Wecht's reasoning I
I wanted to comment on the letter by Cyril H. Wecht (“Immoral hypocrisy,” Sept. 26 and TribLIVE.com): I have respected and admired Dr. Wecht for his straightforward approach over his many years of public service, but his letter does leave me scratching my head.
Wecht talks about the inability of the court systems, in many cases, to provide adequate legal representation for indigent defendants. While I do not disagree with his statement, I also realize that Wecht has made many dollars over the years from being involved with the legal system in his professional capacity. If he has known that the system is so discriminatory, then why has he collected his professional fees and been involved with such an “unethical, immoral hypocrisy”?
Wecht also points out that medicine does not discriminate against indigent patients in its care for these people. I tend to wholeheartedly disagree with him on this assumption. While care may be given to these people, it may not be with the best medical staff available and it may not be for the length of time necessary for full recovery. Wecht fails to acknowledge such real problems and such discrimination.
Wecht fails to see that discrimination happens in these systems because often the number of dollars that can be pulled from people or third-party payers directly affects how a person is treated. The bottom line is often more important than the public service that is given. And this attitude is not going to change in our “free enterprise” society.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Animal abuse
- Food for thought
- Appreciate caregivers
- Poisoned long ago
- Bible under attack
- Law applies to drillers, too
- On right track
- Not ‘too stupid’
- EPA not the problem
- The real big spenders
- Media & city violence