Calling paramedics 'attendants' was insulting


To the editor:

I read with great disappointment John L. Smith's Sunday column regarding emergency medical service in the city of Las Vegas.

To refer to American Medical Response emergency medical technicians as "attendants" is insulting at best. AMR's emergency personnel are among the highest trained in the nation and have provided exceptional service to Las Vegas residents for decades, both on scene as well as during the transport of patients to area hospitals.

Mr. Smith also makes blanket statements about efficiencies and cost savings that are simply not borne out by the facts noted in the city's recently commissioned study. A dual-response system is the gold standard nationwide to ensure the fastest possible response times and optimum patient outcomes. Our EMTs and fire personnel are comrades in the field, and they make professional assessments regarding who should transport the patient and what is in the patient's best interest.

It is unfortunate that union politics continue to make the facts murky and never consider the safety of our residents as the top priority.

Mike Gorman

Las Vegas

The writer is Nevada general manager of American Medical Response.

Lost features

To the editor:

Your readers were hit with a double whammy in Wednesday's paper. First, in the Taste section, we were informed that the newspaper would no longer print the weekly listing of dirty eating establishments from the Southern Nevada Health District. The notice referred us to the health district website to gather the same information. Next, in Norm Clarke's column, we were informed that his columns are being reduced to three a week. Again, we were referred to his website.

With the news frequently citing that newspaper readership is way down, shouldn't your newspaper be trying to increase circulation instead of discouraging it? It seems to me that your newspaper expects its readers to go to multiple websites now to obtain the same information we used to get from one source: the Review-Journal. That's very time-consuming.

It also assumes that everyone has embraced the computer world, which for many senior citizens hasn't happened and probably won't. Yet seniors are undoubtedly the majority of the readers of the dining reports.

These are two reasons I will have to re-think renewing my subscription to your newspaper when it runs out.

WILLIAM H. ISAAC II

HENDERSON

Taking freedoms

To the editor:

Our government wants to disarm our law-abiding citizens. The United Nations wants to disarm our law-abiding citizens. Now China wants to disarm us.

Why do you think that is? If the government takes away our Second Amendment rights, will be easier for them to take away our other freedoms.

The NRA and law-abiding citizens didn't kill those beautiful children in Connecticut. It was a deranged lunatic who took advantage of a gun-free zone.

Wake up, America. If you lose the Second Amendment, you lose our once-beautiful country.

CHARLES W. GREER

LAS VEGAS

'Fiscal cliff' pork

To the editor:

In reading your coverage the other day of Congress passing the "fiscal cliff" deal, there was no mention whatsoever of the estimated $70 billion in tax breaks that were slipped into the legislation. The tax breaks run the gamut from helping out racetrack owners and rum producers, railroads and mining companies, just to name a few of them.

By failing to report on such aspects, the newspaper fails to keep its readers well-informed about the activities of their elected officials. Is the newspaper in effect telling the politicians that it's OK for them to engage in such activity while denying readers the ability to ask Sen. Harry Reid and Rep. Joe Heck why they supported such legislation?

RICHARD ROSENHEIM

BLUE DIAMOND

 

Rules for posting comments

Comments posted below are from readers. In no way do they represent the view of Stephens Media LLC or this newspaper. This is a public forum. Read our guidelines for posting. If you believe that a commenter has not followed these guidelines, please click the FLAG icon next to the comment.