Please keep eye on our sandhill cranes
Your lead editorial on May 19 ("Take a stand on same-sex unions,") was one of the most blatantly dishonest pieces of writing I've ever seen in print.
Following the California Supreme Court's explicit ruling that civil unions were insufficient because denying the designation "marriage" to the relationships of homosexuals unacceptably implies that homosexual relationships are not of the same value as heterosexual relationships, you have come out in favor of -- not gay "marriage", but only civil unions because they are "more politically viable in this state."
The clear implication is that you hope that somewhere down the road, gay "marriage" will be more palatable to the voters of Illinois. That's how it is with liberals, the debate is never over the goal, but only over how fast to "progress" toward the goal. You assume that gay "marriage" is inevitable, and that the only question is whether to do it now or later, and whether to resort to the intermediate solution of civil unions.
It should now be clear to everyone that neither courts nor homosexuals nor the liberals who support them will never settle for civil unions. Civil unions are an intermediate step, not a compromise. A milestone, not a substitute.
Your editorial makes a vaguely democratic appeal to the "many, many" homosexuals and their supporters. But you also seem to fear placing the question on the ballot in the form of a constitutional amendment, because you know that many, many more Illinoisans recognize that homosexual relationships offer nothing to society, while heterosexual marriages engender and raise the next generation of citizens, workers, voters, taxpayers, and -- unless you keep up foolishness like this editorial -- newspaper subscribers.
Marriage was not invented by the state of Illinois nor any other state, and they have no authority to redefine it. The state has a vested interest in, and is well-rewarded for, supporting and encouraging committed heterosexual relationships. Homosexual relationships are about pleasing the people in them, and gay "marriage" is only about giving those people what they want.
Real marriage is about selflessness, about what the husband and wife give to their children, and about what those children are raised to give to society. When one group gives so much and another group gives nothing, it's appropriate to discriminate between them.
Paul Mitchell Hainesville
Training varies for doctors of nursing
We have the deepest respect for nurses, and the AMA wholeheartedly believes each member of the health-care team plays a critical role in ensuring patients get the best possible care.
But (regarding the article Monday, "Nursing schools make room for Dr. Nurse") it's an undeniable fact that a nurse with a graduate degree does not have the same education and training as a physician who has completed medical school and residency training, and it's misleading to patients for nurses to introduce themselves as a doctor.
While standards for the doctor of nursing practice (DNP) are presently being devised, nursing organizations currently recommend DNP students complete just 1,000 hours of "practical experience" after obtaining a bachelor's degree.
Physicians complete more than 12 times that amount during their graduate education.
In addition to the two years of clinical rotations physicians fulfill during their four years of medical school, they also complete three or more years of full-time medical residency training.
The DNP program with the one-year residency training mentioned in the article is far from the norm.
While one DNP graduate may complete a two-year program including a one-year residency, another may complete the program entirely online and without any patient care experience.
The bottom line is: For patients to receive high-quality care, all members of the health care team need to be adequately trained and educated to provide the services they perform.
Our patients deserve nothing less.
Edward L. Langston
Board Chair
American Medical Association
Chicago