University of Virginia Library

Letters To The Editor

Doctorless Counties Justify Sen. Stone's Views

Your editorial criticizing
Senator Stone's concern for
Virginians is totally lacking in
both perspective and
scholarship. You have no data
to support your position, but
criticize Stone for failing to
justify his views. The Senator
has abundant evidence to
support his contentions.

One example is the 107 page
report published in 1972 by
the Virginia Advisor Legislative
Council on "The Shortage of
Family Physicians." I believe
the University should recognize
that Stone's complaints are not
"intimidation," but are both
reasonable and well
substantiated.

The role of the University in
medical care in this state is an
excellent example. In other
areas, except perhaps for
education, comparison would
be even less faltering. Virginia
now has four doctorless
counties, and seven more are
served by physicians so ancient
as to be of little real help in
meeting the needs of the poor
rural population of these
counties. In about 15 years all
rural counties in Virginia may
be doctorless. I submit that
"we do not heed the needs of
this state."

Should our medical school
admit the "most qualified
students" from Florida and
New Jersey, two states which
have consistently failed to
support medical education?
Past experience indicates
students from these states who
have attended our medical
school have a less than one in
one hundred chance of
remaining in an urban area of
this state, and a zero chance of
practicing in a rural area where
the needs are greatest. These
medical graduates do not
become scholars of national
repute–they become rich
practitioners in Palm Beach
and Short Hills.

Virginia's two state
sponsored schools have sent
683 graduates to California,
Florida, and New Jersey. The
state sponsored schools in
these states have sent 35
graduates to the Old
Dominion. The reason for this
flow away from Virginia is not
scholarship or excellence–it is
money. The Daily states
Senator Stone "may well
reflect the attitudes of his
constituents," who perhaps
desire to have adequate
medical care when they are
sick. If this is a "selfish
inclination," or a "short
sighted provincialism," then he
is indeed selfish and provincial.

The Daily feels that the
"most qualified" student from
Short Hills, New Jersey, who
will very likely return there to
be a psychoanalyst for the
urban rich, should be given
preference over a rural
Virginian who is "less
qualified," and that some rural
county should go without
health care. Since New Jersey
produces far more "well
qualified" students than
Virginia, and spends far less on
high education, you essentially
demand that Virginia taxpayers
should subsidize the New
Jersey educational system.

While I would hope the
University would attract the
best qualified out-of-state
students, and serve as an
institution of national repute,
the University must have major
concern for the needs to the
state which supports it, and
must recognize that the state is
entitled to a reasonable return
on its investment in education.

The faculty and students
should beware of vague
generalizations about
"excellence" and "scholarship"
when overwhelming evidence
exists that most graduates of
the University leave the state
for the sole reason of
maximizing their income. We
are, and should be the
University of Virginia and not
the University at Virginia.