4
Friday, March 23, 1990 / University Daily Kansan
Opinion
THE UNIVERSITY DAILY KANSAN
Euthanasia challenge
Cruzan's case emphasizes the value of living will, the need for Supreme Court right-to-die precedent
Nancy Cruzan's parents should be allowed to let their daughter die.
For the past seven years Nancy has been kept alive by a machine. She has been connected to a feeding tube at the Missouri Rehabilitation Center since she sustained brain damage in a car accident. Since that time she has not uttered a sound.
According to the American Medical Association, 10,000 brain-dead individuals like Nancy are being kept alive only by means of a surgically inserted food tube.
Nancy's parents said it took a long time for them to accept that their daughter's condition was not going to change. They decided to remove her feeding tube in the fall of 1986 and asked the hospital to discontinue artificial feeding. They were denied that right in spring 1987. Since then the case has gone through the Missouri courts until it reached the U.S. Supreme Court.
The court has refused to hear all right-to-die cases that it has received during the past 16 years. Its decision, expected in May or June, could set an important precedent.
The Supreme Court should allow Nancy's parents to remove her feeding tube. She hasn't
actually been living for the last seven years, and nature should be allowed to take its course.
When Nancy was alive, she hadn't expected to receive an injury that would have left her in her current state. Although her parents say that she wouldn't have wanted to live this way, Nancy never signed a living will, a document stating her wishes regarding life-sustaining procedures or treatments she would have found acceptable.
When a brain-dead person is continuing to live only by means of a food tube, a family can be faced with a devastating decision.
Forty states and the District of Columbia have living-will laws. In Kansas a silent law exists regarding cases like these. If parents or guardians and doctors of such victims agree that discontinuing artificial feeding is best for the patient, the state government will not intervene.
These wills can play a crucial role in determining one's fate. Sometimes they can mean the difference between dying with dignity and prolonging the funeral.
Camille Krehbiel for the editorial board
Professor Kiel
KU administrators bow to prestige, lose an asset
A after teaching political theory at the University of Kansas for seven years, Dwight Kiel will be taking his business elsewhere.
Kiel, a professor many students describe as one of the best on campus, has accepted a job at the University of Central Florida. He obtained the position after KU refused to grant him tenure last year.
"I think they're more interested in my kind of publications and more interested in teaching than KU is," he said yesterday. "Obviously you would rather be someplace where they reward your strengths."
One of Kiel's strengths, in the eyes of his students and in his own opinion, is teaching. Apparently, for KU officials, being a superlative teacher is not sufficient.
Administrators tend to be very tight-lipped when it comes to disclosing reasons for personnel decisions. Kiel, on the other hand, is open about what he sees as the reason he was refused tenure.
"Schools try to up their prestige," he said. "The administration here wants to put a heavier emphasis on publication."
Concern about national standing hardly seems to be what tenure is about. Commonly described as a guarantee of academic freedom and due process, tenure is seen by many to be a partial guarantee of longtime employment.
Many say Kiel was denied that guarantee, and thus forced to leave KU, because of his publication record. Kiel is the first to admit that his level of published research is not as impressive as that of some of his colleagues. But is that a reason to force a talented teacher away from the University?
Kiel said that he is not bitter and does not hold any grudges against the University. He does, however, think the tenure review board made a mistake.
"I know I'm an effective teacher," he said. "I think the University shot itself in the foot, and institutions do that."
What the University shot was the chance for future generations to benefit from the teachings of a great teacher. Those students can lament the opportunity that has been taken away from them. And they should pray that Kiel's dismissal does not signal the start of a trend.
Critic draws unsavory reply
Threats to main or kill are fairly uncommon in the world of college journalism, but opinion-holder Bob Stewart struck the intimidation jackpot with his first attempt at self-expression in the University Daily Kansan.
Chris Evans Staff columnist
By the fourth call, John John's message was clear. A friend who answered the phone relayed the message to Stewart and, as death threats go, it was fairly straightforward.
"You're dead, man! YOU ARE DEAD!"
John John's threat was disturbing enough, but it was less troubling than a call received the following night. The call was from Ned Nixon, the executive director of Rock Chalk.
In a letter to the editor, Stewart suggested that, during the Rock Chalk Revue festivities, participants and show-goers be more conscious of the poor who benefited from Rock Chalk proceeds. He was concerned with who were involved cared more about the competition than about poverty.
At first glance, one might think that this is hardly the stuff of which death threats are made. However, the day that Stewart's letter hit the streets, he began receiving phone calls from a man who identified as John. When asked "John who?", the man replied, "John John!"
John John called once, letting Stewart know that he was upset that anyone would make Rock Chalk look bad. After a few minutes, John John's demeanor worsened and Stewart decided to hang up. When John John called a second time, he was in no better mood. He didn't seem any happier the third or fourth time either.
Nixon suggested to Stewart that he was mistaken when he targeted Rock Chalk as a group having members not concerned about the needy. He offered that it was wrong to put Rock Chalk in a bad light. He asked that Stewart print a retraction.
Now sure, I'm as much for stifling freedom of expression as the next guy. If Nixon wants to lean on Stewart to make him change his mind, power to him, right?
Hardly. I called Nixon, who recently had a rebuttal letter printed in the Kansan, to ask him why he had asked Stewart to print a retraction. He said that although Stewart's letter did not hurt Rock Chalk, it did associate a negative sentiment with the event.
"I have spent my entire college career doing this, and to see this the day after the show. . . . It was bad timing," Nixon said. "It made me mad that he was targeting Rock Chalk for something it doesn't do.
“Our people really care, and I think that when Stewart made his comments, he didn't have all his friends. He asked him to make the retraction.”
Mason seems confused about what are facts to be set straight and what are opinions to be expressed. It was Stewart's opinion, after speaking to several classmates involved with Rock Chalk, that many performers and other participants had little idea
about the charitable aspects of the show.
"The people in Rock Chalk were the ones who made me think in the first place," Stewart told me recently. "If they don't care about charity, then there's a serious problem."
Nixon told Stewart that he had talked to the wrong people, that he should have talked to the people in charge.
If Stewart wanted to get an idea of the entire group's attitude, public relations people hardly would have been the people to talk to. Instead, he talked to the show's participants. From talking to them he came to the conclusion that they saw Rock Chalk more as a competition than as a charity drive.
Stewart expressed his opinion. John John, apparently an emotional participant, called to tell Stewart his opinion. That, despite the threats, is more understandable than the leader of Rock Chalk calling to ask Stewart to change his stance in print.
If Nixon was insulted and if he saw Stewart's letter as an attack, that is regrettable. But, in a society where freedom of expression is the rule and censorship is the exception, the voicing of opinions must be permitted.
Freedom of expression has long been a thorn in the side of men greater than the executive director of Rock Chalk. Nixon and others like him need to learn to tolerate criticism when it occurs, respond to it when they see fit, and, above all, not attempt to stifle it when they find it offensive.
> Chris Evans is a Hutchinson senior majoring in journalism and French.
Other Voices
Defense Department subsidizes NRA
Not many people are aware that the Defense Department indirectly subsidizes the National Rifle Association. The multimillion-dollar handout is drawing the attention it deserves as the Pentagon adjusts to a shrinking share of the federal budget.
The subsidy comes from the Army's Division of Civilian Marksmanship, or DCM, which was established in 1903 to improve the shooting skills among men of military age. The program received $4.6 million in fiscal 1990; the Bush budget for fiscal 1991 asks for $5.6 million. . .
About 200 marksmens were recruited last year for the military as a result of DCM's efforts. That works well with other units, such as the House Armed Services Committee calls a very expensive recruiting tool.
Rep. Fortney Stark, D-Calf., isn't the first to question the value of the program. Ex-President Jimmy Carter tried to do away with it, and a federal judge once suggested that the symbolic relationship between the Army and the NRA might be unhealthy because the NRA attempts to influence the government on controversial issues, such as gun control.
Thousands of small items could be cut from the budget without impairing U.S. interests; the Army's NRA-oriented marksmanship program is one of them.
From the San Antonio Express-
News, March 19.
News staff
Richard Breck ... Editor
Daniel Nieml ... Managing editor
Christopher R. Relaton ... Newer editor
Liam Magee ... Learning editor
John Milburn ... Editorial editor
Candy Niemmle ... Campus editor
Mike Corollino ... Campus editor
E. Joseph Zurga ... Photo editor
Stephen Kline ... Graphics editor
Kira Burguelte ... Animal feature editor
Tom Burch ... General manager for features
Business staff
Margaret Townsend...Business manager
Tami Rank...Retail sales manager
Misey Miller...Campus sales manager
Kathy Roll...Regional manager
Jeanne Lehman...National sales manager
Mindy Morris...Co-op sales manager
Nate Stamos...Production manager
Mark Burchard...Assistant product manager
Carrie Shainke...Marketing director
James Glannapp...Creative director
Janet Rothholm...Classified manager
Heidi Glannapp...Travel manager
Jennie Hines...Sales and marketing adviser
Letters should be typed, double-spaced and less than 200 words and must include the writer's signature, name, address and telephone number. If the writer is affiliated with the University of Kansas, please include class and hometown, or faculty or staff position.
Guest questions should be typed, double-spaced and less than 700 words. The writer will
The Kenyan reserves the right to reject or edit letters, guest columns and cartoons. They may also reject or edit any material that they deem inappropriate. Columns and cartoons are the opinion of the writer and do not necessarily reflect the views of the editorial team.
LETTERS to the EDITOR
Winter graduates
I graduated in December 1989. I'm told I "officially" graduated in January. Either way, I no longer pay tuition or attend classes, and I don't have a diploma. As a winter graduate, I really feel that I've been given the shaft. There was no graduates' picnic, no opportunity to order announcements, no for-credit letter from the Alumni Association, no money and offering me their newsletter or a sticker for my car, and as of March 7, I still don't have a diploma.
I am a graduate of the University of Kansas, and that is the reason for this letter.
I put in my share of all-nighters, wrote nine tuition checks (out-of-state tuition, I might add), attended several Kansas basketball games, and all I really want is to be recognized as a graduate. I
realize an institution of this size can't offer two graduation ceremonies a year, and that's fine. However, I really think someone should realize the shortcomings of the University in respect to winter graduates.
Stephanie Lawrence Neiger KIU graduate
Eco-propaganda
On a day in April, more than 100 million people around the world will celebrate and honor the planet we call home. Earth Day 1990, to be held Sunday, April 22, provides each of us much needed time to reflect on the beauty and fragility of our habitat. No one who cares about the fate of mankind should neglect to give Earth Day the attention it deserves. However, the ecological health of the globe merits at least one day in the international spotlight, many are using Earth Day as a forum to promote a radical, anti-industry cause.
There are some self-proclaimed environmentalists who are preparing to scare us with escalated doomsday predictions about the dire consequences of our industrial
To believe that the progress of mankind is necessarily in direct conflict with environmental protection reflects a cave dweller's mentality. In fact, progress and technology, when properly utilized, benefit the ecosystem by allowing us to make the most use of the Earth's natural resources. There is no better example of this than the harnessing of the atom for electricity.
While you will hear much on Earth Day about global warming, acid rain, particulate emissions and urban smog, there will be hardly any voices heard supporting nuclear power as one of the
Nuclear power is the cleanest, safest source of energy known to man. Already the second largest source of electricity in the United States behind coal, its potential is limitless. It has one of the safest track records of any U.S. industry since the pew pollution into the atmosphere
progress. Conjuring specters of a cancer epidemic, a melting globe, environmental devastation and, eventually, a lifeless planet, these groups either manipulate science or simply ignore it in their pursuit of an extreme agenda.
solutions to these concerns. And amazingly, most of the high priests of the environment delivering the Earth Day liturgies will preach concern for nature while rejecting the very technology that is best suited to provide environmentally sound energy.
In France, where nuclear power generates more than 70 percent of the country's electricity, utility emissions of carbon dioxide have been virtually eliminated. Particulate emissions by utilities have been reduced by almost 98 percent. And this occurred during the a period in which France's demand for electricity grew by 50 percent.
Unfortunately for many of Earth Day's organizers, France proves our planet can be saved without sacrificing our electrical supply, our standard of living and the U.S. economy at the environmental altar. As we celebrate the beauty and wonder of our habitat on Earth Day, we should remember that seeking environmental problems is good, but seeking realistic environmental solutions is better.
John Nottensmeyer Paola junior
CAMP UHNEELY
INEFFICIENT SPRINKLERS
EMPTY ENGINEWISHERS, OPEN
GAS CANG, BROKEN SMOKE
ALARMS, FRAYED WIRING, ONLY
RAGS, FLAMMABLE PAAMAS
INADEQUATE VENTILATION,
CARCOALER TOO CLOSE TO
THE HOUSE, CLOGED FIRE-
PLACE, UNFIT EXTENSION CORDS
BLOCKED FIRE
AND You DON'T HAVE EMERGENCY NUMBERS BY THE TELEPHONE.
BY SCOTT PATTY