LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: NURSE'S ATTORNEY RESPONDS TO NEWS ARTICLE ON DRUG CONVICTIONS

To the Editor:

Your paper has managed to demonstrate, in one short story, major failings of American journalism, the "drug war" and our local prosecutor. Congratulations. A very concise effort.

First: journalism. Your story about Mary Polk in Monday's paper was an abomination. This very nice lady has had two convictions for obtaining prescription drugs illegally for her own use. She has stolen nothing, hurt no one but herself and been seriously punished. She is a nurse. A very good nurse whose business is helping sick people. Your paper, in a paroxysm of purple prose, head-lined a front page story about Mary being allowed to be a nurse while on probation. Your story played this as a terrible public danger. In the pursuit of sensationalism, you left out a few facts.

The most important fact you excluded is that none of the drugs Mary ever used would impair her ability to be a nurse. All the drugs were prescription drugs that one could use, legally, and practice nursing while using. Isn't that a rather important point? And the fact that both Mary's psychologist and her counselor, whom she sees by order of the Court, told the Court that she could take this nursing job without danger to herself or her patients. Your reporter was in the courtroom when the letter from the counselor was discussed with the Court. Why did she miss this? Because it wasn't important? Or because it doesn't fit the sensational theme?

Your reporter also missed the central argument made to the Court and, presumably, the Court's reason for allowing Mary to take the job. Simply that the world needs good nurses more than it needs pizzas. Instead, your story reported the point that the nursing job pays more. Even a dull reporter did not miss the point and think that the crux of the argument was the difference in pay. But the central point was not in your story. Why not? Let me suggest the reason.

To face all these facts makes us confront our prejudices and deal with harder questions. The object of a "prejudice" is to make judgment easy. It is "pre-judged". No thought needed. Appeal to prejudice is what makes people read a headline. A story like yours makes people feel good. Drug abuser abused. Drugs are bad. People who use them should never be allowed to have a good job again. For goodness sake, people who use drugs should never be in a position to treat sick people or be in a job where drugs are available. All of these easy conclusions are available to us unless we look at the facts your story did not mention.

But if you do look at the facts you then have to act like a real judge. Not a "pre" judge but a real judge. The drugs that were abused do not affect the ability to nurse. The professional counselors say that the problem has been resolved and the nurse should be allowed to nurse. Drug screening is available on a weekly basis to immediately tell the Court if a problem arises. The person who erred has been punished. The world needs nurses who want to work hard for people. Sin can be expiated by confession, punishment, remorse and repentance. The job of judging is hard when you consider all these things.

Did your paper miss the hard job by accident? Or do gray areas not sell as well as a black and white appeal to prejudice? The reporter, the editor and the publisher all know the answer. A journalist would blush.

Second: the "drug war". The great addiction of the goof-balls who call the Southeast Missourian Speak Out line. The "drug war" makes its addicts feel good. They are frothing at the mouth right now. If drugs are involved then no other facts need be known. (Enter, Morley Swingle)

To feed our drug war addiction we have weakened the Bill of Rights, doubled the forces of the prosecutors, reduced the Federal Courts to drug processing centers, enriched the scum-bag drug dealers and spent billions. For what? To prove that capitalism works. That a "drug war" will keep prices high enough to cause dealers to keep supplies higher than before the "war" started. Let me quote Barbara Ehrenreich from Time magazine, February 28, 1994:

"So why don't we kick the prohibition habit? Is it high-minded puritanism that holds us back, or political cowardice? Or maybe it's time to admit that we cling to prohibition for the same reason we cling to so many other self-destructive habits: because we like the way they make us feel. Prohibition, for example, tends to make its advocates feel powerfully righteous, and militant righteousness has effects not unlike some demon mix of liquor and amphetamines: the eyes bulge, the veins distend, the voice begins to bray."

The case of Mary Polk illustrates the point Barbara Ehrenreich makes. Your newspaper quotes Morley Swingle as saying to the nursing board: "This person has no business being a nurse. I hope you will take steps to see that she does not have another occasion to forge prescriptions." Morley is actually not as much a fool as this quote makes him sound. He is capable of sequential thought. Does he think only nurses forge prescriptions? Poor Morley is quoted as being "appalled" by the judge's decision. He wasn't at the hearing and positively, absolutely did not know the facts I set out above. Why would a lawyer with even minimal brains be "appalled" without knowing the facts? Because he is an addict. A drug war addict.

Before Morley or the Speak Out buffoons start talking about "two time losers" or nurses being in a position to forge prescriptions, they should look at the facts the judge had before him. I guess that is hard to do when one's eyes are bulged and one's veins distended.

Meanwhile, Mary has been fired from her job. The afternoon of the day your paper printed the story. Have you done the public a service? Protected patients from a drug crazed nurse? Not according to the facts. According to the facts you have harmed a human being. Not because the public has a "right to know" but because a reporter cut the facts to fit a pre-judged mold.

JOHN L. COOK

Cape Girardeau

Editor's Note: We appreciate Mr. Cook's comments but should point out that Ms. Polk was not "fired" because of a newspaper article, although she was let go on the day the story appeared. According to the administrator of the Chaffee Nursing Center, Bill Van Pelt, "Ms. Polk had never been hired. She was working in a 90-day probationary capacity, and she was evaluated in a number of criteria. The decision to let her go came prior to the story in the newspaper ... (although) we did learn some things from the article that we hadn't known before."

According to the reporter, the original story does need some clarification. The story should have read that the prosecuting attorney, Morley Swingle, was "appalled" with the inaction of the state nursing board in this case; not with the judge's decision.

We stand by the facts of the case as reported.