BETTER SAFE THAN SORRY WITH MEDICAL AMNESTY

To the Editor:

I would like to take this chance to respond to the pleasant and, oh,
what's the word, completely delusional letter to the editor concerning
the alcohol policy in the Oct. 25 issue. The author's reasons for not
accepting a medical amnesty are perhaps the flimsiest arguments I have
ever heard.

First, it states that if there was a medical amnesty program people
would call the EMTs just so they wouldn't get written up. I'm sure
that the program does not include a clause that says that anyone who
has contact with the EMTs cannot be written up.

Students already in the process of getting written up would not be
able to call the EMTs and be exempt from a write-up. The purpose of
the plan is that people would call the EMTs if their friend was in
danger of alcohol poisoning. Yes, amnesty would likely result in more
calls to the EMTs, and yes, some of them would be unnecessary, but the
point of the amnesty is better safe than sorry.

In the article, Dan Stepan, head EMT, stated that he would rather have
someone play it safe than try to make that crucial judgment call on
their own.

As for "waiting for more evidence," I would say it's right there:
Stepan sighted 43 cases of off-duty calls to EMTs. That's 43 people
that should have called the EMTs but didn't.

I can tell you something of my own personal experience; people drink
the exact same as they did before. The new alcohol policy has just
driven drinking more underground or off campus. But most importantly,
it has made calling EMTs an even more difficult decision.

Someone's life should never be a difficult decision. I applaud EMTs
Dan Stepan and Nick Pontrelli on finally stepping up and doing
something for the safety of students, and I implore the school to take
action.

Peter Kitchen

Political Science '10