Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Badin graduation
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > December > 04
Friday, December 4, 2009
Guest column: Early detection of breast cancer saves lives, money
This commentary is written by Paula Termuhlen, medical director of the Miami Valley Hospital High-Risk Breast Cancer Center and chief of surgical oncology at Wright State University Boonshoft School of Medicine.
During a recent week, it occurred to me that three of the breast cancer patients I met with had something in common: each will very likely receive a shorter course of treatment for their cancer because of self-examinations and subsequent mammograms.
None of these women has a family history of breast cancer. Two were under the age of 45. One was under 35.
Their experience contradicts the recent U.S. Preventative Services Task Force recommendation that the majority of women should not receive routine breast cancer screenings or conduct self-examinations until the age of 50.
The vigilance of my three patients should allow them to receive care that is less prolonged and considerably less invasive than if they would have heeded the advice of these new guidelines.
As a surgeon, I welcome the opportunity to have a thorough and robust discussion on this topic. In particular, I seek out ways to improve the detection, diagnosis and treatment of breast cancer.
New input is always important in a country that has the world’s highest incidence of breast cancer diagnoses among Caucasian women. However, the task force made little or no effort to identify areas where investors and researchers should direct their efforts to develop technology that would help make prevention and testing more accurate and effective.
Though a “one-size-fits-all” approach may not be the most optimal way to control initial costs when it comes to early detection, it remains the most successful tool that we currently have for improving and ultimately saving a patient’s life.
It is also important to understand that detection at an earlier age and phase of the disease yields a significant reduction in the tremendous physical and financial impact that comes from treating the cancer at a later stage.
This is something I have witnessed first- hand as I have successfully partnered with numerous patients who proactively sought treatment after receiving a positive cancer diagnosis.
For every alleged dollar that is saved by delayed detection, there is a daughter, a wife, a sister, a mother, a friend whose very life hangs in the balance. Not only did the task force neglect to account for the full financial burden of this short-sighted approach, but it also sought to repair a process that was never truly broken in the first place.
Early detection saves lives and money. We should never lose sight of this fact, no matter where the debate over health care may take us.
Permalink | Comments (0) | Post your comment |
TweetGuest column: Beavercreek had ample time to contest covenants
This commentary was written by Tom O’Diam, who is a lawyer with O’Diam & Stecker Law Group, Inc.
I have never commented on a pending transaction involving a client, but the Dayton Daily News’ Nov. 30 editorial (“B-creek board in charge of school design”) requires a response. I do so with the blessing of my client, the Nutter family.
It is a disservice to Beavercreek that the editorial board interjected its opinion about a matter on which it had incomplete facts. The editorial even misinterpreted the facts that it does claim to have.
The March 19, 2009 contract between the Nutters and the Beavercreek school board clearly stated that Stonehill Village is a planned unit development with covenants and design controls. The contract specifically states that all proposed improvements would be subject to design review board approval.
If that condition was problematic, the appropriate time to object was before the contract was signed last March, not six or eight months later. Common sense dictates that the school board should not spend taxpayer dollars on design, engineering, zoning and preliminary site work, and then complain that it does not like the contract requirements.
Design approval is not a veto power. The contract requires both parties to develop mutually agreeable design standards for the school buildings so that they would be compatible with the surrounding development. Those design standards only relate to exterior appearances.
If future improvements meet these standards, the design review board will not have any legal means to stop the improvements. That is exactly the “formal advisory role” that the editorial proposed as a solution.
The editorial failed to mention that the design standards on the draft supplemental declaration was a blank page. We had not even begun to discuss the standards.
We offered to meet with the board to discuss specifics, but the board unilaterally decided that the whole concept of design approval is unacceptable and illegal. It was acceptable and legal to the school board when it signed the contract in March.
The editorial was misleading when it stated that Stonehill Village does not have so many kids that building a school there is necessary. The northeast section of Beavercreek Twp. is the fastest-growing area in the district. Last March, the board announced that the Stonehill locations would save the district more than $70,000 a year in transportation costs alone.
Although in its infancy today, Stonehill Village was approved in 1993 to consist eventually of nearly 2,000 homes, most within walking distance of the proposed elementary school. The long-range transportation savings would be substantial.
The Nutters have been waiting since August for the school board to decide how it wants to proceed. In early November, the board indicated that it wanted to amend the contract to eliminate the elementary site, but still purchase the 50-acre site without any Stonehill covenants. The Nutters agreed to that request.
Now, the board objects to a deed restriction requiring the property to be used as a school. That requirement is also in the March contract, and it is the same restriction that exists on the board’s Indian Ripple Road property.
The only reasonable conclusion that one can draw from these recent events is that design covenants are not the real issue. There is something more that the board is not telling the newspaper editors, the public or us.
Speculating about why the Nutters contributed to the new school board candidates is reckless and untrue. Their support was due to their disappointment that the current board would not reinstate Denny Morrison as superintendent, not for some underhanded reason relating to this transaction. It is insulting and unfair to the newly elected board members to imply that their integrity was for sale.
Finally, the editorial implies that my family and I have tainted this real estate transaction. Our disagreement about the removal of a drama director was settled months before the board entered into the Stonehill contract. Unfounded, disparaging insinuations such as that are not remotely relevant to the school transaction.
Such irresponsible journalism fuels controversy rather than fostering solutions.
If you want to review a summary of this transaction, go to www.oslawgroup.com, click on link to Stonehill Village in the left margin.
Permalink | Comments (9) | Post your comment |
TweetKevin Riley: Book about Reds might find new home team
Mark Donahue continues to pursue his dream of making a movie in southwest Ohio about a fictional Cincinnati Reds player. He’s recently taken a big step forward. His novel, “Last at Bat,” has been published, and he’s doing local book signings.
The captivating story is about Dylan Michael, a baseball player who falls from grace as a young star and then earns redemption. It’s is built around Donahue’s beloved Cincinnati Reds — although that part of the story could change.
Donahue is a Kettering resident and 1971 Wright State graduate. An athlete who became a successful real-estate developer in Florida, his hobby is writing fiction.
A friend of his got “Last at Bat” into the hands of a Hollywood producer, who is interested in making it into a movie.
Donahue produced a screenplay, and started picking up support, including from the Reds. Phillip J. Castellini, chief operating officer of the Reds, has offered to make the team’s stadium available to the film’s producers.
According to Donahue, potential investors like the idea of a published novel as a precursor to making the movie. He hopes that the project could be part of larger efforts to bring more movie-makers to Ohio.
The novel is a good story, whether you’re a baseball fan or not. It’s easy to see why people would see it as a great movie.
Donahue says his local book signings are a way of testing how the novel is received — and will influence decisions by his publisher about a national effort. He’s getting a lot of interest, and was at Wright State for a couple of events on Friday.
Many of the details in the book revolve around the Reds and southwest Ohio locations.
But the state has a couple of strikes against it when it comes to pitching the idea that the movie should be made here.
The first relates to cost. While the state recently created a tax incentive for film producers, investors tell Donahue that it still would be less expensive to make the movie in other states. That raises the specter of making the story about another team.
“If the book and screenplay generate some interest locally, we are more than willing to talk to local investors,” Donahue said. “However, unless there are ways to reduce costs to match the incentives other states are offering, even local investors would likely want to film the movie somewhere else, even if the Reds remain the team in the book and movie.”
Donahue, a die-hard Reds fan, doesn’t want that to happen.
He said he doesn’t want to be called a “sell-out,” “carpet-bagger,” or “money grubber” if he has to change the story.
Donahue wanted to release the book in southwest Ohio first, “so at least Reds’ fans could hopefully enjoy the first edition of the book with their team in it before it possibly morphs into a story/movie about a Cub, Cardinal, Red Sox, Dodger, Philly or Met.”
“I have been counseled by each of these groups to avoid using the Reds as the team in the book or the movie,” Donahue said. “The logic being there are more Cub fans, Yankee fans, Mets fans, Phillies fans, etc, than there are Reds fans and, therefore, an immediate big draw at the box office.”
Donahue has his own strong feelings, and key details of the story make it ideally suited to a “small-market” team.
“The investors look at demographics, not loyalty to a team, in doing their math,” he said.
Donahue is convinced that his story will get made because of the passion he sees in some investors.
“There has been an interesting and consistent dynamic in these meetings,” he said. “We talk about the finance aspect for 10 minutes, and then an hour on why the investors’ favorite team should be the team in the movie.”
Let’s hope it ends up being our team.
Area book signings for “Last at Bat”
Dec. 7: 6-8 p.m., New Bremen Coffee and Books, New Bremen
Dec. 12: 11 a.m.-2 p.m., Browse Awhile Books, Tipp City
Dec. 12: 3-5 p.m., Around About Books, 8 West Main St., Troy
Dec. 16: 7-8 p.m., Books and Co., The Greene
Dec. 17: 1-3 p.m., Ole Book Nook, Urbana
Dec. 19: 12:30-3 p.m., New and Old Pages Book Shoppe, Englewood
Permalink | Comments (3) | Post your comment |
Tweet
