August 13, 2022

Letters: Spreading Trauma | Electronic Prescription Act

Submit your letter to the editor via this form. Read more Letters to the Editor.

Anti-vaxxers traumatize
others when they get sick

Those who refuse the COVID-19 vaccine verify my long-held conclusion: humans are suicidal, murderous, or both. Of course, those who are medically (not religiously) excused, suffer a breakthrough infection, or are too young get a pass – they’ve got enough work already and best wishes.

Because I’m not standing for election, I can say what I think. I’ve had enough of deniers and vaccine refusals. The sick and dying are cared for by exhausted and traumatized medical staff. What gives the refusers the right to expect heroism from these nurses and doctors? They complain about being insulted by being told what to do. Poor babies. No time? Afraid of needles? How about the fear of gasping with every breath until the horrible end?

Anti-vaxxers: The gene pool continues with or without you and the friends and family members you kill.

Josefa Sharon
Concorde

Electronic Prescription Act
chase away the doctors

A new law for physicians, AB 2789, goes into effect January 1. Prescriptions can no longer be written on paper, but must be transmitted to the patient’s pharmacy electronically by software.

For solo practitioners, this will be an added cost and a learning curve to manage. I predict unintended negative consequences, including older physicians like me retiring from active practice. Have you tried changing GP lately?

John Knowles
Walnut Creek

The letter focuses only on
half of the 2nd amendment

D. “Carrying arms is a key part of the amendment”, Letters to the Editor, page A6, December 22:

The problem with the Second Amendment is not the second half (“the right of the people to keep and bear arms”) but with the first half (“A well-regulated militia being necessary…”), which gives the justification for the second half, and involves service in a militia of some type.

Just because we can all understand the second half doesn’t mean we can ignore the first half (justification). We can’t choose the words we like in an amendment.

Robert Zanker
Concorde

The expansion of the yard would be
develop partisanship

D. “The idea of ​​expanding the Supreme Court is starting to gain traction”, page A7, December 21:

The Democrats who would like to enlarge the Supreme Court of the United States show that they are the ones who want a politicized court. Conservative judges are those who do not see the court as political. Rather, they see it as the guardian of the Constitution interpreted strictly as written (and not interpreted ‘flexibly’ or creatively to meet political or social goals) as the standard of all law and practice. This means that they sometimes govern in a way that will frustrate conservatives and progressives alike.

That’s why it’s no mere coincidence that every swing vote on the Court since the 1960s has been nominated by the GOP (Burger, Blackmun, Powell, Stevens, Day-O’Connor, Souter, Kennedy and, now, Roberts). Three (Blackmun, Stevens and Souter) even entered the liberal bloc. Democratic-appointed judges, on the other hand, are proving to be reliable supporters of progressive causes. But the SCOTUS is not supposed to be partisan.

Christopher Andrus
Dublin

The 2nd Amendment does not
assert an individual right

Mike Goldstein chose his Second Amendment quote (“Carrying guns is a key part of the amendment”, page A6, December 22), as do many Republicans, while disagreeing with Bruce Joffe on the gun control (“Newsom Should Cast Wide Anti-Gun Net,” Page A6, December 18).

Apparently he thinks every individual has the right to carry guns wherever they please. The Second Amendment fully states: “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

One wonders how Mr. Goldstein, or any rational person, thinks this applies to individuals without such an association.

Don Morgan
Concorde

Hanson Columns
serve as a bad example

I agree with all the letters regarding the importance of conservative opinion columns in this newspaper. Without them, where would English teachers find such fine examples of bad writing?

Victor Davis Hanson is a particularly egregious offender, seemingly content to construct his chronicles by launching a series of tangentially only related statements with little or no original analysis and who seems to think that mocking the term “woke” in every other sentences is an adequate substitute for a proper thesis.

The lack of cohesive arguments in its columns is genuinely impressive and underscores the importance of keeping these perspectives in print: it provides much-needed comic relief.

Tess Arrighi
Livermore


Source link