Print edition: 
Imposing Catholic doctrine on others?
Several readers have written in defense of Bishop Thomas Tobin's decision to advise Rep. Patrick Kennedy, D-R.I., not to take communion, for the reason that Kennedy's acceptance of abortion rights is contrary to Catholic doctrine. They correctly noted that the Catholic Church is authoritarian with regard to matters of faith and morals.
I am not Catholic, and I would never submit my moral conscience to the dictates of any authoritarian organization, Catholic or not. (The fact that I believe the Catholic Church's position on abortion to be unreasonable and immoral is only a small part of why I reject moral authoritarianism.)
Tobin, and the entire Catholic hierarchy, should think carefully about whether or not Catholic politicians are bound to use their political offices to impose Catholic doctrine upon non-Catholics. If the official Catholic doctrine is that Catholic politicians have a duty to impose Catholic doctrines upon non-Catholics, the Catholic Church should make this fact public. If it is not official doctrine, the Catholic hierarchy should censure Tobin, and Tobin should publicly apologize to Kennedy.
GERALD H. PASKE
Wichita
Sad spectacle
First the planned sale by "Government Motors" — formerly General Motors — of Saturn to Penske Automotive Group went sour. More than 13,000 jobs are expected to disappear, including many right here in Wichita. Last month GM scrapped its plan to sell Opel to a Canadian parts supplier. Now the deal to sell its Saab operation to a Swedish company has collapsed.
Seems like government- and union-owned GM isn't much better at deal-making than it is at making cars. The whole sad spectacle would be comical, except for the fact that the taxpayer will be left holding the bag when GM joins Edsel and DeLorean in the scrap heap of history.
And these are the people we want running our health care?
MICHAEL McCLELLAND
Wichita
Express concern
The sudden dogmatic recommendation concerning breast-cancer screening by a previously unknown federal panel caught everyone off-guard. Routine mammograms were to be limited to women between 50 and 74, presumably in order to save money.
The uproar provoked Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius to stand in for the never-seen surgeon general and disavow the recommendation.
Most Americans are probably unaware that the British National Health Service has a similar organization that is very visible. If it recommends against a procedure or treatment, the NHS will not provide it for British citizens. They still can obtain the treatment but at their own expense.
American women understandably can fear that effective treatments will not be available through government health insurance if less-expensive alternatives are available. The rationale used for those over 74 is especially threatening.
All citizens need to express their concern to those crafting the upcoming gigantic health program.
RICHARD GILMARTIN
Wichita
Personal choice
My sister, who worked for the National Institutes of Health in cancer research for 30 years, told me many years ago not to have frequent mammograms or dental X-rays. She emphasized that exposure to X-rays and other imaging systems could actually cause or exacerbate cancer growth. Her point was to avoid X-rays unless absolutely necessary (broken bones, for example) and to limit so-called diagnostic tests in order to minimize risk.
My doctor, whose sister fell victim to breast cancer, has the view that annual screening can save your life. If you miss detecting the cancer, it can soon get out of hand.
Who is right? They are both highly qualified professionals.
My conclusion is that it is a personal choice. I'm sure that insurance companies, which would rather not pay the excessive costs of treating cancer, will continue to cover screenings. Doctors, who would rather not face malpractice suits for overlooking cancer, will continue to encourage annual screenings.
But I, with the new federal recommendations about mammograms, will feel more secure when I decide not to have a mammogram this year, and I will have some support when trying to convince my doctor that I have made an informed choice.
STARLA CUNNINGHAM
Wichita
No more hyphens
Regarding the carnage at Fort Hood: Political correctness has gone amok. Striving for diversity has gone awry. When are we going to rely on common sense?
If Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan had been looked on as a major and not a Muslim-American, would the necessary alerts to the red flags have been sounded, thus preventing the carnage?
The solution: Get rid of the hyphens. No more African-American, Mexican-American or Muslim-American. If you want to say "Americans with such and such a heritage," that would be OK. We don't say Baptist-American, Lutheran-American or Catholic-American, so why do we say Muslim-American?
Let us see each and everyone as individuals. Look beyond the color, facial features, etc.
PATRICIA L. HERRON
Wichita
