Conflict With Faith

Those of us who pay dues to ASHA have received our renewal notices. Although I've been an active member since 1978, this, unfortunately, may be my last year.

I appreciate the insert with the dues notice that illustrates in percentages where our membership dollars are spent. I have had increasing concerns regarding the multicultural constituency groups, more specifically, the L'GASP-GLBT Caucus (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual Audiologists and Speech-Language Pathologists-Gay/Lesbian/Bisexual/Transgender). A percentage of our dues are supporting this group. Article II of its bylaws includes Objective B, which is to increase sensitivity to and support of LGB (lesbian/gay/bisexual) issues within audiology, speech-language pathology, and related professions, including work environments and relationships. Objective III of the same article states the objective of providing a professional, political, and/or social platform for LGB issues within the professions and within training programs.

As a practicing Catholic first and a practicing speech-language pathologist second, it is in direct opposition to my faith to support the "social platform" of those engaged in a homosexual lifestyle and its promotion. Sadly for our profession, its science and integrity have become subordinate in this particular venue to what is now considered politically correct. Professionally, we are morally obliged to treat, to the best of our abilities, people who can benefit from our services despite objecting to their immoral lifestyles. Treatment, however, is not commensurate with support or promotion of that lifestyle. The moral compromise comes about when associated with an organization that does support and promote it...thus, my conflict with ASHA membership renewal.

Mary Estlack
Findlay, Ohio
mestlack@hughes.net 

Editor's note: ASHA members may choose to join a related professional organization such as the multicultural constituency groups, including L'GASP.  ASHA provides no financial support to these related professional organizations.

Too Much for Too Little

I just finished writing out a check for $225 to pay for another year of ASHA dues. I can't believe we've had another $25 increase this year. I really think that our dues payment has gone well beyond ridiculous. As a stay-at-home mother with only a few private clients, I figure it will take me about two weeks to earn enough to pay for my dues. I struggle to think of how ASHA benefits me at this point in my life. I do read my ASHA Leader magazine, and the occasional journal article as time permits. But for all of ASHA's so-called "accomplishments," I personally get very few benefits, other than the ability to maintain the CCCs that I earned 11 years ago. I know that I am not alone in expressing these sentiments. In fact, I believe I represent the opinion of the majority of certified members who feel they pay too much for too little.

I would like to see ASHA cut, not increase, our dues payment. At the very least, ASHA needs to offer a reduced rate to members who are either not working or are only working part-time. Perhaps we also need some healthy competition to give members a choice about who will maintain their CCCs and how much it will cost. This monopoly is costing us way too much.

Jayna Collingridge
Herriman, Utah
jaynacollingridge@gmail.com

Not a "Bargain"

I agree with Kathleen Cox (The ASHA Leader, Nov. 24, 2009) in reference to advances ASHA has made for our profession; however, I also concur with a large number of my colleagues who don't consider our dues a "bargain."

As the treasurer of the local speech-language-hearing organization, I am aware of the costs of producing professional development offerings for our members. Our local organization is able to offer day-long, high-quality CEU opportunities, which include meals, for a fraction of what ASHA charges for comparable offerings. To maintain our CEU status, of course, the local organization pays a hefty annual fee, greater than 10% of our annual income, to ASHA and also pays a four-year review fee. As an individual member, I pay additional charges for the CEU registry and special interest divisions.

ASHA will realize significant additional savings when journals are available online only. I personally prefer paper copies but accept the online journal decision as inevitable.

I do not, however, agree with the decision to dispense convention program books only at the annual convention. It was a waste to send program books to all members as was done in past years, but as an early-bird registrant, I would have appreciated a copy of the program book to plan for the convention; I literally spent hours using the online My Planner system. Please consider sending program books, even if only preliminary copies, to early registrants. It would be nice to feel that my ASHA membership maintains at least a few perks.

Diana Russell
Rochester, N.Y.
Diana.Russell@greece.k12.ny.us

More on Animal Research

I am writing to express my wholehearted agreement with Holly Openshaw's letter in the Nov. 3,
2009, issue. I have actively opposed vivisection for years, and I was comforted to see that others in our profession are also concerned about this issue. As Openshaw stated, "...it is morally wrong to use animals as test subjects," even if they are well-treated, which is often not the case. In fact, exposés on national television, as well as other sources, have been providing evidence of problems in the care of research animals for years, including outright abuse in some facilities.

Unfortunately, USDA enforcement of the Animal Welfare Act is highly inconsistent. In addition to the ethical problem, the results obtained in non-human animal subjects are frequently not applicable to humans. In some cases, relying on these data has been seriously detrimental to human health (for example, the occurrence of birth defects in babies of mothers who were given the drug Thalidomide while pregnant). A final concern is that animal research is paid for with the limited funds that could be better spent on projects utilizing newer methodologies with higher validity for human patients.

As a practicing SLP for more than 20 years, the results of non-human animal studies have never been relevant to my treatment of human patients. I look forward to the day when this outdated, inhumane, unreliable practice will be a part of history, like so many others once thought of as acceptable.

Shirley Charney Feldman
Montgomery Village, Md.