Letters to the editor

Equal access to cancer care

The Jim Martin column “Cancer care scaremongering” (Commentary, Oct. 22) was frightening in its own right, in that it mischaracterized virtually every aspect of the cancer community’s effort to protect access to quality care for cancer patients.

As a cancer survivor, medical oncologist and president of the American Society for Clinical Oncology, I have observed and experienced cancer care from virtually every perspective. In addition to the excellent care provided to me by my oncologist during my own battle with cancer, I also witnessed the compassionate and thoroughly professional care provided to my mother and brother-in-law, both of whom died from cancer at a young age. Moreover, my colleagues and I have provided care to thousands of people with cancer over the past 25 years.

These experiences have demonstrated to me the importance of ensuring access to the highest quality care for all individuals diagnosed with cancer. Toward that end, my colleagues and I are committed to helping people with cancer. In brief, we seek to cure cancer whenever possible, prolong and maintain the quality of life where feasible, and ease suffering at all times.

The only thing Mr. Martin got right was that the old Medicare reimbursement system was in need of repair, which was the original intent of the Medicare Modernization Act. Unfortunately, we believe the proposed changes have real, albeit unintended, consequences. The reduction in payment for chemotherapy drugs, coupled with a reduction in administrative payments, may very well affect patient access in an adverse way. This is not a scare tactic — it is genuine concern.

The ASCO strongly supports a reimbursement plan that ensures adequate payment for the cost of delivering high-quality cancer care. This includes payment for the chemotherapy drugs as well as the costs associated with the actual delivery of these agents. Congress has mandated studies to determine the full effects of the Medicare Modernization Act on cancer care — studies that will not be complete until 2006 at the earliest. It seems logical to have those results in hand before implementing a solution, rather than afterward. Our patients deserve nothing less.

My organization, ASCO, is working with members of Congress to ensure that people living with cancer have access to quality cancer care. This is our highest priority, and it’s what we fight for every day. And while there is not enough space here to refute every one of Mr. Martin’s inaccurate statements, I will state unequivocally that ASCO never has and never would encourage or authorize manipulating the emotions of patients for any purpose whatsoever, despite what he has implied.

DR. DAVID H. JOHNSON

President

American Society of Clinical Oncology

Deputy director

Vanderbilt-Ingram Cancer Center

Nashville, Tenn.

Ballots vs. partisan lawyers

Tony Blankley’s Op-Ed “Democracy in peril” (Wednesday), on the 2000 election, hit the nail on the head then, and he’s right now. He’s not being an alarmist; he’s a realist.

The fact of the matter is that about 48 percent of the nation’s population regarded (and still regard) the 2000 election as invalid. This would have been true regardless of which candidate was sworn into office in January 2001. Because democracy is a government by popular consent, it cannot survive unless the people recognize the legitimacy of their government. All of the people.

It is simple: Our votes Tuesday will not matter. What will matter are the litigatory talents of partisan lawyers. This election may even come down to whether Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist has sufficiently recovered in order to cast a vote in favor of democracy in the inevitable Supreme Court battle.

Either way, about 48 percent of this nation will feel they have been cheated. I doubt, for example, that many would recognize the legitimacy of a Kerry administration, given the insidious acts of ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) and George Soros’ attempt to buy our election.

Both the Kerry and Bush camps will accuse the other of stealing this election. Democrats are certain that millions of Americans were disenfranchised in 2000 and that the Republicans don’t want blacks to vote. They will see a Bush victory as proof of a conspiracy.

Our democracy is failing. Our rule by popular consent is losing popular consent. It certainly no longer has unanimous acknowledgement. The question isn’t whether Americans will lose faith in our current system. The question is: What happens next?

THOMAS M SHIRK

Springfield

The promise of stem cells

Olivia McFadden’s letter (“No stem cell miracles yet,” Wednesday) includes a number of errors.

First, she incorrectly states that Christopher Reeve believed that stem cell research “offered no biological miracles.” I discussed this issue with Mr. Reeve on a number of occasions and worked closely with the Christopher Reeve Paralysis Foundation precisely because he shared our view that stem cells hold immense promise to help treat tens of millions of Americans with devastating diseases.

Second, she wrongly implies that embryonic stem cells — which come from in vitro fertilized embryos that will otherwise be discarded — will not help those suffering from disease.

The fact is that we may never realize the full promise of this research until the current federal restrictions are lifted and it is fully explored.

However, we do know that respected scientific organizations ranging from the National Academy of Sciences to the American Medical Association to the federal government’s own National Institutes of Health say that embryonic stem cells have tremendous promise.

Olivia McFadden’s ethical concerns with this research should be respected and are deserving of serious discussion, but they should not be confused with scientific fact.

LAWRENCE A. SOLER

Vice president, government relations

Juvenile Diabetes Research

Foundation International

Washington

October surprise

One would have thought that CBS News, caught lying about President Bush’s National Guard service nearly seven weeks ago using forged documents, would lay low for a while (“CBS eyed ’60 Minutes’ Bush bombshell,” Page 1, Wednesday).

But there it was, prepared to ambush Mr. Bush two days before the election, giving the president little time to respond, before the network was scooped with charges of “lost” explosives by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) and the New York Times.

But they didn’t take into account the fact that there was an NBC news crew with the U.S. troops that reached the facility on April 10, 2003, the day after Baghdad fell, and that, according to NBC News, the explosives were probably already gone when the Americans arrived and spent the night in the facility at Al-Qaqaa, just south of Baghdad.

Sen. John Kerry once claimed foreign leaders were eager to see him elected. We now know some of them are members of the International Atomic Energy Agency who, with CBS News, the New York Times and the Kerry campaign, trumpeted a bogus charge that Mr. Bush “lost” 380 tons of explosives.

IAEA inspectors last saw the explosives in January 2003, when they took an inventory and placed fresh seals on the bunkers at al Qaqaa. Saddam Hussein had three months to move them.

So why did the U.N. nuclear agency, a year and a half later, suddenly warn the New York Times, one week before our presidential election, to suggest that insurgents may have obtained the missing explosives?

The suggestion that Mr. Bush allowed 380 tons of explosives to be looted from an unguarded facility is laughable. It would have taken 100 men working 12 hours a day for two weeks to “loot” 380 tons of explosives, and 40 or so 10-ton trucks to haul the stuff away.

The only thing we can be certain of is that this is a blatant attempt by a U.N. agency in tandem with an anti-Bush media to influence the outcome of a U.S. election.

DANIEL JOHN SOBIESKI

Chicago