Hyperacusis Education
Although I did not know much about hyperacusis, the article "The Biological Mechanisms of Hyperacusis" in the Sept. 1, 2009, issue educated me on the subject and showed me that I may be a sufferer, too. I had no idea that I could be one of those statistics. As a student at San Diego State University, I found the article extremely interesting and informative. The information presented was important to me because I have tinnitus, and the article notes that "40%–86% of those who have tinnitus also have hyperacusis." The article is important to the public because "the prevalence of hyperacusis in the general population is about 9%–15%." Because this disorder could reduce the quality of life, I think everyone should be presented with the facts and be able to research the information in depth so that they have a chance to live their life to the fullest without any hindrances.
However, I am not in agreement with the animal testing in the research study cited. I know that it is important for us to experiment so we know more about the human body, but I feel it is morally wrong to use animals as test subjects. Although this test is not nearly as bad as others, I am still against animal testing, no matter how small the test or how little pain the animals feel.
Holly Openshaw
San Diego, California
Higher Aspiration During MBS
I read with much interest your report on the 3-ounce water test in the May 26 issue of The ASHA Leader. The aspiration rate was much higher when the test was performed in conjunction with the modified barium swallow (MBS) procedure versus the fiberoptic exam (FEES®). Also, silent aspiration was detected with MBS.
I was surprised to see that nothing was mentioned regarding the limitation of FEES in viewing any aspiration during the swallow, which is not a limitation with the MBS. Although a smaller pool of patients was studied with the MBS, it does lend credence to the possibility that the higher rate of aspiration observed with the MBS could be due to aspiration during the swallow, which would not be observed with the FEES. I have seen a lot of aspiration during the swallow in the MBS procedures I have performed. Nonetheless, the article was very informative.
Dave Kuzemka
Springfield, Missouri
Benet1800@yahoo.com
Opposed to Health Care Reform Proposals
In the Sept. 22, 2009, issue of The ASHA Leader, Mary Walworth wrote: "As a speech-language professional and citizen, I have concluded that single-payer health care...is the best and only way out of our current health care mess."
The majority of Americans disagree with Ms. Walworth. The latest Rasmussen polls (Sept. 18, 2009) show that 56% of Americans oppose President Obama's proposals, with 44% "strongly" opposed. I can think of hundreds of reasons to "strongly" oppose the current proposals. Here's one I feel particularly passionate about: The 10th Amendment of the Constitution forbids what President Obama is attempting to do. The 10th Amendment states that "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
This means that only the individual states can enact laws that the U.S. Constitution does not spell out. President Obama has no constitutional right to enact laws that are "reserved" to the states. May I suggest that Ms. Walworth move to a state that has created health care reform in line with the constitution? Massachusetts comes to mind. As for me, I intend to keep fighting against health care "reform" that is unconstitutional and unwanted by the majority of Americans. We are, after all, a democracy.
Ken Mylott
Deerfield Beach, Florida
jmark2001@hotmail.com
Kudos for Kuster's Column
I wanted to take a minute to thank Judith Kuster for all that she shares with us through The ASHA Leader. This column is always the first one I look for, and this month's is a gem! Thanks for taking the time to search for all of these wonderful Web sites—so I don't have to!
Diane Ouimet
Pickerington, Ohio