Readers Write (June 19): Health care directives, higher-education budget, affirmative action

I'd like to thank Christopher Snowbeck for the article he wrote highlighting the need to get electronic medical records set up so doctors have immediate access to documents outlining patients' end-of-life wishes ("Patients' wishes lost in system," June 12). Mr. Snowbeck used the story of my cardiac arrest and subsequent hospital visits to adeptly illustrate the problem. There was one comment, however, that illustrates an even deeper, systemic problem. Dr. Tom von Sternberg is cited as asserting that doctors made the right call in resuscitating me, as if my health care wishes were nothing to take into account.

While I understand that medical records may not always be easy to navigate and that mistakes can happen, it is not acceptable for doctors to blithely ignore my wishes. I had a health care directive on file. I am of sound mind, and I wrote my health care directive expecting that doctors would honor it.

April 16 was National Health Care Decisions Day, and all over the Twin Cities there were workshops to help and encourage people to complete their health care directives, citing the need for documentation for patients' wishes when they are unable to speak for themselves. If doctors do not honor our stated wishes, health care directives are nothing but worthless documents, and the time spent putting them together is just an exercise in futility.

We need patients to complete health care directives. We need to get the electronic medical records so they are easy to navigate. And, most important, we need to have physicians honor our stated wishes.

• • •

The story about Ms. Bedell's frustrations with the inept handling of her end-of-life wishes evoked my sympathy for her. Years ago, my mother was taken to an emergency room by ambulance, suffering respiratory distress. Somehow, there were two medical charts for her, and the one without the living will was brought to the ER. The doctors put her on life support, which was against her instructions in the living will. Decades later, with electronic charts, hospital staff can't figure out that training their doctors on how to find this should be the first thing they learn on the job? How about creating a red tab labeled "End-of-Life Wishes"? No one should have to go through the process of making their wishes known, only to have them overlooked or ignored.

• • •

There is no need to wait for hospitals to update their medical information systems. A quicker, easier-to-use system is in your pocket.

• • •

The June 12 story is important and raises the question: What rights has the person who is listed as surrogate in a health care directive for the person who is dead or dying? When my late wife died at home, the EMS team leader arrived and immediately asked for her health care directive. That directive clearly stated: "No resuscitation or lifesaving efforts." Regardless, the EMS team began CPR, then used a defibrillator, all absolutely contrary to my wife's wishes. If one is emotionally able, can one intervene and stop any lifesaving efforts?

Lori Sturdevant, in her June 12 column, highlights higher education's share of the state budget as declining from 9 percent 30 years ago to "barely" 3 percent today. The column ("Minnesota as 'Brainpower State': Exit interview with an expert") quotes a University of Minnesota administrator as blaming a lack of "shared dreams" and there not being "the sense of sharing in this state that there was 40 years ago."

While most would agree that higher education is an important priority, Sturdevant fails to highlight the fact that the state budget has increased almost 500 percent since the 1986-87 biennium, when it was $15.8 billion, to more than $76.5 billion in the 2016-17 biennium. Sixty-nine percent of state funding comes from taxes and fees, so as the state budgets grow, so does the burden on the citizens of the state.

It is astounding that many who write about the impact of religion or race in the U.S. today, as does Mitch Pearlstein in his June 12 commentary "Food for thought," fail to acknowledge the growing influence of two segments in our society.

While Pearlstein notes that Catholics make up 21 percent of the U.S. population or that Jews make up 2 percent, he ignores that fact that almost 25 percent of the population is religiously unaffiliated (according to the Pew Research Center's most recent findings). This segment of our culture, which is growing, is hardly represented at all in our public institutions. By diminishing the existence of this group, we ignore the reality of its influence.

Likewise, Pearlstein discusses the challenge of establishing "colorblind" admissions policies in our higher-education institutions by identifying students in strict racial categories (e.g., white, black, Hispanic and Asian) without noting that a growing number of people in our country, especially young people, identify as multiracial. According to the most recent Pew studies, multiracial families are increasing three times faster than the rest of the population.

Using old constructs to put forth an argument about today's society is disingenuous at best. Most of our highly charged political discussions today are lacking in this same willingness to acknowledge a changing reality in our shared culture.

We need to see ourselves as we really are (and are becoming), not as we used to be (or thought we were).

Talk about asking the tough questions! I'm guessing that, like me, many folks have never really pondered the specific ironies, contradictions and inconsistencies that Pearlstein confronts us with in "Food for thought." While we often say that we want to have "honest dialogues" about the issues of the day, too often we quickly arrive at foregone conclusions that admit to little or no ambiguity or ambivalence. Pearlstein's perspective highlights a fundamental truth about affirmative action (which, I believe, applies to most "hot button" issues): It's complicated.