 |
||||||||
 |
||||||||
|
||||||||
 |
FEATURE ARTICLES | |
Memo Calendar | Memo Pad | Business Memos | Loaves & Fishes | Letters | Home |
The Mid-county MEMO is your newspaper. We want to hear from you. Discuss an important issue or address a concern you want to call to the community's attention. We prefer e-mailed letters to the editor sent to Darlene Vinson, at editor@midcountymemo.com. Please put 'letter to the editor' in the subject line. You may also mail your letter to 3510 N.E. 134th Ave., Portland, OR 97230 or fax it to 503-249-7672.
To the Editor:
Thank you for the informative review of plans to change ownership and usage of a large part of the Gateway Transit Center Parking Lot. All spaces are so fully used, I wanted to believe plans and commitments were not real. I have three concerns that I do not find addressed.
1. Was there public discussion that accepted this plan? I don't think this was ever in Hazelwood Neighborhood Association news. I would not have willingly missed a meeting on that topic.
2. Why is nearly vacant land, of equal size, just south of this lot, not part of the discussion? I think that is where a new commercial facility should be located, and employing some of the dog-leg parking.
3. How does new demand for the proposed new Portland Clinic relate to that of the Oregon Clinic's two eastside locations? Is there a real need for brand-new services?
I feel cheated to be denied full information and a vote on destruction of important commuter parking.
Phil Norman
Hazelwood neighborhood
To the Editor:
I am writing because I am beginning to feel as though we have truly entered the "newspeak" world of writer George Orwell as we deal with Portland International Airport on its current noise study. I reference comments from PDX noise office head Peggy McNees in your September 2004 issue, "Some fear airport plan may increase noise."
I live in Vancouver but read the article at my mother's home in Northeast Portland. I know from personal experience that both areas are extremely impacted by PDX noise and pollution.
Ms. McNees is cited as saying there will be no increase in noise for Parkrose as a result of the current study. She holds out the promise of perhaps even some decrease, according to the article.
However, PDX has publicly been quoted as saying it can get 18 percent noise relief by "concentrating" smaller aircraft over Parkrose and as I understand it over some parts of Vancouver.
It is my understanding that the relief from the so-called "box haulers" would come to closer-in Portland areas such as Beaumont and Laurelhurst.
How is this not moving noise?
PDX says it doesn't move its onerous air traffic over areas that will then be newly impacted.
That was the rationale it used in dumping option 9a, which moves jets south on west departure, and would have given the most relief to those of us in West Vancouver. PDX says it must spare new pricey condos south of the Columbia River. Vancouver has said loudly and clearly that it has been there since the 1820s and never agreed to be the PDX dumping ground.
Is PDX using some kind of double standard in how it decides on one hand to move noise and on the other not to move noise?
Next, they at PDX will look at our zoning, having earlier suggested other areas make homeowners label their properties as "noise impacted." What will they call that? We call it usurping our rights,
Sonya Zalubowski
Vancouver, Wash.
To the Editor:
On Aug. 18, the state of Oregon lost one of its finest citizens. Frank Hise was proud of his 95 years and seven months. He was born in Gentry County in Albany, Mo. but called Oregon his home. He was a valued counselor and trusted friend to many.
For some, the memory of Frank Hise will be as the 1969 National President of the Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks, a charitable organization. But Frank Hise was also a friend and mentor to thousands of Elk members and non-Elks alike.
Frank was a charitable man particularly when children were involved. For example, while waiting for his daughter in a Corvallis grade school gym, he watched a group of boys playing basketball with a rolled up sock. Frank immediately purchased a couple of basketballs and was soon teaching these young boys and girls the value of making their free throws. Today, that simple act of charity has grown into the "Elks National Hoop Shoot" that attracts over three million participants each year. The winners in the boys and girls divisions are invited to the Naismith Basketball Hall of Fame in Springfield, Mass. where the winner's names are immortalized on the Champions Plaque.
Frank did not rest on his Hoop Shoot laurels. In January 1949, he proposed funding and building the Elks Children's Eye Clinic located in the Casey Eye Institute at Oregon Health Sciences University. Today, the Elk's Children's Eye Clinic is a multi-million dollar state of the art facility supported by Oregon Elks. No child is ever turned away from the Elks Children's Eye Clinic, which has improved or restored the eyesight of thousands of young people.
Frank's devotion to our nation's veterans was instrumental in establishing the Oregon State Elks "Hides" Program. The entire proceeds from this program are donated to benefit our nation's hospitalized veterans. The proceeds are used to purchase essential personal care products, magazines, clothing, arts and crafts materials and for the purchase of wheelchair lift equipped transport vans.
I knew better than to ever engage him in his favorite game of gin or to swap stories with him. Frank was a gifted speaker and an avid outdoorsman. My favorite story was when he was in a hotel elevator with an eight-year-old Hoop Shoot contestant. She asked how old he was and Frank said, "Well I'm pretty old." She again asked his age and he replied 93. She whispered in his ear that if he dyed his hair he wouldn't look so old!
Oregon has lost an outstanding and hard working citizen. There will be a celebration of life service for him at 1:30 p.m. on Saturday, Oct. 23, at the Gateway Elks Lodge, 711 N.E. 100th Ave.
All who care to join in honoring the life and contributions of George Franklin Hise are welcome.
Respectfully,
Gene Spina
Gateway Elks Lodge No. 2411
To the Editor:
I nearly had a heart attack when I read the actual language of the Oregon constitutional amendment Measure 35. As a physician, I've been following the medical malpractice issue closely. But I couldn't believe the words "negligence" and "recklessness" are in the measure Oregonians will decide on Nov. 2.
I've examined the campaign material and I notice the sponsors of Measure 35 carefully avoid those two words.
Unfortunately, there's no language that says insurance rates will go down. No language that says health care will become less expensive.
It's clear why the insurance companies support this idea; it limits their expenses when one of their providers does something negligent or reckless. I just can't believe they would ask Oregonians to change their constitution to help generate profits for insurers.
The amendment proposes a constitutional limit of $500,000 in non-economic damages. Cases that get to this level are extremely rare. But they happen. And when you're talking about brain damage, birth defects, or loss of sexual function, sometimes $500,000 is not enough. Theses are quality of life issues.
Juries should make those decisions on a case-by-case basis, not insurance executives using a one-size-fits-all approach.
Let me tell you about Theresa Booth of Pendleton. A few years ago, when she had her second son, the doctor delivered the baby two months early. But the physician later admitted, under oath, he forgot to check the ultrasound tests, which showed the baby was not full term. As a result, her son was born premature with horrible birth defects. The family now faces a lifetime of challenges, heartache and staggering expenses. Who's accountable?
Theresa wanted that question decided by a jury. She trusted juries and believed she'd get a fair shake. At least she'd get her day in court.
Just before trial, the insurance company agreed to set up a trust to take care of expenses during the life of Theresa's son. Without the hammer of a pending jury trial, it's unlikely the insurance company would have accepted its responsibility.
Sponsors of this constitutional amendment claim rural doctors are leaving because of high malpractice premiums. That just isn't true. Last year, the Legislature created a new four-year fund to help rural doctors pay their malpractice premiums. The fund was set up in January and some two-thirds of rural doctors are now receiving help. This is an Oregon solution put in place by a Republican Legislature and signed by a Democrat governor. Let's give this unique solution a chance to work before we limit people's rights with a change to the constitution.
I have physician friends in states where limits have passed. And guess what? They don't work. From 1991 to 2002, rates went up 48 percent in states with caps. Rates also went up in states without caps, but not as much.
We're lucky in Oregon to have so many excellent doctors. But we also have a few bad ones. I know some of them and, frankly, I 'm astounded they're still allowed to practice. The National Practitioner Data Bank reports that only five percent of physicians are responsible for a majority of medical malpractice cases.
Measure 35 wants Oregonians to limit their rights just to deal with these few doctors. A better way is shining a light into doctors' secretive backgrounds. It amazes me that you can check the background of carpenter who's removing dry rot from your bathroom, but you can't review the background of a doctor who's removing your gall bladder.
Health care in Oregon has many problems, but a patient having too many rights is just not one of them. On behalf of my patients, I'm voting "No" on Measure 35.
Thomas J. Saddoris II, M.D.
Gateway businessman
sadd@teleport.com
Editor's note: The following quoted material is the wording of Measure 35 according to the Oregon Secretary of State's link from the Multnomah County Elections Division.
"Proposed by Initiative Petition. Measure 35. Amends constitution: Limits noneconomic damages (defined) recoverable for patient injuries caused by healthcare provider's negligence or recklessness.
"Result of 'Yes' vote: 'Yes' vote limits recovery of noneconomic damages (defined) for negligent or reckless injury to patient by healthcare provider to $500,000 (adjusted annually for inflation).
"Result of 'No' vote: 'No' vote retains current law, which places no limit on jury award of noneconomic damages (defined) for injury caused by negligence, recklessness of healthcare provider.
"Summary: Amends constitution. Under current law, there is generally no limit on jury's award of noneconomic damages to patient, patient's legal representative, or patient's spouse for injury caused by healthcare provider. Measure limits recovery of noneconomic damages for negligent or reckless injury caused by an Oregon licensed healthcare provider or healthcare entity to $500,000. Defines noneconomic damages to includes pain; mental suffering; emotional distress; loss of society, companionship, services; loss of sexual relations; inconvenience; interference with normal and usual activities apart from employment. Specifies formula to adjust for inflation annually. Limitation applies regardless of extent of injuries, number of people entitled to damages, or number of defendants sued. Does not apply to wrongful death claims. Applies to suits filed after January 1, 2005. Other provisions.
"Estimate of financial impact: There is no financial effect on state or local government expenditures or revenues."
MEMO Advertising | MEMO Archives | MEMO Web Neighbors | MEMO Staff | Home