So I have felt that I perhaps have been neglecting this blog a bit in recent weeks and only talking about some off-topic subjects, so I want to shift the focus back onto LA a bit. I was reading the LA Times online today and randomly found perhaps the websites most interesting feature: its updated daily Homicide Map!
Not only does this "map" show where all 629 homicides in LA County occured over the past year, but many other details are provided. Pictures (if they could find them)are included, as well as details such as Age, Gender, Cause of Death, and my personal favorite, Race.
Apparently, Sunday is the day to most be on the lookout, as about twice as many deaths occured on Sunday compared to other days of the week, with Saturday coming in at a distant second. Thankfully there is a handy bar graph to visualize all of these facts.
It also looks like more homicides occur during the summer months. Anyone have any ideas why? The heat? Boredom?
I wonder how many of these homicide maps there are in other newspapers across the country.
I also wonder where LA ranks in term of most murderous cities in America. I'm sure the data is out there, does anyone know?
Monday, October 15, 2007
Saturday, October 6, 2007
Religion in Public Intellectualism
To add on to my previous post on Public Intellectualism, the role of the so-called cleric in the realm of intellectualism is one that is highly debated. Some hard-line secularists claim that the two realms of religion and intellectualism are mutually exclusive – one is based on belief and the other facts. Others claim that religion has a large role in the public intellectual realm. The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle. Once again, I will encourage you to head over to the increasingly cited Stephen Mack, who wrote a companion piece to his own Public Intellectual essay entitled Wicked Paradox: The Cleric as Public Intellectual.
Mack makes a lot of convincing arguments in this piece. While I don’t usually agree with Mack on everything, I think he does a fair job of protecting the role that religion has played in shaping American politics against the angry secularists who denounce its legitimacy in their field. While I myself am not a very religious person at all, I still agree that religion played perhaps the central role in forming this nation, and the Constitution is based on many of the good things that religion is supposed to provide. Mack does a nice job of explaining this in the following passage:
This hostility towards any religion in the public intellectual field reminds me of point I made in my previous post about the pessimism towards the role of intellectualism as a whole in America. I find many of these public figures to be angry people who seem to feel they are above the rest of the country in their intelligence and importance. While I wholeheartedly agree with strict separation between church and state, I find it undemocratic to try and ban the discussion of religious values in formulating public policy. Many of the tenants of religion (specifically the Judeo-Christian values found in the majority of American figures, but found in the vast majority of all major religion) are aimed at promoting harmony and peace. There is nothing wrong with promoting just laws and policies aimed at these goals, and our country has been formed to try and guarantee at least “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as promised in the Declaration of Independence.
Now when it comes to education, I agree that religion should not be prevalent. When it comes to that realm of intellectualism (academia), the two seem to be incompatible. However, public intellectualism covers a lot more ground than just academia, and thus there is a room for religion in the realm. So I agree that evolution should be taught instead of creationism, and no public funds should go to promoting any religion in the classroom. Fortunately, these things are already protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Our government is designed to neither promote nor prohibit any particular religion, and so far I think it is doing a pretty decent job at it.
Recently, the role of religion in the public sphere has been magnified during the last seven years of the Bush Administration. The outspoken liberals on the left have been blaming plenty of things on the Bush Administration’s using religion as a crutch to round up support from the conservative religious population, and the conservatives claim that the liberals are attacking religion itself with their extreme secularism. There is no doubt that the Administration made a strategic decision to target the religious right in the small states and Middle America, with very successful results. However, how much has religion actually played on any important legislation? Abortion is still legal, and creationism is still not being taught in school. The only real issue with strong religious points of contention has been the debate over same-sex marriage. However, this has not been a conservative vs. liberal issue, as many democrats oppose legislation legalizing it as well. Why? Well, because virtually ALL political figures are religious themselves (and if they are not, they have to play like they are for the voters)! It is not the religious right vs. secularist left battle that it is often portrayed as. Once again, religion plays a large role in public intellectualism.
So where do we go from here? Over the course of our development as a country, we have been working to arrive to the point we are at today. There is a clear divide between religion and the state (and education), yet religion is still extremely prominent and represented by our elected officials. Public intellectuals will have to ease their anti-religion stance and recognize its importance in their field of expertise. It permeates all of society and is something that should not be feared or persecuted against.
Mack makes a lot of convincing arguments in this piece. While I don’t usually agree with Mack on everything, I think he does a fair job of protecting the role that religion has played in shaping American politics against the angry secularists who denounce its legitimacy in their field. While I myself am not a very religious person at all, I still agree that religion played perhaps the central role in forming this nation, and the Constitution is based on many of the good things that religion is supposed to provide. Mack does a nice job of explaining this in the following passage:
In many ways, American political history is the history of activist theologians from the right and the left. These men and women have been intellectuals of a special kind—people whose religious training and experience shaped their vision of a just society and required them to work for it. They have been key players in some of our most important reform movements, from abolitionism, the labor movement, and civil rights to the peace movements of various generations
This hostility towards any religion in the public intellectual field reminds me of point I made in my previous post about the pessimism towards the role of intellectualism as a whole in America. I find many of these public figures to be angry people who seem to feel they are above the rest of the country in their intelligence and importance. While I wholeheartedly agree with strict separation between church and state, I find it undemocratic to try and ban the discussion of religious values in formulating public policy. Many of the tenants of religion (specifically the Judeo-Christian values found in the majority of American figures, but found in the vast majority of all major religion) are aimed at promoting harmony and peace. There is nothing wrong with promoting just laws and policies aimed at these goals, and our country has been formed to try and guarantee at least “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” as promised in the Declaration of Independence.
Now when it comes to education, I agree that religion should not be prevalent. When it comes to that realm of intellectualism (academia), the two seem to be incompatible. However, public intellectualism covers a lot more ground than just academia, and thus there is a room for religion in the realm. So I agree that evolution should be taught instead of creationism, and no public funds should go to promoting any religion in the classroom. Fortunately, these things are already protected by the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Our government is designed to neither promote nor prohibit any particular religion, and so far I think it is doing a pretty decent job at it.
Recently, the role of religion in the public sphere has been magnified during the last seven years of the Bush Administration. The outspoken liberals on the left have been blaming plenty of things on the Bush Administration’s using religion as a crutch to round up support from the conservative religious population, and the conservatives claim that the liberals are attacking religion itself with their extreme secularism. There is no doubt that the Administration made a strategic decision to target the religious right in the small states and Middle America, with very successful results. However, how much has religion actually played on any important legislation? Abortion is still legal, and creationism is still not being taught in school. The only real issue with strong religious points of contention has been the debate over same-sex marriage. However, this has not been a conservative vs. liberal issue, as many democrats oppose legislation legalizing it as well. Why? Well, because virtually ALL political figures are religious themselves (and if they are not, they have to play like they are for the voters)! It is not the religious right vs. secularist left battle that it is often portrayed as. Once again, religion plays a large role in public intellectualism.
So where do we go from here? Over the course of our development as a country, we have been working to arrive to the point we are at today. There is a clear divide between religion and the state (and education), yet religion is still extremely prominent and represented by our elected officials. Public intellectuals will have to ease their anti-religion stance and recognize its importance in their field of expertise. It permeates all of society and is something that should not be feared or persecuted against.
Friday, October 5, 2007
Public Intellectualism
From the earliest philosophers to the latest columnists, many people throughout history have been labeled “Public Intellectuals”. These people have and continue to serve an important role in society, providing the public with figures to look to when evaluating issues that require informed opinions. Sometimes these individuals feel they know the solution to every problem, and others simply prefer to point out problems. Through Public Intellectuals, societies have literally sprung to life based on principles that had not been exhibited prior. Plato, perhaps the earliest known published Public Intellectual, outlined his vision for the perfect city in Republic (although how perfect that city would be is highly debatable). John Locke, JS Mill, and other liberal thinkers provided the inspiration for the U.S. Constitution.
Fellow blogger Stephen Mack raises up an interesting issue in his essay entitled The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals. In his post, Mack argues against the growing notion of America as being a place of “anti-intellectualism”. Instead of the country being anti-intellectual, perhaps the so-called Public Intellectuals are simply not used to receiving criticism, something that comes along with that title that many have bestowed upon themselves. Mack shoots down the ‘America as the deathbed of public intellectualism’ myth quite well in this passage:
Not only do we look to these professors and intellectuals for their input, we flock to these institutions to pursue, as Mack puts it, “The American Dream”. In today’s culture, one cannot hope to find a decent job or role in society without at least a bachelor’s degree from a major university. From the moment a child is born, most parents will do everything they can to ensure their children “goes to a decent college”, and this is reflected in their upbringing. If we as Americans displayed the type of hostility towards intellectualism as claimed here by some disgruntled writers and here by Richard Posner, this obsession with pursuing high levels of education would be frowned upon, not encouraged.
As Mack alludes to, perhaps what is perceived by these pessimists as anti-intellectualism is just an alternative way of living. I would go another step forward and suggest that it may just be criticism. It is very possible that those who fancy themselves to be Public Intellectuals believe so strongly that their words are infallible that, when exposed through public channels, they retreat into their cave of self-justification and label these legitimate criticisms as an attack on intellectualism itself. Instead of behaving like true intellectuals, these commentators shun things that they do not partake in themselves and label it as un-intellectual and therefore just another chink in America’s self-worth and the further decline of society towards the idiotic.
In fact, I would also suggest that this proclamation of America’s intellectual decline is rooted in the common myth of nostalgia. In society, a yearning for the “better days” of the past can be found in every generation. Many people clamor for the days of old when people were of “stronger moral fiber” and the such. The WWII generation was “the Greatest Generation” and each subsequent generation has failed to live up to their lofty status and hopes. This can be found in many aspects of society, as we are constantly reminded by our elders of the days when there was virtually no crime and horrible things that are commonplace supposedly were unheard of. The truth is there were just as many perverts and criminals in the past, but it was simply shielded from the public eye as well as the younger members of the population. Looking at this nostalgic characteristic of the public, we can see that perhaps these intellectuals saying the world is going to hell can be lumped in with this myth of the superiority of the past. In truth, people today are far more educated than they ever have been, and society as a whole is much more in tune with the way things work and trying to look at things from a more intellectual viewpoint.
The decline of public intellectualism is merely a myth that is being spread around by a group of pessimistic and angry individuals who feel they are not being taken seriously enough. Whether it is due to the alternate lifestyles of individuals as Mack points out, or whether they are simply growing bitter with the growing world and their lack of size in it, this angry posturing is getting old. Not everything is bad with today’s society, and there is a lot of intellectualism to be found around the globe.
Fellow blogger Stephen Mack raises up an interesting issue in his essay entitled The "Decline" of Public Intellectuals. In his post, Mack argues against the growing notion of America as being a place of “anti-intellectualism”. Instead of the country being anti-intellectual, perhaps the so-called Public Intellectuals are simply not used to receiving criticism, something that comes along with that title that many have bestowed upon themselves. Mack shoots down the ‘America as the deathbed of public intellectualism’ myth quite well in this passage:
Without replaying the whole debate, two points will suffice: One, the fact that academic institutions wield enormous financial, technological, and cultural power—and the fact that, more generally, education continues to be the centerpiece of some of our most cherished social myths (i.e., “the “American Dream”)—are both powerful reasons to doubt that Americans suffer from some instinctive hostility to intellectuals. Two, what is sometimes identified as anti-intellectualism is in fact intellectual—that is, a well articulated family of ideas and arguments that privilege the practical, active side of life (e.g., work) over the passive and purely reflective operations of the mind in a vacuum.To expand upon his first point, academic institutions indeed harbor a tremendous amount of influence on virtually everything in American society. All one has to do is to watch any television program dealing with any particular social or scientific problem or read any academic journal and you will find representatives from hundreds of universities who are more than willing to serve the role as ‘expert’ for the masses. These people themselves form the majority of the Public Intellectuals found in this country, vastly outnumbering the few who operate solo or through the press. Who else do we turn to when an issue or topic needs explaining or further exploration? These public intellectuals deal with issues ranging from political unrest in the Middle East, to global warming, to natural phenomena and disasters, all the way to trying to explain the legal process to the masses when our favorite celebrity is arrested for driving drunk for the fifth time while high on cocaine. We as Americans look to these figures to give forth their expert opinions and derive our own thoughts from their views.
Not only do we look to these professors and intellectuals for their input, we flock to these institutions to pursue, as Mack puts it, “The American Dream”. In today’s culture, one cannot hope to find a decent job or role in society without at least a bachelor’s degree from a major university. From the moment a child is born, most parents will do everything they can to ensure their children “goes to a decent college”, and this is reflected in their upbringing. If we as Americans displayed the type of hostility towards intellectualism as claimed here by some disgruntled writers and here by Richard Posner, this obsession with pursuing high levels of education would be frowned upon, not encouraged.
As Mack alludes to, perhaps what is perceived by these pessimists as anti-intellectualism is just an alternative way of living. I would go another step forward and suggest that it may just be criticism. It is very possible that those who fancy themselves to be Public Intellectuals believe so strongly that their words are infallible that, when exposed through public channels, they retreat into their cave of self-justification and label these legitimate criticisms as an attack on intellectualism itself. Instead of behaving like true intellectuals, these commentators shun things that they do not partake in themselves and label it as un-intellectual and therefore just another chink in America’s self-worth and the further decline of society towards the idiotic.
In fact, I would also suggest that this proclamation of America’s intellectual decline is rooted in the common myth of nostalgia. In society, a yearning for the “better days” of the past can be found in every generation. Many people clamor for the days of old when people were of “stronger moral fiber” and the such. The WWII generation was “the Greatest Generation” and each subsequent generation has failed to live up to their lofty status and hopes. This can be found in many aspects of society, as we are constantly reminded by our elders of the days when there was virtually no crime and horrible things that are commonplace supposedly were unheard of. The truth is there were just as many perverts and criminals in the past, but it was simply shielded from the public eye as well as the younger members of the population. Looking at this nostalgic characteristic of the public, we can see that perhaps these intellectuals saying the world is going to hell can be lumped in with this myth of the superiority of the past. In truth, people today are far more educated than they ever have been, and society as a whole is much more in tune with the way things work and trying to look at things from a more intellectual viewpoint.
The decline of public intellectualism is merely a myth that is being spread around by a group of pessimistic and angry individuals who feel they are not being taken seriously enough. Whether it is due to the alternate lifestyles of individuals as Mack points out, or whether they are simply growing bitter with the growing world and their lack of size in it, this angry posturing is getting old. Not everything is bad with today’s society, and there is a lot of intellectualism to be found around the globe.
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
Plea to the County: Do Not Close King-Harbor
As the second largest city in the country, Los Angeles is home to millions and millions of people of all races and creeds. Every citizen of the city should be entitled to similar access to public services, specifically medical facilities such as hospitals and emergency rooms. With the closure of King-Harbor, hundreds of thousands of Los Angelenos in South Los Angeles are deprived of an absolute necessity. With no public hospital in the immediate area, thousands are potentially put at unnecessary risk and have little options at their disposal. While there are private medical institutions in the area, many of the residents of the area simply cannot afford to go there. The government’s offer to help subsidize the costs incurred to the private hospitals of the area is a nice gesture, but they still do not have the size or staff to be able to handle the influx of patients they are going to be receiving in the future, and the payoffs made to them won’t be enough to cover their costs. While it is true that continuing to run the King-Harbor hospital as it has been would be borderline criminal, the decision to shut it down is the absolute wrong one. Instead, the hospital should go through a complete transition and have its staff completely overhauled while continuing to offer much needed service to those in need.
The troubles with Martin Luther King-Harbor (formerly MLK-Bell Hospital) are nothing new. The hospital officially opened its doors in 1972, being born out of the chaos of the 1965 Watts Riots. Immediately after the riots, it became readily apparent that a hospital in the Watts area was sorely needed. The hospital itself was looked at as a victory for the African-American minority which made up the majority of the South Los Angeles area (Steinhauer). However, since its inception the hospital has been plagued by administrative and medical problems. More specifically, over the past four years the county has issued stern warnings to the hospital to fix their numerous problems. Some examples of negligence that was uncovered include employees who failed to wash their hands, equipment not being cleaned properly, and nurses who did not know how to administer basic tasks such as checking in on patients (King-Harbor). However, the final straw came in May 2007 when the details of the death of Edith Rodriguez in the hospital’s waiting room became public and the top headline for every news program.
Fatal Results from Incompetence
Edith Rodriguez was a 43-year-old mother of three who lived in the South Los Angeles area. She was living in poverty and had many health problems. Early in the morning on May 9th, Edith was rushed to the emergency room at King-Harbor complaining of severe pain in her stomach. She had already been to the same emergency room three times, and had received nothing but pain medication and a release. This time, the staff refused to see her, saying there was nothing more to be done and to go home. Rodriguez refused to leave, and eventually started vomiting blood in the waiting room while the hospital staff did absolutely nothing. In panic, her boyfriend called 911 from an outside pay phone and pleaded for help, but was told that since she was already at a hospital there was nothing they could do. As if that was not enough, another person who was also in the waiting room called 911 from her cell phone, pleading for the operator to send help. The operator responded rudely and informed her that this simply was not an emergency and to stay off the emergency line. Edith Rodriguez died early in the morning of a perforated bowel, which according to the coroner developed in the last 24 hours of her life (ABC News).
What makes this case even more shocking is the video and audio evidence explicitly demonstrating the incompetence of several individuals which directly led to Rodriguez’s death. Almost immediately, the 911 audiotapes of both the boyfriend and the concerned Samaritan were made public. The bureaucracy displayed in the refusal to send help was shocking. The first operator said that since Rodriguez was already in a hospital that he was not allowed to send for help. The second operator was just extremely rude and condescending and in no way was trying to help what was obviously a life-or-death situation. What is even more damning however is the existence of a videotape showing Rodriguez falling out of her wheelchair, collapsing on the floor in a pool of her own blood and vomit. No one did anything to help her. In fact, on the video, a janitor is shown mopping up around her as she laid there literally dying in front of the hospital staff (How a Hospital).
Though it was the death of Edith Rodriguez that proved to be the final nail in the coffin for the hospital in the public’s eye, there were many other instances of gross neglect leading to the death of those who should not have. As stated here in this story by the LA Times,
Why Should the Hospital Remain Open?
Los Angeles already has enough problems providing ample medical care to its citizens. Closing down one of its biggest hospitals obviously does nothing to alleviate this problem. Shutting down the hospital is akin to “cutting your nose off to spite your face”. Instead of looking for solutions, the powers that be are merely taking the easy way out. As the former administrator of the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs Thomas Scully points out in this Op-Ed urging for the hospital to remain open, “…neither pointing fingers nor closing it down will help. The problems at the hospital have festered for years and will require many more years — and cool heads — to fix”.
The closure of King-Harbor is just another hardship to a minority community (the residents of South Los Angeles) faced with too many. Already an area known for its widespread poverty and poor living conditions, taking away the main source of medical care is only significantly adding on to the problems that already plague the area. As Scully notes in his Op-Ed, “King-Harbor treated nearly 47,000 patients last year, and closing it would just force patients to go farther away to other facilities that could quickly find themselves overwhelmed”. With the plan right now for the hospital to be closed for 12-18 months (King-Harbor), that leaves about 70,000 potential patients who have to find other places to be treated. Many of the surrounding private facilities are already crowded, and this will only put a larger strain on these facilities. This will lead to longer hospital rides and potentially more unnecessary deaths.
Even though it is currently being suggested that the hospital be reopened as soon as possible, the actual act of closing it down in the first place is going to delay its eventual reintroduction, potentially by many years. Not only will there be an obligatory period of inactivity for 12-18 months, but the facility has to start completely over. The time it will take to regain all the proper permits and licenses is going to be significant. Instead of treating potentially tens of thousands of patients, they will be helping absolutely nobody. Currently, the plan is to reach out to the private sector and hope to find interest on that end. However, many in the field have already expressed significant doubt over the likelihood that any private entity will come within a mile of the much maligned hospital. If a private suitor cannot be persuaded to take over the operations, then many months and potentially years are added to the wait for the hospital and ER to be reopened through public means (King-Harbor).
Possible Solutions
Instead of shutting down the facility, surplus staff and volunteers from the surrounding area should be reassigned under the county’s supervision. Medical operatives who supervised the hospital in its last days should instead be moved there temporarily while an exhaustive review is conducted. Those who are found to be competent can stay on but under a probationary status, while new staff is hired at attractive rates to persuade more people to work there. What happened in the past “overhauls” of King-Harbor simply cannot happen again. The last time the staff was reviewed, the powers-that-be decided to retain 75% of them (Close King-Harbor). Obviously, this was far too many. From the top to the bottom, sweeping changes are an absolute necessity. Tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars have already been spent on failed consulting firms (Close King-Harbor), so that mistake needs not be repeated. Retain only those who have repeatedly showcased their competency and willingness to better the situation. Put county and state medical officials in charge of the operations and let them have free reign to put together a top-rate staff.
Once these drastic changes have begun, the next step in the process is to launch a massive public relations campaign. Let it be known to the people of Los Angeles (especially those in South L.A.) that their government is apologizing for the horrible state in which the hospital was run, and how such inadequacies will not be tolerated. Both local and national reporters should be invited to visit the hospital and see the many improvements for themselves. This will be the start of a good-will campaign to gain back the trust of those who have been burned in the past. It will also help repair relations between city and county officials with the minorities in the area who have been receiving unequal treatment due to the fear of political correctness. For many years, King-Harbor had numerous problems that went unfixed because people were scared to anger the community. The hospital had been seen as a place created for the African-American community and run mainly by African-Americans, so local officials were hesitant to intervene (Steinhauer). This is of course a ridiculous notion, as the hospital instead was neglected and the problems were compounded.
Do the Media and Elected Officials Care Enough?
Today, the American media is too focused on the war in Iraq and the failed policies of the President’s foreign policy to give the proper time to domestic issues such as insuring proper healthcare is made available to its citizens. With the upcoming Presidential elections in 2008, healthcare is an issue that is bound to come back into importance. However, just how important is it going to be made of by the media? So far, the only notable mention of healthcare recently has been Hillary Clinton’s proclamation for a much more socialized medical system. What should be more of an issue is the actual availability of proper medical facilities to ALL citizens regardless of status rather than who pays for it, which is something that candidates from both political parties should agree on. While the problems with King-Harbor would appear to be more of a local and state concern, that is not fully the case. The hospital had been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid, and will depend on such aid in the future if a private company does not come in and takeover responsibility. Will the topic of under funded public hospitals in major cities in areas of poverty take center stage in any round of the Presidential debates? Most likely not. It is up to the local press here in Los Angeles to make a point to bring the topic back into the nation’s attention. While the horrible story of Edith Rodriguez will not be forgotten, the closure of the actual hospital received far less press. What is not being reported is the potential of hundreds of thousands of lives being affected for the worse because there is not a proper hospital or emergency room made available to them.
Righting a Wrong
Out of the failure of the previous Hospital rises the potential for something great. With the need now greater than ever to provide competent health care to the local population, city and county officials can use this disaster as a great opportunity to mend fences and do something truly for the greater good of the city. The infrastructure is still in place at the hospital along with all the proper supplies and equipment to have a well run medical facility that would meet the needs of the citizens of this city. Those in power must not be tempted to take the easy way out and ignore the problem. It was easy to just shut the hospital down and say they will try and address it in a few years. It takes a lot more initiative and courage to stand up and demand justice for the local residents who are in desperate need of basic human services that should always be made available to them. Martin Luther King-Harbor Hospital should be reopened immediately with a new staff dedicated to making the system work and helping those who are in need.
Works Cited
"Close King-Harbor." Los Angeles Times 24 June 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-king-harbor24jun24,0,4095761.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials.
Ornstein, Charles. "How a Hospital Death Became a Cause Celebre." Los Angeles Times 15 June 200. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-king15jun15,1,633441.story?coll=la-headlines-california.
Ornstein, Charles, Tracy Weber, and Jack Leonard. "King-Harbor Fails Final Check, Will Close Soon." Los Angeles Times 11 Aug. 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-king11aug11,0,3698687.story?page=1&coll=la-home-center.
Scully, Thomas. "Closing King-Harbor Isn't the Answer." Los Angeles Times 15 June 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scully15jun15,1,4363655.story.
Steinhauer, Jennifer. "A Hospital, Pulse of a Neighborhood, is Mourned." New York Times 21 Aug. 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/us/21kingharbor.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1190186817-1NxTe7BeKyVZYApXTKCsHA.
"Woman's Death in L.A. Hospital Remains a Mystery." ABC News. 14 June 2007. GMA. 11 Sept. 2007 http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3273239&page=1.
The troubles with Martin Luther King-Harbor (formerly MLK-Bell Hospital) are nothing new. The hospital officially opened its doors in 1972, being born out of the chaos of the 1965 Watts Riots. Immediately after the riots, it became readily apparent that a hospital in the Watts area was sorely needed. The hospital itself was looked at as a victory for the African-American minority which made up the majority of the South Los Angeles area (Steinhauer). However, since its inception the hospital has been plagued by administrative and medical problems. More specifically, over the past four years the county has issued stern warnings to the hospital to fix their numerous problems. Some examples of negligence that was uncovered include employees who failed to wash their hands, equipment not being cleaned properly, and nurses who did not know how to administer basic tasks such as checking in on patients (King-Harbor). However, the final straw came in May 2007 when the details of the death of Edith Rodriguez in the hospital’s waiting room became public and the top headline for every news program.
Fatal Results from Incompetence
Edith Rodriguez was a 43-year-old mother of three who lived in the South Los Angeles area. She was living in poverty and had many health problems. Early in the morning on May 9th, Edith was rushed to the emergency room at King-Harbor complaining of severe pain in her stomach. She had already been to the same emergency room three times, and had received nothing but pain medication and a release. This time, the staff refused to see her, saying there was nothing more to be done and to go home. Rodriguez refused to leave, and eventually started vomiting blood in the waiting room while the hospital staff did absolutely nothing. In panic, her boyfriend called 911 from an outside pay phone and pleaded for help, but was told that since she was already at a hospital there was nothing they could do. As if that was not enough, another person who was also in the waiting room called 911 from her cell phone, pleading for the operator to send help. The operator responded rudely and informed her that this simply was not an emergency and to stay off the emergency line. Edith Rodriguez died early in the morning of a perforated bowel, which according to the coroner developed in the last 24 hours of her life (ABC News).
What makes this case even more shocking is the video and audio evidence explicitly demonstrating the incompetence of several individuals which directly led to Rodriguez’s death. Almost immediately, the 911 audiotapes of both the boyfriend and the concerned Samaritan were made public. The bureaucracy displayed in the refusal to send help was shocking. The first operator said that since Rodriguez was already in a hospital that he was not allowed to send for help. The second operator was just extremely rude and condescending and in no way was trying to help what was obviously a life-or-death situation. What is even more damning however is the existence of a videotape showing Rodriguez falling out of her wheelchair, collapsing on the floor in a pool of her own blood and vomit. No one did anything to help her. In fact, on the video, a janitor is shown mopping up around her as she laid there literally dying in front of the hospital staff (How a Hospital).
Though it was the death of Edith Rodriguez that proved to be the final nail in the coffin for the hospital in the public’s eye, there were many other instances of gross neglect leading to the death of those who should not have. As stated here in this story by the LA Times,
Hers was one in a series of cases allegedly mishandled by King-Harbor, formerly known as King/Drew. In 1994, a woman was infected with HIV after the hospital mistakenly gave her a transfusion with blood that had tested positive for the virus. Years later, a woman died after drinking a glass of tissue preservative left by her bedside. In 2000, a 9-year-old died from a cascade of errors stemming from treatment of two broken teeth.Clearly, something had to be done. The death of Edith Rodriguez served as the facilitator to getting the word out to the public that the King-Harbor medical facility was one of the worst in the nation. The federal government responded by withdrawing its $200 million grant after the hospital failed numerous tests (King-Harbor). Unfortunately, the decision was made to shut it down rather than try and turn it around one more time.
Why Should the Hospital Remain Open?
Los Angeles already has enough problems providing ample medical care to its citizens. Closing down one of its biggest hospitals obviously does nothing to alleviate this problem. Shutting down the hospital is akin to “cutting your nose off to spite your face”. Instead of looking for solutions, the powers that be are merely taking the easy way out. As the former administrator of the federal Medicare and Medicaid programs Thomas Scully points out in this Op-Ed urging for the hospital to remain open, “…neither pointing fingers nor closing it down will help. The problems at the hospital have festered for years and will require many more years — and cool heads — to fix”.
The closure of King-Harbor is just another hardship to a minority community (the residents of South Los Angeles) faced with too many. Already an area known for its widespread poverty and poor living conditions, taking away the main source of medical care is only significantly adding on to the problems that already plague the area. As Scully notes in his Op-Ed, “King-Harbor treated nearly 47,000 patients last year, and closing it would just force patients to go farther away to other facilities that could quickly find themselves overwhelmed”. With the plan right now for the hospital to be closed for 12-18 months (King-Harbor), that leaves about 70,000 potential patients who have to find other places to be treated. Many of the surrounding private facilities are already crowded, and this will only put a larger strain on these facilities. This will lead to longer hospital rides and potentially more unnecessary deaths.
Even though it is currently being suggested that the hospital be reopened as soon as possible, the actual act of closing it down in the first place is going to delay its eventual reintroduction, potentially by many years. Not only will there be an obligatory period of inactivity for 12-18 months, but the facility has to start completely over. The time it will take to regain all the proper permits and licenses is going to be significant. Instead of treating potentially tens of thousands of patients, they will be helping absolutely nobody. Currently, the plan is to reach out to the private sector and hope to find interest on that end. However, many in the field have already expressed significant doubt over the likelihood that any private entity will come within a mile of the much maligned hospital. If a private suitor cannot be persuaded to take over the operations, then many months and potentially years are added to the wait for the hospital and ER to be reopened through public means (King-Harbor).
Possible Solutions
Instead of shutting down the facility, surplus staff and volunteers from the surrounding area should be reassigned under the county’s supervision. Medical operatives who supervised the hospital in its last days should instead be moved there temporarily while an exhaustive review is conducted. Those who are found to be competent can stay on but under a probationary status, while new staff is hired at attractive rates to persuade more people to work there. What happened in the past “overhauls” of King-Harbor simply cannot happen again. The last time the staff was reviewed, the powers-that-be decided to retain 75% of them (Close King-Harbor). Obviously, this was far too many. From the top to the bottom, sweeping changes are an absolute necessity. Tens of millions of taxpayers’ dollars have already been spent on failed consulting firms (Close King-Harbor), so that mistake needs not be repeated. Retain only those who have repeatedly showcased their competency and willingness to better the situation. Put county and state medical officials in charge of the operations and let them have free reign to put together a top-rate staff.
Once these drastic changes have begun, the next step in the process is to launch a massive public relations campaign. Let it be known to the people of Los Angeles (especially those in South L.A.) that their government is apologizing for the horrible state in which the hospital was run, and how such inadequacies will not be tolerated. Both local and national reporters should be invited to visit the hospital and see the many improvements for themselves. This will be the start of a good-will campaign to gain back the trust of those who have been burned in the past. It will also help repair relations between city and county officials with the minorities in the area who have been receiving unequal treatment due to the fear of political correctness. For many years, King-Harbor had numerous problems that went unfixed because people were scared to anger the community. The hospital had been seen as a place created for the African-American community and run mainly by African-Americans, so local officials were hesitant to intervene (Steinhauer). This is of course a ridiculous notion, as the hospital instead was neglected and the problems were compounded.
Do the Media and Elected Officials Care Enough?
Today, the American media is too focused on the war in Iraq and the failed policies of the President’s foreign policy to give the proper time to domestic issues such as insuring proper healthcare is made available to its citizens. With the upcoming Presidential elections in 2008, healthcare is an issue that is bound to come back into importance. However, just how important is it going to be made of by the media? So far, the only notable mention of healthcare recently has been Hillary Clinton’s proclamation for a much more socialized medical system. What should be more of an issue is the actual availability of proper medical facilities to ALL citizens regardless of status rather than who pays for it, which is something that candidates from both political parties should agree on. While the problems with King-Harbor would appear to be more of a local and state concern, that is not fully the case. The hospital had been the recipient of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid, and will depend on such aid in the future if a private company does not come in and takeover responsibility. Will the topic of under funded public hospitals in major cities in areas of poverty take center stage in any round of the Presidential debates? Most likely not. It is up to the local press here in Los Angeles to make a point to bring the topic back into the nation’s attention. While the horrible story of Edith Rodriguez will not be forgotten, the closure of the actual hospital received far less press. What is not being reported is the potential of hundreds of thousands of lives being affected for the worse because there is not a proper hospital or emergency room made available to them.
Righting a Wrong
Out of the failure of the previous Hospital rises the potential for something great. With the need now greater than ever to provide competent health care to the local population, city and county officials can use this disaster as a great opportunity to mend fences and do something truly for the greater good of the city. The infrastructure is still in place at the hospital along with all the proper supplies and equipment to have a well run medical facility that would meet the needs of the citizens of this city. Those in power must not be tempted to take the easy way out and ignore the problem. It was easy to just shut the hospital down and say they will try and address it in a few years. It takes a lot more initiative and courage to stand up and demand justice for the local residents who are in desperate need of basic human services that should always be made available to them. Martin Luther King-Harbor Hospital should be reopened immediately with a new staff dedicated to making the system work and helping those who are in need.
Works Cited
"Close King-Harbor." Los Angeles Times 24 June 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-king-harbor24jun24,0,4095761.story?coll=la-news-comment-editorials.
Ornstein, Charles. "How a Hospital Death Became a Cause Celebre." Los Angeles Times 15 June 200. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-king15jun15,1,633441.story?coll=la-headlines-california.
Ornstein, Charles, Tracy Weber, and Jack Leonard. "King-Harbor Fails Final Check, Will Close Soon." Los Angeles Times 11 Aug. 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-king11aug11,0,3698687.story?page=1&coll=la-home-center.
Scully, Thomas. "Closing King-Harbor Isn't the Answer." Los Angeles Times 15 June 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-scully15jun15,1,4363655.story.
Steinhauer, Jennifer. "A Hospital, Pulse of a Neighborhood, is Mourned." New York Times 21 Aug. 2007. 11 Sept. 2007 http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/21/us/21kingharbor.html?hp=&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1190186817-1NxTe7BeKyVZYApXTKCsHA.
"Woman's Death in L.A. Hospital Remains a Mystery." ABC News. 14 June 2007. GMA. 11 Sept. 2007 http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=3273239&page=1.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Negotiating a Pullout
Despite President Bush's plan for a reduction of 21,500 troops in Iraq, Democrats in Congress are still unhappy with the warplan and are looking for a far more aggressive pullout. As discussed here on CNN.com, the Democrats in the Senate are trying to draft a plan that would gain the support of enough Republicans to bypass the President's plan.
The most interesting idea being tossed around is a plan being pushed by Senator Jim Webb of Viriginia that requires a certain amount of rest for the troops between deployments, effectively lowering troop numbers without explicitly doing so. This plan is supposedly the closest to being up for vote, and is intriguing to several Senators of both parties. No Republican Senators are comfortable with outright opposing the President right now, especially with the President's new attitude of being receptive to troop withdrawal.
Personally, I think a plan like this is the only way the Democrats are going to get any sort of reduction outside of the President's current plan. With the current gap between the two parties growing wider by the day, any plan that is going to be supported by both sides is going to have to be a compromise. With the American public growing more and more tired of the war by the second, this is as good of a time as any with the newfound Democratic strength in Congress to try and press for the beginning of a withdrawal of troops. The key is to avoid alienating any major group of either party. The ultra-liberals will not be happy with a plan that doesn't have a total withdrawal date, but they have to compromise and see this as a beginning instead of being stubborn and refusing to cooperate. Will they? We shall see, but I have a feeling they will. They have a responsibility to the voters to try and act in good faith, and here is a as good of an opportunity as they have had for years in reducing our presence in Iraq.
Another interesting story, this time from the LA Times, discusses the dissent between Bush and Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense. Gates is in favor of a much more dramatic pullout from Iraq, and hopes to lower troop numbers to 100,000 by next year. He makes an important statement in his views of a change of mission for future U.S. troops, with much more emphasis on counter-terrorism and letting the Iraqis govern themselves.
It is fascinating to see the split in opinion even in the President's own staff. I think this gives further strength to the Democrats in Congress to try and press for less troops. However, I agree with Gates in that setting a deadline for an allout pullout is unrealistic and would be exteremely damaging. It's been four years now and having 200,000 troops still in Iraq is simply moronic, but by setting some arbitrary date (especially any date within the next 18 months) and decreeing that we must "finish up" by then is not going to work.
The most interesting idea being tossed around is a plan being pushed by Senator Jim Webb of Viriginia that requires a certain amount of rest for the troops between deployments, effectively lowering troop numbers without explicitly doing so. This plan is supposedly the closest to being up for vote, and is intriguing to several Senators of both parties. No Republican Senators are comfortable with outright opposing the President right now, especially with the President's new attitude of being receptive to troop withdrawal.
Personally, I think a plan like this is the only way the Democrats are going to get any sort of reduction outside of the President's current plan. With the current gap between the two parties growing wider by the day, any plan that is going to be supported by both sides is going to have to be a compromise. With the American public growing more and more tired of the war by the second, this is as good of a time as any with the newfound Democratic strength in Congress to try and press for the beginning of a withdrawal of troops. The key is to avoid alienating any major group of either party. The ultra-liberals will not be happy with a plan that doesn't have a total withdrawal date, but they have to compromise and see this as a beginning instead of being stubborn and refusing to cooperate. Will they? We shall see, but I have a feeling they will. They have a responsibility to the voters to try and act in good faith, and here is a as good of an opportunity as they have had for years in reducing our presence in Iraq.
Another interesting story, this time from the LA Times, discusses the dissent between Bush and Robert Gates, the Secretary of Defense. Gates is in favor of a much more dramatic pullout from Iraq, and hopes to lower troop numbers to 100,000 by next year. He makes an important statement in his views of a change of mission for future U.S. troops, with much more emphasis on counter-terrorism and letting the Iraqis govern themselves.
It is fascinating to see the split in opinion even in the President's own staff. I think this gives further strength to the Democrats in Congress to try and press for less troops. However, I agree with Gates in that setting a deadline for an allout pullout is unrealistic and would be exteremely damaging. It's been four years now and having 200,000 troops still in Iraq is simply moronic, but by setting some arbitrary date (especially any date within the next 18 months) and decreeing that we must "finish up" by then is not going to work.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Serious content to come
I am merely awaiting the numerous responses to the just released report from General Petraeus. Until then...
FOOTBALL SEASON HAS FINALLY ARRIVED!
And no, I'm not talking about the NFL. While yeah the NFL provides a small amount of entertainment, it pales in comparison the greatest game on this planet, our country's true national pastime, College Football.
It is easy to discern who is intelligent and who is not by the sports they watch. People who only watch the NBA, MLB, and the NFL are people who most likely did not recieve a decent education, and thus have no connection to collegiate sports. These people think that because professional players are paid, the game is somehow "better". However, the corporatization of these leagues has sapped most of the life from the games. How can any objective person compare the pageantry and atmosphere of a college football game to the boring, slow, commercial-filled game of the NFL, where every team runs the EXACT same offense and defense and RBs who barely average 4 yards per carry are sent to the Pro Browl?
Anyway, the NFL does serve a purpose (hell its ten times better than baseball, but that's a post for a different day) but it still pales in comparison to CFB.
And what happened this weekend?
The biggest game of course was LSU's complete and utter beatdown of the then ranked #9 Virginia Tech Hokies, much to the chagrin of every American. Count me down as one of the very misinformed who thought the game would be a close defensive battle. Instead VT showed that it indeed has been overranked most likely due to the tragic shootings from last April, and in reality they appear to be a very average team with a horrible offense.
Michigan of course lost again, this time to an Oregon team that looked like it finally found its balls after five years of running around as a eunuch. Perhaps losing OC Gary Crowton to LSU is addition through subtraction, as the new Duck offense showed signs of GASP creativity and progression rather than just trying to force a spread option attack without any ryhme or reason. Plays called in the first quarter led to plays in the second. A nice statue of liberty play that gained 15 yards was used as a trick for the awesome FAKE statue of liberty QB sprint which left Oregon QB all alone in the endzone with the Michigan players still trying to tackle poor Jonathon Stewart who didn't even have the ball. This game proved yet again that despite being the biggest stadium in the country, it is one of the least intimidating to play at if the opposing team scores first. You could hear a pin drop.
#1 USC got the week off to rest after it's exhibition against Idaho (what? That was a real game?). They face a top 15 ranked Nebraska now in Lincoln in what will be the premiere game next Saturday at 5pm PST. Opening line shows the Trojans are 10.5 point favorites... and they should easily cover. Bill Callahan is one of the biggest cowards you'll find coaching in CFB. Last year against USC he exhibited one of the worst gameplans ever, with his intent being to blatantly play NOT TO BE BLOWNOUT. No, not try to win. Just to try and keep the score reasonable, which I suppose he did (I think it was a 28-10 USC victory). He followed that up by playing FAR too conservatively in many other games, costing them their bowl game specifically. He has yet to shed his NFL conscious of playing close,boring football. Anyway, expect USC to come out roaring and win by 18 or so again easily, and quiet some of the talk that LSU is really the #1 team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
