Last November, I was tempted to cancel my annual mammogram. My 2014 mammogram had been normal, I felt great and I had recently read that women my age could begin skipping years.
I believe that deciding to go ahead with that mammogram saved my life.
Because a tumor was discovered while it was still small and had not begun to spread to my lymph nodes, my treatment included a lumpectomy with a small incision instead of a mastectomy, and I qualified for a shorter course of radiation. I used to believe that self-examination of the breasts would reveal any dangerous lumps. When I got my diagnosis, my first question was, “Why didn’t I feel this tumor?” I was told by three different doctors in the DHMC oncology unit that had I waited until it had been large enough to be felt, my prognosis would have been much different. In fact, I was told that it could well have been too late, at least for relatively easy treatment, as the cancer, although still very small, was aggressive.
I have read that some doctors feel that recalling a woman for another mammogram may be too scary and stressful for her. They have patronizingly added this to the list of why they believe women don’t need them annually, if at all. Believe me when I say that had I decided to wait until this fall or next year to get another mammogram, my prospects today would truly be scary. I would like to to thank everyone that I met at DHMC during the past 11 months for the compassionate and excellent care that I received. In honor of Breast Cancer Awareness Month, I urge all women to schedule their annual mammogram.
Judith F. Barker Lyme
The new play at the Shaker Bridge Theatre in Enfield, The Mystery of Love & Sex, playing through Oct. 30, is a must-see. The actors and set are excellent, as usual. The play gets the audience thinking about family, growing up, homophobia, racism and anti-Semitism in an entertaining, heart-warming yet provocative way. I was moved and left the theater with tears in my eyes. The Shaker Bridge Theatre, in the top floor of Enfield’s Town Hall, is so intimate that the audience has to be reminded not to walk across the set.
Marcia Herrin Enfield Center
The prospect of new, young blood from the Orange-Washington-Addison district in the Vermont House is truly exciting. In my view, dwarfing all other concerns is the graying of Vermont, and with it an approaching economic cliff. With thousands of baby boomers readying for retirement and many Vermont-based industries in declining markets, it is imperative that the state make investments in 21st century agriculture and commerce.
Both enthusiastic young voices in this field sound an alarm on this impending crisis. But I am supporting Jay Hooper for two important reasons. First, Hooper understands that more than state college incentives are needed. Hooper’s platform includes investment in universal broadband — and with it, the opportunity for small, community-based economic development together with the promise of expanded educational opportunities without new teachers or classrooms. He’s also deeply immersed in the problems and opportunities of growing our value-added agricultural segment.
Secondly, Hooper well understands how government works and is well positioned to exploit his knowledge for our district’s benefit. I’m sure Mr. Jickling’s enthusiasm may someday lead to a positive contribution for his community, but his political inexperience and naivete show through when he declares his independence a virtue. While it sounds great in Jimmy Stewart movies, casting a decisive vote on the House floor is more than a rare occurrence. Far more important for putting local issues on the docket is getting face time with the House Speaker, dealing with key committee chairs, and working within your caucus. Partisanship is the way things happen and aligning yourself with one of the major parties is how to bring about change. In a legislative body of 150, a solo voice is hard to hear.
Paul HaskellRandolph
D-H Has Grown Too Large
I note with no surprise the request D-H seems about to make asking the physician staff to pick up their pace in an effort to balance the books that the administration has dropped over the years (“D-H May Ask Physicians to Pick up Pace,” (Sept. 23). Unfortunately, this would shorten patient-physician time together. Essentially, I feel this action would place the responsibility for the medical center’s troubles on the medical staff and remove the administration from blame. However, I seriously doubt that such an approach would improve patient care, the basic reason for the existence of the medical center itself. Significantly lessening the time of patient/staff contact would, in my opinion, considerably reduce the ability to carry out the obligation of reasonable patient care.
I speak from a background of medical/surgical practice for many years in different areas of the country, with military and VA experience.
To improve medical care in Northern New England, I would suggest a diametrically different plan. DHMC should back off the position as overseer of all medical establishments under their present jurisdiction. Indeed, I do not believe that DHMC can be everything to everybody in Northern New England.
A Northern New England consortium, as I envision it, would be divided into major areas, perhaps each with its own manager. Each area would contain their larger and smaller medical centers with Mary Hitchcock remaining as the last resort for very complicated situations that fall within its particular expertise. It would remain as the local major hospital for the Hanover area.
This plan presupposes good communications, a well-trained administrative staff and obliteration of the octopus that is DHMC. It would decrease self-defeating competition between medical establishments in New England. I believe the staff, both medical and otherwise, would be happier, more secure and productive under this. Each area would generate its own income and be responsible for its own successes (and failures). I do not believe issues would get nearly out of hand in the manner that DHMC has allowed.
Stuart M. Selikowitz, M.D.Hartland
What Change Will We Get?
“Change … Change …” is the title song of the Trump campaign.
But what are the lyrics to this song? Do the lyrics explain exactly how the change will be accomplished?
What are the consequences of singing this tune?
Dianne RochfordNewport
Be Humane to All Animals
The Upper Valley and surrounding towns are fortunate to have several animal shelters, humane societies and animal rights and welfare organizations. They all operate on shoestrings and with the help of dedicated volunteers. Fundraising, therefore, is an important part of their efforts. Nevertheless, many of these well-meaning groups do not “connect the dots” between their stated missions and their fundraising activities.
Very often, their fundraising initiatives they promote encourage the killing of animals to help save other animals. For example, in New York State, where I lived until a year ago, a dog shelter raises funds by having a chicken barbecue; a group of veterinarians helps pay for its services to indigent pet owners by raffling off turkeys. How can killing one species of animal to save another be ethical? When will so-called animal welfare organizations act with consistent compassion and stop raising money with dead animals for consumption? Where is the ethical consistency?
There are many ways to generate financial contributions without killing other sentient beings, who are as intelligent as cats and dogs. Plenty of good-tasting meat substitutes are now available. Salads, fruit, grains and vegetables are healthy foods that can be prepared as delicious dishes. Alternatively, fundraisers do not have to involve food. For example, fun hikes and bike rides are activities that benefit the participants as well as the animals.
Other compassionate ways to meet budgets can be found on internet sites such as the Vegan Fundraisers Facebook page and at fundraising-ideas.org. We should not leave our compassion at home, and care only about pets while being complicit in the torture and death of other animals, wild and farmed, who want to live full lives, free from suffering as much as we do. A little creativity and caring can make for a fundraising event that will cause no pain or harm to any living creature.
Jack Hurley Claremont
You Can Still Watch Voter Forum
Windsor County Partners wishes to thank everyone who attended our Governor’s Forum on Youth Issues on Sept. 25, as well as the businesses that so generously supported us, and the town of Hartland for the use of Damon Hall.
Anne Galloway from VTDigger did a great job as moderator, and candidates Sue Minter and Phil Scott gave thoughtful answers to questions that concern youth and their families. They both gave strong support for the benefits of mentoring in the lives of our youth. CATV filmed the forum and we encourage you to see it by going to vimeo.com/185358338. We hope everyone will go to the polls on Nov. 8 to participate in our democracy by voting.
Megan CulpBoard president of Windsor County PartnersWhite River Junction
No One Is ‘Unredeemable’
If and when Hillary Clinton becomes our president, there will be one thing that she said while campaigning that will be hard for me to forget. That is her reference to half of Trump’s supporters as “a basket of deplorables and unredeemables.”
I am not a big fan of Trump but I can’t, in good conscience, vote for her.
Ever since 1950, I have been in the “redeeming” business. From “Childrens’ Haven” mission on Tremont Street in Boston to churches in Claremont, Windsor and Meriden, as well as chaplaincies at the Vermont State Prison and the V.A. Hospital, that is what it has been all about. Dying people, drug and alcohol addicts, the incarcerated, broken homes and hearts — all redeemable.
That, after all is what the Christian faith is all about and most of us, if not all, know who the “Redeemer” is.
Warren Biebel Plainfield