Get rid of politicians after two terms

I agree with Rob Loughridge of Honolulu (Letters, Nov. 12); we must impose term limits to all elected representatives.

We must set a limit of two terms, just as with the office of the president. Two terms, then all elected must step down. Two terms, before they are able to run for election again.

Also, why don't we have an age limit? As is evidenced by our current situation, our representatives are not looking after the people's affairs. No one was watching the store! Where are the accountability and security reports to the American people by those we elect and pay?

This two-term initiative must be put to the people—not our representatives—to vote.

I am proud to be an American citizen, I believe in the American government and its Constitution—just have lost faith in some of our overpaid representatives.

Even pond water must be kept moving to be safe for human consumption.

Groups should work together for disabled

In response to “;Helemano residents deserve privacy”; (Letters, Nov. 4): Let's be clear that the Hawaii Disability Rights Center, which protects and advocates for the disabled in Hawaii, keeps all information confidential. Helemano and Opportunities for the Retarded Inc., which certainly have nothing to hide, should work with the HDRC to protect the rights of all disabled individuals.

My son is disabled and I am confident that this is absolutely not an issue of privacy. The word “;fight,”; along with the energy that accompanies it, should be directed toward the many important matters that face the disabled, rather than the HDRC.

Don’t displace people when building rail

All this hoo-ha about rail is starting to get overwhelming. I understand the importance of it and why we need it. I lived in the Bay Area for more than seven years and have taken advantage of the BART. It works wonders for commuters and tourists alike.

But the issue that gets me is, why do you have to interrupt people lives? Moving them out of their homes and businesses is totally unacceptable. I bet if rail went through some of the City Council members' homes or even big rail supporters' property, they would have a problem with it.

And depending on who you are speaking to, the time for completion for rail is outrageous. Former mayors Frank Fasi or Jeremy Harris should have started the process way back when. How does this benefit me and other frustrated commuters now? Or do I just look forward to this benefit for my kids?

‘Yes’ vote assumed rail route wouldn’t change

How can the City Council get away with changing the rail route after the current proposed route was voted on? Oh, I know, the vote was only on whether we should have rail or not. It wasn't on the route. Tricky!

However, the proposed route entered into the decision by the voters. The current proposed route caters entirely to local residents, people going to work or for other business downtown. The airport route caters to visitors. If all the possible scenarios in connection with visitors and baggage handling are investigated, whether helped by friends or in other ways, it will be found that the train is not the most convenient way to go.

That right angle turn in the airport route is ridiculous; the train would have to come to almost a complete stop to negotiate it. I can see cars pouring over the edge and falling on houses below due to inattention by the train engineer or if something happens to the train engineer while traveling at speed.

At any rate, it appears that another vote is required to decide which route is preferred by the residents, since the first vote was only for either a “;yes”; or “;no”; on rail.

Physicians shouldn’t help their patients die

As a physician specializing in palliative and end-of-life care, I strongly disagree with your Nov. 12 editorial calling for Hawaii's Legislature to reconsider a so-called “;Death with Dignity”; law. While in some ways Hawaii leads the nation in end-of-life care, our state still received the same C grade as the nation overall when it comes to access to palliative care, according to a study published by the Center to Advance Palliative Care last month (Star-Bulletin, Nov. 14). Suggesting that physicians should collude with patients in ending their lives when they are most hopeless and vulnerable rather than striving to provide them with access to compassionate and competent palliative care sends the wrong message entirely.

Certainly our health care system needs change, but the answer is to work to improve access to high quality end-of-life care, not end patients' lives prematurely. Our culture of aloha demands more: the terminally ill deserve high quality care that effectively addresses their suffering and, in the end, affirms the inherent value in each of us until our last breath.

We shouldn’t embrace ‘culture of death’

“;Thou shall not kill”; applies not only to abortion but also to assisted suicide. We have become a society that is determined to commit suicide as advocates of “;the culture of death.”; Those who have not learned from history (the Romans, the Nazis and the most recent collapse of communism) are bound to relive them.