Letters to the editor Sept. 19

Nurse anesthesiologists

In response to the letter “Does a title make a difference?” (Sept. 9) it’s probable that Dr. Myerowitz worked closely with physician anesthesiologists, but not Certified Registered Nurse Anesthetists during his career. Like our physician colleagues; CRNAs are licensed, board certified and are experts in the science and administration of anesthesia.

Over 160 professions utilize the suffix “-ologist” to denote expertise in a field of study. It is not exclusively associated with physicians or medical degrees. A few examples are: epidemiologists, meteorologists and audiologists. Using the term “nurse anesthesiologist” is an accurate description and specifically clarifies the qualifications of the person providing their anesthesia.

Dr. Myerowitz also omitted the term “nurse” when describing the nurse anesthesiologist in Florida. This is a critical omission as it implies that nurses are masquerading as physicians. This is simply not true. According to research conducted by the American Society of Anesthesiologists, 55% of Americans don’t recognize an “anesthesiologist” as a physician. There are also dental and veterinary anesthesiologists who are not physicians. Why the outrage for highly educated, advanced practice registered nurses using this term when we have been safely providing anesthesia for over 150 years?

Dr. Myerowitz claims that when the “SHTF,” having a skilled anesthesiologist managing the patient during surgery, “can make a world of difference.” We agree wholeheartedly. In fact, in the last 12 years, there have been seven peer-reviewed studies published in respected academic journals. They confirm that the quality and safety for patients receiving anesthesia is the same whether they are cared for by a physician or nurse anesthesiologist.

I hope everyone can rest easy knowing that the next time you require anesthesia, a highly skilled physician or nurse anesthesiologist will be caring for you.

—Jennifer Boyer is president of Montana Association of Nurse Anesthetists

Biden’s fossil fuel promise

Recently, Joe Biden announced to a cheering audience that he would remove all fossil fuel vehicles during his term. I was shocked that the audience accepted this statement at face value with no consideration as to its extreme lunacy. My response motivated me to do some research into just what Biden was promising.

I found that according to the Federal Department of Transportation, there were 263.6 million registered vehicles in 2015.

In 2016, the average miles driven per vehicle was 13,476. This is input from insurance companies and is probably a conservative number. Multiplying the two figures gives estimated total miles driven by all vehicles in one year of about 3.7 trillion.

Next, I determined that the average electrical car uses 34kwh of electrical power per 100 miles. Doing the math, this gives a total amount of electrical power that would be required to power every vehicle on the road. However, it considers that all vehicles on the road are cars, including commercial trucks, RVs, SUVs, etc. The total electrical power required would be about 1.26 trillion kwh.

In 2018, the electrical grid produced a total of 4.015 billion kwh, or about .3% of the total electrical power required just for vehicles. Additionally, 63.5% of the electrical power generated today is from fossil fuels, so removing fossil fuels from the grid would further reduce its output.

I looked at the ridiculous statement that Biden could remove all fossil fuel vehicles from the road in his term. Given his age, it’s highly unlikely he would serve a second term, if elected. Therefore, to accomplish his promise he would have to remove 65.9 million vehicles for each of his four years in office, or almost 5.5 million vehicles every month.

The facts presented above prove how grossly dishonest and weak-minded Biden’s promise was. Running for election as president is a serious undertaking and those who endeavor to participate have an obligation to be serious, show in-depth understanding of multiple complex issues, and above all, to demonstrate a high degree of character by not purposely misleading the American public. We the voters must consider the election of our president, not like a high-school popularity contest, but as a desperately serious matter with serious long-term consequences. If we demonstrate our dissatisfaction with such promises from candidates, we should show them our disapproval. Perhaps then we can get them to address the issues facing this nation rather than waste time making promises they have no intention to keep and couldn’t keep even if they wanted to.

—David Clough, Bigfork

Pay attention

First you get rid of all the statues of historical people. Then you get rid of their guns. Next comes all the history books.

Sound familiar?

Ask the Jewish people, they can tell you a lot.

Pay attention, Americans.

—Joyce Siems, Kalispell

Secure your load

On Aug. 25 I was driving on Highway 200, 10 miles west of Ravalli Junction. Someone lost a metal farm tub, it was unsecured and landed in the middle of the highway.

I did not see it in time to swerve out of the way. The tub rolled under my Explorer taking out the radiator and I lost all my engine fluids. The Highway Patrol said that once the tub hit the road, it becomes part of the road. I said, “What the heck is going on?”

So a tow truck was called and took my Explorer to Polson.

So if you’re missing your metal tub, it’s gone and so is my engine. I’m on a very tight budget and $2,000 is a lot of money for me. I’m hoping whoever is responsible will come forward and offer assistance in paying for this.

Please, people, secure your load. If a semi or camper or any large vehicle had hit this, there would be more damage and the road would have been blocked. I was able to pull safely off the road.

To all who stopped to offer assistance, thank you.

— Marjorie Clairmont, Polson