Careless Wording Encourages ‘Stigma’
Dear Editor,
In reference to the Jan. 9 article “”An Ounce of Prevention,”” in which John Sexton said, “”People don’t want to be labeled as having a mental health problem. That stigma might keep them from seeking help,”” Mr. Sexton errs; the error is egregious. In printing his statement, above, editors err, the error is egregious.
If Sexton wants people to have positive attitudes about seeking help, his words must assure, they do not.
“”Diagnosed with”” is proper, and no professional asserts the existence of “”stigmas.”” Including editors.
– Harold A. Maio
Former Consulting Editor, Psychiatric Rehabilitation Journal
Need for Quantitative Immigration Reform
Dear Editor,
Today’s media have revealed a keen interest of Americans in the issue of immigration, particularly from Central and South America into the United States. In fact, this topic has created heated debate, but it is not new. Human migrations have occurred throughout history, ever since Homo sapiens left Africa.
To understand this phenomenon, one must understand simple diffusional theory, which is applicable to molecules, cells, people, pollutants, etc. The rate of flux, or the net number of people crossing the border per unit time (dP/dT), is proportional to the driving force for migration (F) times the population (P). In mathematical terms, dP/dT = k(F x P) where k is a constant. The force, F, is a measure of the difference between the quality of life on one side of the border and that on the other side, and the population reflects the number of people who live on the side of the border from which the migration occurs.
Given the immutability of this equation, how can the flux be controlled? There are only three possible solutions: (1) equalize the standard of living of the people on the two sides of the border, (2) decrease the population on the side from which the people are coming, and (3) change k. Does the United States have the capability to bring about one or all of these changes? What would be necessary to do so?
To accelerate standard of living equalization, I suggest the United States divert a proportion of its GNP for nonmilitary aid (0.7 percent as recommended by the United Nations instead of the 0.14 percent now provided by the United States, the smallest percentage of any of the developed nations). To help reduce the population in Latin America, I suggest we provide the availability of birth control to all third world nations worldwide. Abstinence programs simply don’t work, as revealed in hundreds of international studies, and this would cost United States a mere $40 billion per year, nothing in comparison to the “”official”” total of over $350 billion already spent in Iraq over the past three years. Thus, there is hope. All we need is a rational, capable, diplomatic government.
– Milton H. Saier
Professor of Biology, UCSD
