LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Thank you for the attention suicide prevention received in these pages in September, which was National Suicide Prevention Awareness Month. The guest columnists provided some excellent suggestions on measures we can all take to help reduce suicides. But the authors failed to mention a powerful tool for suicide reduction -- limiting easy and immediate access to firearms.

Nearly two-thirds of gun deaths in the U.S. are suicides. An average of 59 people kill themselves every day with firearms, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The problem is getting worse.

In the past decade, the rate of firearm suicides nationwide has increased 19 percent. The rate among children and teenagers has risen even faster, by 61 percent.

Any meaningful effort to reduce suicides must include policies and practices that limit or disrupt access to firearms. Measures that limit easy and immediate acquisition of firearms are proven to reduce suicide. Examples include mandatory waiting periods between purchasing and acquiring firearms or “red-flag laws” that give families and police a way to ask the court to temporarily remove firearms from individuals who are a threat to themselves or others and block their ability to purchase guns. Safe gun storage would also help reduce firearm suicides, especially among young people. Research published in 2010 found that more than 80 percent of adolescent firearm suicides involved a gun belonging to a family member.

While public education and awareness can make a difference, legislation is necessary for some of these changes. When you cast your ballot in the November election please make it a priority to vote for candidates who actively support reasonable gun regulation. A partial list of gun-sense candidates is available at gunsensevoter.org.

There are proven, common-sense measures to reduce firearm suicide. Let’s elect men and women who will implement them.

Mary Powers, Memphis

Nonpartisan fight against cancer

We all know someone who has heard the words, “You have cancer,” and many of us have fought the disease ourselves; I fought thyroid cancer at the age of 26. I traveled to Washington last week to let my voice be heard and to call on Congress to make investments in cancer research a top priority.

I met with Sen. Lamar Alexander’s and Sen. Bob Corker’s staff and explained to them that each dollar Congress puts toward cancer research offers hope to so many Americans. New breakthroughs in treatment and prevention won’t sit idle in labs across the country; instead, they will be delivered to those who need it the most.

We are at a point where advancements in research are saving more lives than ever and it’s critical that we keep this momentum going forward. Now is not the time to turn back the clock on progress made. Now is the time to invest in lifesaving cancer research.

Congress must act now. By increasing medical research funding at the National Institutes of Health by $2 billion, we can continue to make progress in the fight against cancer.

I got involved because of the effect cancer has had on my life. You can get involved too. Find out more about the American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network at FightCancer.org. We have a nonpartisan electoral program called Cancer Votes that educates the public and candidates about how politics affects the treatment and prevention of cancer. Find out more and join us if you agree that cancer is an election issue.

Brittney Block, American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network (ACS CAN), Memphis

Insurers shouldn’t block charity

Health insurance is often talked about this time of year, but rarely does that discussion mention kidney patients. I was 28 when I found out I needed to go on dialysis. Despite this misfortune, I was determined to continue to work full-time and maintain an active lifestyle. This decision also meant that I would be able to maintain my private health insurance, which literally saved my life. I was able to be use my insurance for dialysis until I was fortunate enough to receive a kidney transplant.

Many dialysis patients cannot maintain a job with health insurance, and use charitable assistance to pay their premiums. Some insurance companies have been telling patients they cannot use these funds, and that seems wrong. Dialysis patients have enough to deal with as it is. Patients should be the ones choosing the healthcare plan that best suits them, not the insurance company.

Amber Pettis, Memphis.

Another round of applause

The Sept. 25 letter to the editor “Brava, Memphis Symphony Orchestra” was a wonderful tribute to the recent performance referenced in the letter. The only problem is that the letter was referring to the Opening Night at the Scheidt concert performed by the students and faculty of the Rudi E. Scheidt School of Music at the University of Memphis, not the Memphis Symphony. The letter was a glowing tribute to our extraordinary student musicians and the faculty performers who presented a fabulous concert that evening. “Bravissimo” to the Rudi E. Scheidt School of Music!

John Chiego, Director, Rudi E. Scheidt School of Music, University of Memphis