42° Good Evening
42° Good Evening

Newsday letters to the editor for Monday, Aug. 7, 2017

A kit with naloxone, also known by its

A kit with naloxone, also known by its brand name Narcan, is displayed at the South Jersey AIDS Alliance in Atlantic City, N.J. on Wednesday, Feb. 19, 2014. An overdose of opiates essentially makes the body forget to breathe. Naloxone works by blocking the brain receptors that opiates latch onto and helping the body "remember" to take in air. Credit: AP / Mel Evans

Don’t limit Narcan doses for drug users

In the July 17 news story “Costs of opioid epidemic are overwhelming towns,” elected officials in Middletown, Ohio, discussed the cost of administering Narcan to repeat overdose victims, and whether the antidote should be limited to three times for each individual.

This is inhumane. Having watched an unconscious family member lay motionless in a hospital bed, I can tell you there is no number for a second chance at life that is too much. Having lost a family member, perhaps because a dose of Narcan was too late, I can’t think of a dollar amount my family wouldn’t pay to have him back.

The real issue is why the desperately needed medications are rising in price from $690 in 2014 to $4,500 today, in the case of the injectable form of naloxone, Evzio. The nasally administered form, Narcan, ranges up to $150 per dose. I believe this is greedy. There’s money to be made in addiction.

The article also mentions that an opioid user is often back on drugs within days, if not hours, after being revived. We must have a plan for these people. We don’t rehabilitate them simply by reviving them.

Karen Camberdella, Ridge

Troubled by police at Trump speech

As a Suffolk County Police Department retiree, I was very disturbed by the presence and behavior of department officers during President Donald Trump’s July 28 address in Brentwood [“Trump vows to ‘destroy’ MS-13 gang,” News, July 29]. I saw supervisory-level department officers on the stage as a backdrop for the president’s address. Were they assigned to be there?

The Brentwood speech is the most disgraceful performance by the president to date. There is so much wrong about it that I have to limit my comments to aspects critical to police-community relations.

First is his obvious promotion of excessive use of force and then, the implicit denigration of an ethnic demographic that likely represents a high percentage of Brentwood’s Third Precinct population. The potential ramifications of such irresponsible comments by a sitting president, horrible as they are, are exacerbated by rows of Suffolk police officers smiling and clapping. Such inappropriate behavior by officers can only occur when there is inadequate supervision.

Trump’s administration represents a clear danger to our democracy. His rhetoric, many of his executive orders and some GOP legislative initiatives threaten our freedoms and our way of life. The police should not participate in this destruction. They should be a bulwark against such injuries.

Wayne Stinson, Summit, N.Y.

Create a humane health care system

Universal health care is a human right; it’s not a cliché to say that [“McCain: Unite to fix Obamacare,” News, July 29].

Michael Moore’s movie “Sicko,” from 2007, interviewed people in various countries about their health care. Watching it, I concluded that countries with universal health care are healthier, and their people are happier, if for no other reason than they do not have to worry if they get sick, and they can use preventive medicine to keep from getting sicker.

As many people move toward self-employment, and as technology eliminates jobs, we need systems to help people who do not have employer-sponsored health care. We must move to a system that is humane and compassionate, and away from a system ruled by the almighty dollar.

Suzanne Myron, Woodbury

If there’s one thing that virtually everyone agrees on with respect to health care, it’s that Obamacare is far from perfect. So it seems as if everyone could agree that it needs to be fixed.

So far, all of the proposals in Washington indicate that tens of millions of people who have coverage under Obamacare would lose that coverage, no matter how expensive or inadequate it might be. What’s going to happen to those people? Is no coverage better than expensive or lousy coverage?

I don’t have an answer, but shouldn’t the people in Washington who are debating and deciding this be able to answer that basic question?

As President Donald Trump learned only after taking office, this health coverage stuff is really complicated!

Chris Marzuk, Greenlawn