Helping America’s heroes
I agree with the BDN Editorial Board when they write in a Nov. 10 editorial, “Remember that America’s veterans are common Americans of uncommon valor and devotion to duty.” We need to improve the way we help veterans who are coming back from war or who have served in the past. There is no question that veterans are not getting the support that they need and this needs to change. They should be able to feel as though their country has their back as they have served to protect it.
We as a society also need to do more when it comes to recognizing those who are and have served in wars both past and present. There is no question that veterans who fought in the Vietnam War did not receive the recognition that they should have. They gave their lives for their country and to try to make the world a better place, and in return, they were treated with disrespect. This should not have been tolerated then and these feelings should have no place in our country today.
Whether it is to more effectively support veterans or to properly recognize them for their service to their country, we must be willing to find new ways to help these heroes overcome any obstacles they might be facing. They deserve to be treated with respect and to know that their country will not turn their back on them.
Benjamin W. Bucklin
Searsport
People should decide for themselves on impeachment
The public hearing phase of the impeachment inquiry is necessary in order to shine a light on the ever-shifting defense of the President Trump’s actions.
The initial defense that amounted to “ nothing to see here” shifted to “ he really just cares about corruption.” But in the phone call with the Ukranian President, Trump focused on his political self-interest. OK then, no quid pro quo here. Yet government officials provided testimony sharing their understanding that Trump withheld essential military aid. OK then, the security aid was allowed to flow eventually. Yet only after the apparent quid pro quo was uncovered.
The likely last line of defense will be to shift the blame onto people who will not be allowed to testify — like Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney. In the meantime, Republican congressmen will do what needs to be done to defend the indefensible. They will disrupt and distract.
President Trump will not be removed from office by Republican senators. But let us decide for ourselves if this president attempted to use taxpayer money and the vast resources of our country to force a foreign government to launch investigations in order to keep himself in office.
Philip Elkin
Stonington
Issues with story about “baby killer” drug
Regarding the “‘baby killer’ drug” article in the Nov. 11 issue of the BDN, I have some issues.
I do not dispute that the patent medication, “Mrs. Winslow’s Soothing Syrup” was dangerous and qualified for the American Medical Association label of “baby killer”.
I have difficulty with the mathematics of the article. If definitions of 1 ounce equals 30 milliliters (ml) and that a teaspoon is equal to 1/6 of an ounce or 5 ml are accepted:
Then a solution containing 65 mg of morphine per 1 ounce (30 ml) and given to a child under 6 months of age at maximum 1/2 teaspoon (2.5 ml each) four times a day, that child would receive 21.66 mg of morphine per 24 hours.
For a child older than 6 months, instructions were to utilize up to 1 tsp (5 ml) a maximum of 4 times a day. That would equal 43.33 mg of morphine a day.
It appears that the calculations are based on 65 mg morphine per 5 ml teaspoonful. That is a whopping dose and surely was cause of respiratory depression for some infants if used according to the instructions.
These numbers in any case are unacceptable. It would be helpful to know which are the correctly quoted recommended dosages.
Please point out my calculation error if I am wrong.
Charles T McHugh
Baileyville