Vicodin used for cases of severe pain, not colds
I am writing in regards to the article entitled "Students prescribed Vicodin for colds" written by Sarah Stanton in the March 5 edition of the Daily Wildcat. I would like to correct errors in the story, and to present a different perspective regarding the use of this medication and the prescribing practices of the UA Campus Health Service.
Let me begin by addressing the claim that the medical staff of the Campus Health Service prescribes Vicodin for colds. None of our medical staff members prescribe Vicodin for colds, which are viral infections characterized by nasal symptoms, sore throat and a cough. Vicodin, as a narcotic pain reliever, is a very effective medication for the relief of severe pain. Some of our staff do prescribe this medication for students who are suffering from severe pain, particularly if it is not responding to other non-narcotic pain medications, such as can occur with the pain resulting from a severe infection of the tonsils. In this situation, Vicodin controls the pain and enables students to drink fluids. This practice helps keep many students from becoming dehydrated, and keeps them out of the emergency room.
The Vicodin prescriptions written by the Campus Health medical staff for this reason average 15 tablets per prescription, which is consistent with the short-term (several-day) treatment of severe pain and presents no risk for the development of psychological or physical dependence. Oxycontin, which is a different narcotic pain reliever, has a much higher abuse potential than Vicodin. That is why we do not stock Oxycontin in the Campus Health Service pharmacy and do not use it for short-term relief of severe pain. As medical caregivers, we have a responsibility to control patients' pain to an adequate level. We need to balance this responsibility with a sensitivity to the abuse potential of these medications and the realization that the vast majority of people who use these medicines do so appropriately. Ultimately, those who prescribe and those who take narcotic pain medications need to weigh the risks and benefits of using these medicines. However, in appropriate situations, the use of Vicodin can be very effective in alleviating severe pain and providing good medical care to patients who are experiencing severe pain. With that being said, I would like to close by reassuring students that the use of prescription pain relievers by the Campus Health Service medical staff is appropriate and within the bounds of accepted medical practice.
Harry McDermott
executive director for Campus Health and Wellness
'Morning-after pill' needs to be readily available
There is a drug that is 95 percent effective when taken within 24 hours, easy to use, and less likely to cause an adverse reaction than aspirin. More importantly, there is a drug that could reduce the estimated annual 3 million unintended pregnancies in the United States by 50 percent. Experts say that this same drug could prevent as many as 800,000 abortions per year. The name of this drug is emergency contraception (EC).
Emergency contraception, also known as the "morning-after pill," is a method of preventing pregnancy that can be used up to 72 hours after unprotected sexual intercourse, contraceptive failure or sexual assault.
Currently, EC is only available with a doctor's prescription, except for in Alaska, California, New Mexico, Hawaii and Washington, where it is available directly from a participating pharmacist without a doctor's prescription. Advisers to the Food and Drug Administration have recommended that EC be available over the counter, but on Feb. 16, under strong political pressure, the FDA postponed its decision until May.
It's time for students to be fully educated about reproductive healthcare options and for women to defend their right to have full access to this breakthrough drug.
Alicia Cybulski
political science senior
Shaken baby syndrome doesn't justify abortion
I am writing this in response to Sara Warzecka's article, "Brain decay: Stop praying and actually do something." I feel great sympathy for what happened to Michael Coomb's 2-month-old infant. But I find it appalling that Sara would use this subject to try and justify the use of abortions. She turned a devastating tragedy for one family into a twisted attempt to try and convince people that the right wing is living with its head in the clouds, and is "more appalled by the practice of aborting a fetus than the fading smile of an infant." As someone who is pro-life, I care very deeply about the treatment of all children, born or unborn. Sara states in her article that there is a possibility that the "aborted child could have been killed through shaken baby syndrome by a parent who didn't know any better." This statement is true, but do you end someone's life because there is a chance that something bad will happen to him/her in the future? Do you think these children deserve the opportunity to live life? Finally, Sara argues that dying from shaken baby syndrome is a more terrible death than what occurs when a child is aborted. This statement has no truth to it. Yes, if a woman were to take RU486 then she would have an induced miscarriage; however, the other forms of abortion are much more horrific. When a woman has an abortion, the doctor rips apart the fetus and lays each part on a table to make sure that he has extracted the entire body. Getting ripped apart, in my opinion, is a very cruel and violent fate for anyone. In the future, I hope that Sara will abstain from using the tragedies of others to help her justify her political views.
Christy Goble
elementary education junior
Suicide bombs 'morally repugnant' violence
Forgive me for dragging out the issue, but I feel that certain points of Mr. Sousa's letter of March 12 still need to be addressed:
First, a question for Mr. Sousa: If we use your working definition of "terrorism" (there are several), then what exactly are the Israeli army's demands? "Stop blowing up public busses?" Sounds pretty reasonable. I'm not arguing against the Palestinian cause, but the calculated slaughter of civilian targets is morally repugnant. The difference between a suicide bombing and an Israeli military operation is simple: The bomber is attacking men, women and children for the sole purpose of causing death, destruction and fear. The Israeli Army seeks to neutralize the terrorist organizations that are dedicated to inflicting said death and destruction. The fact that non-combatants (a Palestinian civilian with an bomb strapped to his chest, or a gun in hand, is no longer a civilian) get caught in the crossfire, often deliberately positioned there by terrorists, is unfortunate, and I, for one, am not writing to support all of Israel's domestic policies. Then again, I'm not living in a war zone.
As for the breaking of children's limbs ... that's a cruel, irresponsible claim to make without providing any support. And since when is it OK to throw rocks at people? A stone may lack a rifle's precision, but is deadly nonetheless. Heaven forbid that such a thing should happen, but maybe it's not a smart idea to provoke an armed soldier. And how Mr. Sousa can compare the retaliatory demolition of vacated homes to mass murder is absolutely mind-boggling! As Passover approaches, I would just like to remind the reader that, contrary to the popular medieval myth that seems to be coming back into fashion, matzo is not baked with blood. I repeat: Blood is not kosher.
Daniel Perezselsky
Near Eastern studies and political science sophomore
Israeli government no different than Hamas
I would like to thank Ravi Arora for his letter entitled "Israeli actions ignored by American news media." It is unfortunate that Israel is constantly and continually permitted to commit terrorism in the name of defense. The facts of history paint a clear picture; the Israeli government is just as interested in fueling and continuing violence as groups like the Hamas - perhaps even more interested than Palestinian groups, because with support from America and the most dangerous and powerful military in the Middle East, oppressing and killing Palestinian and Arab people has worked out pretty well for Israel. With the help of the American media, key facts are overlooked, like the fact that the wall being built by Israel is on Palestinian land. Palestinian causalities are given little or no attention. The recent assassination of Ahmed Yassin is yet another example. American media will either ignore it or focus on Israel's need for defense, ignoring significant facts - namely that Ariel Sharon has timed this attack perfectly to once again destroy the peace process and continue the path of violence. Furthermore, this attack will only make the Israeli people less safe and Sharon knows this. Sharon does not care about the Israeli people. With most the world making efforts toward peace, the Israeli government has once again intentionally set back any hopes for peace and chosen terrorism.
In response to Jeremy Slavin's letter, Mr. Slavin has only made Mike Sousa's point regarding Israeli terrorism and racism. While Mr. Slavin has challenged Sousa to prove his point, Mr. Slavin himself has proved the bigoted nature of Zionism in his closing statement, "Americans only thought they had a Manifest Destiny for North America. We Jews know we have one for the Land of Israel." His claim is that Israel has a God-given right to terrorize and kill anyone who disagrees with his interpretation of his religion.
Armand Navabi
computer science senior
Peace walk supporters should be applauded
I would like to praise both the MSA and Hillel (as well as other associations involved) that led the peace walk. I was disturbed by Mr. Slavin's comments about the Bible supporting Jewish Manifest Destiny. In 1997 I was still in high school and I was at a Muslim-Christian dialogue. Former ASUA Senator Nasim mentioned that all Jewish prophets are regarded as Muslim prophets. The prophet mentioned the most in the Holy Quran is Moses and Islam is regarded as the religion of Abraham by Muslims as well as religious scholars.
Long before Moses was born, there was a Jewish and Muslim prophet named Abraham. Muslims believe Abraham and his son Ishmael built the Kaba'a and that Muhammad is the descendant of Ishmael, while Moses and Jesus are descendants of Ishmael's brother Isaac. Deuteronomy also mentions the city of Paran, which is Aramaic for Mecca according to Muslim scholars.
As a Christian myself, the Bible can be interpreted in many ways; I just hope it wasn't mean to support Wild West American version of Manifest Destiny. As a result of Manifest Destiny, countless Native American civilizations were destroyed and their descendants now live on reservations. The great Cherokee nation was destroyed and displaced from its lands in Georgia, the Carolinas and Oklahoma.
The Bible should not be compared to Manifest Destiny. The Bible's (and the Quran's) goal is to help an individual be a better human spiritually. Manifest Destiny was responsible for genocide (second only to the Holocaust), for uprooting countless Native American civilizations and so on.
Similarly, Palestinians live in refugee camps in miserable conditions. At least the Native Americans here can move out of their reservations and even buy land. Displaced Palestinians don't even have the right of return. The Palestinians are different from most Arabs since they are the actual descendants of Phoenicians, Phillistines and Canaanites. These people lived in the Holy Land long before Abraham was born. Many thought Jesus and Muhammad accepted Abraham's message of God.
The Holy Quran mentions that God said, "I have created you in many nations and tribes so ye may get to know one another (not to despise one another)." Jesus said," Love thy neighbor!"
I pray the peace camps of both the Muslims and Jews defeat right-wingers on both sides.
Enough is enough.
Robert Balla
Tucsonan
Thank Israel for killing Hamas leader
This letter is in response to Israel's targeted killing of Hamas founder and spiritual leader, Sheikh Ahmed Yassin. Save for the mindless people that mourn Yassin's death, we should all be appreciative of Israel's actions.
"Hamas" is a word meaning "courage" and "bravery," but where did this terrorist ever display courage and bravery? Hamas has been responsible for dozens of
suicide bombings and the deaths of hundreds of innocent Israelis, and Yassin was the mastermind of it all. He was, more or less, the Godfather of suicide bombings.
To all those who mourn his death, you mourn the death of a man ... check that, a savage, who lauded the killing of innocent people. The air strike by Israel removed a threat to its people and gave Sheikh Ahmed Yassin exactly what he planned for his innocent Israeli victims, death.
I'm sure there will be critical responses to my letter by pro-Palestinian people, or the "books not bombs" hippies. This letter is not intended to spark a debate over whose land is whose. The land debate is not the issue right now. The issue is that there is now one less terrorist. No matter what side of the conflict you're on, Yassin's death is a good thing. If you can't agree with that, then you have his spirit alive inside of you, and that is the spirit of a terrorist.
Shaun Donovan
criminal justice administration senior
Campus not better off with Alumni Plaza
Excuse me, but the last time I looked, the UA alumni didn't have the energy to stand in honor at our most glorious basketball games after leeching tickets away from deserving fans. But the worst blow was yet to come, as they have seemingly saved the gravest of their leeching powers to degrade our campus with yet another sign of their inability to surpass the social roadblock of growing up and find an identity elsewhere. Thank whatever higher power that the Alumni Association can grift so much money off its postgrad populace, or the university would be bereft of such amenities as personalized bricks, statues, crappy artwork and other totems to God money. What would we do without these symbols of every college student's ultimate goal: a life of materialistic, self-adulation?
And now our beloved alumni have brought yet another blessing to our lives by removing the grassy knoll and flower garden in front of the Administration building and the Student Union Memorial Center, which had until recently served no useful purpose other than providing a rest area for lunchers with relaxed attitudes. We will do so much better with an alumni speaking area, three personalized benches and some trees with plaques on them. It really wasn't enough that our illustrious alumni already had a building, their temple to the Never-never land of college. In the meantime, the extensive Berlin wall left in the wake of said destruction - sorry, construction - serves to give us lackadaisical students a little more exercise day by day. Who can complain?
Why alumni can't seem to leave the university behind, unmarked by evidence of their rise to the status of "junior business executive," and must instead emblazon proof of their achievement on a plethora of bricks and benches, I can't fathom. I'm all for donating to the university, and please do, dear alumni, but for my sake and the sake of all the students and faculty of the UA, please try to do so with a little less self-worship in mind. You don't go here anymore. You are who you are because of the university, not the other way around. I for one will not waste my years (or even days) after college remembering my times at the UA only in terms of how much I can change its decor to my will. I will donate, but only for the enhancement of academic programs, and even then only anonymously. Recognition has no place in charity. Thanks for nothing, dearest alumni. Your tinkering with my academic experience will be remembered fondly.
Jeremy Daniel
ecology and evolutionary biology sophomore