I am responding to the program regarding
Hurricane Katrina-and the questions regarding patient care at a hospital during a
catastrophic event-where the hospital had no power,few resources left, and 100 degree temperature within the hospital.
I am a lucky survivor of Katrina-I was able to evacuate ,had comparably moderate damage,and no flooding in my home.

The nurses and doctors were working under condtions that were beyond horrible.I had friends who worked at both hospitals and The Super Dome during the hurricane.
Decisions had to be made under very critical and unusual circumstnces.
When people are very very sick -the most important thing you can do is ease the pain and discomfort with pain medications and human touch.
I feel the doctors and nurses SHOULD NOT BE JUDGED for their actions in this particular case. These were NOT normal conditions for anyone. (the staff had no better conditions than the patients)
What this new article(in the NY Times) will do is
1) bring up pain,anger and bad memories for families
2) bring pain and punishment to nurses and doctors who
have suffered enough.
3) more lawsuits
4)make it harder to keep medical staff available should a disaster happen again in New Orleans.

It sounded like the article was questioning how patients were being triaged. This form of triage is not unusual during cataclysmic events such as natural disasters and war.
I know it must be hard for the families whose loved ones at the hospital during this terrible disaster.
HOWEVER-AT LEAST ,the doctors and nurses were THERE-trying to comfort them and ease their physical pain.
Again-condtions were beyond horrific and livable even for the healthier patients and staff at the hospital.

I’ve just finished mourning my city in the 4th year since Katrina changed our lives.
A day doesn’t go by that I don’t think about the before and after of my beloved and troubled city.
Hearing this story felt like had a newly formed scar had been ripped open.
What is the point four years later?

Pati D’Amico

I don’t usually have the opportunity to listen to Here and Now but today I was in the car running errands and caught the segment about Memorial Hospital. I found the tone you used to talk with Ms. Fink about the choices doctors made during that time to be offensive. As Pati D’Amico said so succinctly in the post immediately above this, the staff of that hospital should not be judged for the choices they made at that horrible time. If you were not in or around New Orleans at the time of and immediately following Katrina, you have no idea of the sheer horror of the situation. Rather than appearing to be judgmental of these heroes, we should all be finding ways to ensure that our country is ready when (and it is a question of when, not if) another tragedy strikes, anywhere in this nation. We are clearly unprepared. Our government is not here to help us, as the Bush administration demonstrated four years ago. The real tragedy is that we would, for even a moment, question the decisions made by dedicated professionals caught in the worst moments of their lives.

I need to comment on your “women in combat” discussion today 9/1/09. First lets be clear that I respect anyone who is willing to serve our country in the armed forces no matter what gender and I applaud the service of the major that was on your show in support of changing the rules. I also served in the Army for 10 years in both a front line capacity as an airborne infantrymen, a heavy equipment operator with a engineer company and I served in Iraq twice.

While both sides have good points I disagree that the rules need to be changed. Women may be inadvertently be in danger in the current wars due to the missions needed to combat the way our enemy is forcing us to fight but I do not feel it necessary to purposely place women in combat roles. Some women are more then capable of doing the same jobs as men but it is a proven fact that men are generaly stronger and have more endurance when it comes to combat rigors. I could go on about the possible dangers and side effects of intentionally mixing combat units but I will get to the point that made me come here and comment.

I noticed that the major you spoke too boasted about being the top graduate physically of her military class when she graduated? My question is, was that on a pure highest score metric? Anyone that has been in the Army knows that a 300 PT score for a women and a 300 score for a man is (or was) very different in terms of pushups, sit-ups and run times. A man has to do more pushups, more sit-ups and run 2 miles much faster then a women to get that score. On top of that many combat units hold their soldiers to a much higher standard then the Army as a whole requires, in the 82nd Airborne we were required to maintain a 230 score or we had to go to remedial PT, the minimum army standard is only a 180.

I don’t get it – it is okay for 3,000 people to get licenses to shoot wolves but killing dogs can get you two years in jail and ruin you? Overpopulation in dogs is the far greater problem, isn’t it? Couldn’t we cut the SPCAs and Humane Society budgets, or a least fund them, with license fees to kill of those stray dogs running around every town in this country?

I need to comment on your “Women in Combat” piece. I am an active duty Marine Corps Officer First Lieutenant, a Naval Academy graduate, and a woman. I totally disagree with the comments made on your show stating that the rules need to be changed to allow women in combat roles.

First off, the arguments made in your show were extremely vague when talking about women in combat. Yes, women are participating in, and leading convoys alongside their male counterparts. Yes, IED attacks targeting these convoys inadvertently place women directly in the enemy’s sights. The women largely involved in these sorts of missions are women in logistics occupational specialties. To say that women should be “allowed” in combat is implying to me, that women should be allowed to enter restricted combat occupational specialties (ex. infantry, artillery, tanks, etc.). These jobs involve something COMPLETELY different than the examples sited by your guests on the show.

I also found this piece extremely one-sided. Your guest referenced a poll she took of all the female general officers in the military discussing whether they feel their restriction of certain specialties has hindered their career and they all said yes. In the Marine Corps, the only officers who have ever been selected as Commandant of the Marine Corps have been infantry officers. The glass ceiling does not just discriminate against women because they are restricted from becoming infantry officers, but ANYONE male or female, who is not of that specialty. The way this was presented did not point out this fact.

It would be irresponsible for the United States to allow women into restricted MOS’ due to the unique dangers that women may face (vs men) and the societal impact that has. I am disappointed this aspect was not addressed and hope that in the future NPR can present a more balanced perspective.

[...] NPR Here & Now Interview with Zakir Hussain, Bela Fleck and Edgar Meyer. Aired nationally on 9/1 Listen to the interview [...]