Letters to the Editor

Letters to the editor: May 14

Good dentist got a raw deal from news coverage

As a practicing dentist who has restored many implant cases, I find the negative publicity Dr. William Galbreath has received very disturbing.

Where has the concept of innocent until proven guilty gone?

Implant instruments and screws are very small and intricate. The screwdriver is about the length of a sewing thimble. The ingestion of an implant device is never a welcome situation, nor is it necessarily negligence.

The screwdriver can be retained with floss, but not easily secured. The floss can dislodge the screws and fixtures that are being manipulated. After ingesting a dental device, the recommendation is to have a chest radiograph to rule out lung aspiration.

The thinking is that if there is ingestion into the stomach, in most cases it passes. Galbreath has served his patients well for many years. He deserves better consideration and respect.

Dr. Richard R. Rubeling


Businesses that serve, hire public not above the law

While many of our founding fathers had deep religious faith, as the commentary by William O. Witt said, they did not impose the tenets of their brand of religion on any citizen.

According to Wikipedia, "of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, there were 49 Protestants, and three Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.

"A few prominent founding fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson (who created the so-called 'Jefferson Bible') and Benjamin Franklin. A few others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists."

If the citizenry has rights and legal parameters within which to live, no religion can take those away. A religious person or group that operates a public business, employs the public and serves the public has no more right to dictate the personal behavior of its employees or clientele than Sears can require employees to buy only Sears products.

A private organization serving only its own members has every right to impose religious restrictions.

Catholic hospitals serve the public and employ the public. They are not charities. Businesses must abide by the laws that govern all of the citizens, regardless of their owners' membership in any religion.

Miki Wright


Essay about nation's founders based on history

I was saddened to see that the Herald-Leader elected to add my job title from Cardinal Hill to my recent column. It was sent electronically and, therefore, without letterhead or return address.

I used only my name as it represented my own thoughts only. It was totally inappropriate to add a title that I had not submitted and therefore imply that my thoughts were somehow associated with Cardinal Hill. They were not and are not.

With regard to the responses I received, which included a letter from a local CPA no less that stated in part that it was my "obvious desire to overthrow the American government." I have to say that whereas I should not have been surprised given the vitriol in the media these days, I was nonetheless dismayed to see the level of animosity expressed over a simple recounting of history.

I specifically avoided rendering an opinion and wrote the piece based only on historical fact. This is why it was assembled from the quotations of the men who were actually present as well as the first actual resolution of the Continental Congress. It seems I touched a nerve that was not to be found when I took human anatomy.

Dr. William O. Witt


Hoover commentary just more partisanship

I am writing in response to state Rep. Jeff Hoover's April 26 column. He addressed the failure of the General Assembly to do the job it was sent to Frankfort to do.

It was a great column that gave me hope about his intentions until the very end, when he wrote that non-partisan reform could work as long as the Republicans were in the majority in the House of Representatives.

I originally thought his letter was about making the General Assembly better through a non-partisan approach to governing. It failed to make me feel better; as a matter of fact, it just reinforces the partisan politics that make our General Assembly the failure it is.

Let us hope our lawmakers can cut through the partisanship and do the job they are elected and paid to do. I am sick of this assembly as well as the partisan games being played out in Washington.

It is time the citizens of this great state and nation are at the center of our elected officials' mind-set and not the fragile egos of those elected to serve us.

Jeff Rogers