Glad I donated a kidney to a stranger
As recounted in your editorial “Healthier plan for kidney disease” [Aug. 25], a new initiative against kidney disease is increasing the number of organs available for transplant.
In February 2018, I donated a kidney anonymously. It was one of the best things I’ve ever done. It was not difficult or painful, and I was back at my job a week later. It did take some time for testing and hospital visits beforehand but I could handle it.
Now, a man from Staten Island is walking around with my kidney. I met him and his family the day after the surgery at New York-Presbyterian/Columbia University Irving Medical Center in Manhattan. I lived in Massachusetts until my early 30s and am a Red Sox fan. The recipient strongly supports the Yankees. He now jokes that every time the Sox come to town, he has a “strange pull” for Boston.
I sometimes think that if I’m in my final hours looking back on my life, my donation will go on the plus side, for sure. I hope more people consider kidney donation.
First, declare the MTA insolvent
An astute reader noted that Metropolitan Transportation Authority unions will not be willing to concede any of their outlandish perks without getting some kind of bonus in return from management [“MTA could trade revamp in bargaining,” Letters, Aug. 15].
That is the catch-22 that develops when benefits are embedded in contracts.
There is a solution: The Center for Cost Effective Government believes state authorities should declare the MTA insolvent and create the equivalent of a control board, as it would when a city is in danger of going under.
Such a declaration would permit a judge or panel to throw out outlandish rules, regulations and provisions within contracts for the sake of saving the troubled entity. New York City was saved through a similar process in the 1970s. It’s time to recognize that the MTA is in dire straits.
Editor’s note: The writer is a board member of the Center for Cost Effective Government, a watchdog advocacy organization.
Increase penalties for resisting arrest
In the aftermath of the Eric Garner case, which turned out so truly tragic for all involved, some legislators in Albany and Washington propose to make the use of a chokehold by police a felony [“Chokehold scrutiny in capitals,” News, Aug. 23].
It’s obvious that these politicians have no appreciation for the kinds of life-or-death situations police can face every day.
Do they truly believe that while struggling to arrest someone who is violently resisting — someone who might have a gun or knife, or who might be trying to take a police weapon — that officers should have to be concerned with avoiding a maneuver that could save his or her life or those of fellow officers, but then cause them to serve many years in prison?
How about passing laws that significantly increase the penalties for resisting arrest?
While it’s horrible how the Garner case turned out, and I truly feel sorry for his family, people should keep in mind that if he didn’t resist, something basically nobody disputes, he might still be alive.
Editor’s note: The writer has a family member in the NYPD.
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand was smart to drop out of the presidential race because she would not be nominated [“Gillibrand ends ’20 bid,” News, Aug. 29].
This is my view of the 2020 race: The only serious Democratic contender is Joe Biden. Donald Trump will be a one-term president because he is awful. I believe the only reason he is president is that Hillary Clinton was awful. Biden would be a one-term president because of his age. Gillibrand laid the groundwork for a presidential campaign four years from now.