirecting pharmacy practice.
The pharmacist
should no longer be inhibited by a reimbursement structure
that provides for
routine tasks, which can be provided by support personnel
and technology. He
should be acknowledged for providing skilled,
professional and responsible
drug management to the patient.
The solution is new legislation allowing the pharmacist to
work
collaboratively with the prescriber to provide the patient with the
best drug
therapy possible. The pharmacist provides knowledge and experience
to optimize
a patient's therapy, helping that patient avoid health
complications.
Everyone deserves the benefit of that
expertise.
John P. Cannarella
President
Connecticut Pharmacists
Association
Rocky Hill
Too Many
Dinosaurs
The Friends of Dinosaur Park Association Inc.,
an all-volunteer group that
has supported programs and exhibits at Dinosaur
State Park in Rocky Hill for
more than 25 years, is disappointed that
dinosaur exhibits are among the
attractions being considered in the most
recent concept for Adriaen's Landing
[Page 1, Dec. 16, "Anchoring Adriaen's
Landing; Consultants Urge Science
Center-Plus"].
Why
is Connecticut willing to spend money on an attraction that directly
competes with its own unique state park?
In 1976, the
state covered 1,500 tracks, the largest exposure of authentic
dinosaur
tracks in North America, because it was unwilling to pay for a
protective
building to enclose them. Over the years, the development of the
park has
been slowed by the lack of state funding.
If, as it seems
now, the state is willing to spend millions for dinosaur
exhibits, why not
spend that money to showcase the buried treasure of tracks
in Rocky Hill?
Petr Spurney was correct in stating that any major
attraction should be
grounded in the region and not be a mishmash that
defies description. Dinosaur
State Park is popular with Connecticut
residents and tourists alike because it
focuses on the local geology and
paleontology.
The proposed animatronic dinosaurs,
helicopter, and Rivers of the World
will not only fail to draw visitors from
out of state but will certainly draw
children away from the real dinosaur
skeletons at the Peabody Museum and the
real dinosaur tracks at Dinosaur
State Park.
Robert A. Backus
President
Friends of Dinosaur Park
Association Inc.
Rocky Hill
High
Court Broke Rules
E.J. Dionne's Other Opinion column in
the Dec. 15 Courant ["Patriotism
Demands We Remember How Bush Won"] did an
admirable job of dissecting aspects
of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision
that handed Gov. George W. Bush the
presidency. But he and the four
dissenters on the court missed a crucial
point.
Mr.
Bush's petition to stop the vote count claimed two violations of
federal
law: that the count mandated by Florida's Supreme Court violated
Florida
voters' constitutional right to equal protection under the laws and
that the
count violated Florida voters' right not to have the manner of
elector
selection changed after the election.
Many commentators
have pointed to the hypocrisy of the majority accepting
Mr. Bush's proposed
remedy. But they have not noticed a more basic flaw. Mr.
Bush had no legal
standing and did not state a genuine controversy under
Article III of the
Constitution.
Mr. Bush was not a Florida voter; no legal
interest of his was harmed by
counting votes. The real parties in interest
were Florida voters whose ballots
were not counted, and they weren't present
in court or given any opportunity
to be heard. It is inconceivable that they
wanted their votes to remain
uncounted.
And as a
simple matter of what lawyers call "justiciability," the only
remedy Mr.
Bush proposed to the Supreme Court -- ending the count -- was one
that could
not fix the violations alleged.
The court used to have a
policy of refusing to hear political questions.
The reasons for that
doctrine and for requiring standing were that courts did
not want to decide
questions that should be decided by other branches of
government. The courts
also did not want to hear cases in which the plaintiff
had no legal standing
or where no relief could be fashioned that fit the
violation claimed.
The U.S. Supreme Court's majority violated its own
cardinal rules in even
entertaining Mr. Bush's petition.
Frank B. Cochran
New Haven
The writer is an attorney.
Radio
Bill Betrays Communities
On Dec. 19, it was reported that
the so-called Radio Broadcasting
Preservation Act had been included by
Congress in an essential spending bill
[news story, "Bill Curbs
Low-Power FM Service; Areas For Low-Power Stations
Limited"].
If the bill is signed into law by President
Clinton, low-power FM community
radio (LPFM) is, for all
intents and purposes, dead.
Earlier this year, The Courant
published an article concerning a local
effort to gain a license for an LPFM
station in Willimantic [Life, June 14,
"(Low) Power To The People"]. That
effort has now come to naught.
Congress has taken for
itself the power of the Federal Communications
Commission to regulate the
airwaves. That is outrageous. Congress' readiness
to shut down community
efforts to diversify choice on the public airwaves
speaks to its willingness
to do the bidding of the entrenched licensees of
those airwaves. The
villains are the National Association of Broadcasters and
National Public
Radio.
The successful attacks on LPFM by the NAB and NPR
stem solely from fear of
losing listeners, advertising revenues and pledge
support. The technical
arguments against LPFM were rebutted by the FCC. In
fact, due to concessions
made early on, very few LPFM stations would have
been licensed by the FCC.
The commercial radio industry
and the not-for-profit NPR have lost sight of
their roots. In its earliest
days, commercial radio existed only in individual
communities. Over time,
multiple stations were networked to provide broader
coverage and some
economies of scale. The owners wanted greater reach.
In
recent years, legislation has placed concentrations of radio and TV
stations
in the hands of a few giant corporations. Now the entire country is
blanketed by generic, lowest-common-denominator programming.
NPR is not noticeably different except in the higher
quality and interest
of its nationally networked programming content. NPR
can now be heard in 94
percent of the nation's homes for a good part of the
day. That is a long way
from the innovative, lively and talented community
radio stations of the '70s
from which NPR sprang.
Attaching the Radio Broadcasting Preservation Act to a
spending bill was a
cowardly action. Congress should have had the guts to
debate the act on its
merits.
LPFM is beyond
resurrection. I am dismayed but not despondent. I am hopeful
that
alternative technologies will enable the use of the Internet for
community
broadcasting. Tuners could take output from a PC or Web-enabled cell
phone
and beam it to their entertainment center or radio.
A Web
approach should be adequate for most community needs, I believe.
Hopefully,
the result will be the same as if LPFM had not been derailed.
Joseph M. A. Cavanagh
Stafford
Headlines Reveal Political Slant
The Courant does not need an editorial page to show its
political stripes.
Just look at the subtlety of two typical front-page
headlines on Dec. 23.
The headline on the story about Gov.
George W. Bush said, "Ashcroft
Satisfies GOP Right; Attorney General Choice
Known For Conservatism." The
story on President Clinton is headlined,
"Clinton Pardons Former House
Ally."
I propose
alternative headlines from the political right: "Bush Nominates
Highly
Competent Sen. Ashcroft For Attorney General" and "Clinton Pardons 62
Convicted Lawbreakers To Satisfy Liberal Left." A no-spin approach might
sound like this: "Bush Nominates Sen. Ashcroft For Attorney General," and
"Clinton Pardons 62; More Expected."
The Courant's
headlines and stories consistently project its liberal
convictions. When one
looks further at these two stories, the bias becomes
more alarming. The
subhead of the Bush story includes the word
"conservatism," but the Clinton
story finds reason to refer to liberalism.
The Bush story
uses such phrases as "in lock step with the GOP's
conservative wing" and
"die-hard conservatives," whereas the Clinton story
does not use derogatory
terms to characterize his actions. Where are the
die-hard liberals who walk
in lockstep with liberal causes?
Naively, I always assume
that news reporting is intended to inform the
reader of the facts. Points of
view should be limited to editorials and
opinion pieces, where the reader
understands that there may be a bias.
However, written and spoken news is
generally full of bias where the reporter,
although insisting that he is a
fact-finding professional, entwines a slant
into the story.
It seems to me that The Courant could do much better.
Adolph R. Fusco
Simsbury
Limbaugh Speaks Truth
I listen
to Rush Limbaugh faithfully every day for three hours, and I
believe it is
not hate that the man is spewing [letter, Dec. 24, "Bush Should
Disavow
Venomous Rush"].
Whatever happened to being allowed to put
across your opinions, especially
when you believe your convictions are true
as Mr. Limbaugh believes? I happen
to agree with 90 percent of what Mr.
Limbaugh says. If what he says is hate,
then Larry King's comments about
Republicans on his show are definitely hate.
What it comes
down to is a blatant double standard that liberals use in
which Republican
talk show hosts like Rush Limbaugh are hateful and Democrats
are politically
correct.
Mark E. Rozela
West
Hartford
LOAD-DATE: January 2, 2001
