St. Elizabeth's must find way to keep transplant service

St. Elizabeth's must find way to keep transplant service
EDITOR:
Three years ago, after a year on dialysis, my sister Jean donated a kidney to me allowing me to have a kidney transplant. This was done at St. Elizabeth Health Center by Dr. Modlin who is on the Cleveland Clinic staff as part of a program where Cleveland Clinic doctors and staff came to St. Elizabeth Health Center to perform transplants.
Recently, I received a letter from St. Elizabeth Health Center that announced "that due to the consistently low number of kidney transplants performed at St. Elizabeth Health Center, Cleveland Clinic will no longer provide the transplant surgeon for the program." Perhaps it is not profitable for the Cleveland Clinic to send staff to St. Elizabeth's for transplants, but did St. Elizabeth's explore other avenues to provide the same services? Perhaps reductions were needed in local staffing to offset the "low numbers." No such efforts were cited in the letter I received.
I am currently the luckier one since I have had my transplant and have a nephrologist to provide follow-up clinical care. The unlucky ones are those who are waiting for a transplant or those who will reject their transplanted kidney and who will have to travel to Cleveland or Pittsburgh to have a kidney transplant. That is not such a long trip if you are going to a ball game. But if you are going to be in the hospital for a week or more after a transplant, it is much more of a problem for the spouse and the family to travel to Cleveland or Pittsburgh than to St. Elizabeth's. The patient will notice little difference; the family will be much more inconvenienced.
We who have lived through the closing of the steel mills in the Mahoning Valley know that business must be profitable to continue to operate. We would like to think, however, that health care facilities, especially those founded by an order of Catholic nuns, would have nobler aspirations than being profitable. St. Elizabeth's mission statement says its "core values are compassion, trust, human dignity, justice and sacredness of life."
But is profitability the real problem? Not according to the article in The Vindicator on Oct. 16, which reported MVEDC honoring Forum and Humility of Mary (St. Elizabeth's) for being "big spenders." In the article, Bob Shroder, CEO of Humility of Mary, was quoted as saying "There is no reason to leave the Mahoning Valley for your health care." He also stated that his hospital expects to provide $36 million in charity care this year and that St. Elizabeth's has $60 million worth of construction work completed or planned, such as the emergency and diagnostic center in Boardman and for renovations to St. Joseph Health Center in Warren.
All of this is admirable and welcome to the citizens of the Valley. But you would think that a business that has the ability to fund these worthwhile projects, and whose mission is to be compassionate, etc., could find a way to help a few hundred severely ill patients who will have to leave the Valley for their health care.
ANTHONY N. MEDIATE
Lowellville
Help us to reach excellence!
EDITOR:
I am suggesting that teachers from Canfield, Howland, Poland, South Range and other school districts touted for academic excellence exchange places with teachers from the urban districts to help raise our students' proficiency scores. This would be a pilot program that would require at least a three-year commitment. Please apply quickly so we can begin the transition.
MAGGIE HAGAN
Youngstown
X The writer is a teacher in Warren City Schools.
FirstEnergy's practices havebeen questioned for years
EDITOR:
Recently, a U.S.-Canadian investigation announced that FirstEnergy of Ohio was the company at fault for the Aug. 14 blackout. FirstEnergy -- to cut corners to save money and increase profits -- hurt businesses across the eastern portion of the United States and Canada and disrupted people's daily lives. However, this scheme isn't new to FirstEnergy; it has engaged in this practice for years, even when it was known as Ohio Edison.
During the blackout, I called home to see if my family in Salem was OK, and my father answered the phone announcing that the blackout was FirstEnergy's fault. He should know; he worked for Ohio Edison for 37 years. For years, my father fought to improve company practices, because of the corruption and corner cutting, but his protests fell on deaf ears. For 37 years, my father risked his life as a high lineman working hundreds of feet in the air, so that Ohio Edison could gain more profits.
How did Ohio Edison/FirstEnergy repay my father for his 37 years of service? They fired him, so they wouldn't have to pay him his full pension, cutting it down to a third of what my father deserved. Therefore, cutting corners is nothing new to Ohio Edison. However, instead of affecting my parents' lives for a day or a week, Ohio Edison's & quot;corner cutting & quot; will affect them for the rest of their lives.
KAREN S. GASPER
Washington, D.C.
Put our lawmakers underSocial Security with rest of us
EDITOR:
Many of us have paid into FICA for years and are now receiving a Social Security check every month, then finding that we are getting taxed on 85 percent of the money we paid to the federal government to "put away."
We know now that Social Security was taken from an independent fund and placed in the general fund so that Congress would spend it. Perhaps we are asking the wrong questions during election years. Our senators and congressmen and women do not pay into Society Security, and of course, they do not collect from it. They felt they should have a special plan for themselves, so many years ago voted in their own benefit plan.
In more recent years no congressman has felt the need to change it. After all, it is a great plan. When they retire, they continue to draw the same pay until they die, except for increases from time to time due to the cost of living adjustment. And their wives draw from the plan, as well. This little perk they voted for themselves is free to them. You and I pick up the tab for their plan. The funds for this fine retirement plan comes directly from the general fund -- our tax dollars at work!
When President Franklin D. Roosevelt proposed Social Security and it was passed by a democratic Congress, it was not just legislation but a solemn commitment to the senior citizens in their retirement years. Not a single Republican voted for it. Now the Republican Congress wants to break that commitment by privatizing Social Security and subjecting senior citizens' hard-earned retirement benefits to the inconsistencies and vagaries of the stock market. I say shame.
Social Security could be very good if only one small change were made. That change would be to remove the retirement plan from the senators and congress people and put them into Social Security with the rest of us.
CHARLES M. TEREK
Campbell