What cost can you possibly put on our children's health and safety?

Staff reports

This letter is a response to Marion W. Tunney's letter three weeks ago about the high cost of flu testing in schools.

I have to say that I'm absolutely shocked and disgusted that you would even make a comment like that. What cost can you possibly put on our children's health and safety?

I understand that your job includes a lot of financial decisions that are not popular with the majority of people a lot of times, but when it comes to cutting costs for something so important as our children's health, you have to draw the line. Especially since on the front page of the same paper, it states that the Bath school district is going to spend upwards of 1.6 million dollars for construction of new facilities projects.

Now , don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to belittle the importance of bigger classrooms, better handicapped accessibility, and improvements to various playing fields, the district's data network and the campus' infrastructure. But I do believe that flu testing is much more important at this point in time. After all, if there's no children to participate in these activities, what's the sense in having all of these upgrades?

The bottom line for me, amongst others, including several parents, teachers, and local physicians, is that flu testing is not an issue up for debate. It's a necessity. I would hate to think what would happen if one or more of your students got critically ill, or even died from this virus and you had the chance to do something about it, but didn't. I guess their blood would be on your hands. Is the extra money worth that risk?

Thomas M. Hall