Letters to the Editor | Oct. 13, 2026
Inquirer readers on pharmacy benefit managers and plans to livestream the execution of the Fort Hood mass shooter, Nidal Hasan.
Cruel spectacle
I read with great dismay that the secretary of defense is planning to livestream the execution of Nidal Hasan on Dec. 3. The last large-scale public execution, a hanging, took place in Owensboro, Ky., in 1936. Executions were moved behind closed doors because they had become public spectacles rather than a solemn display of justice. The military hasn’t executed a service member by firing squad since 1945; the best-known case that year involved Pvt. Eddie Slovik, who deserted his unit. The president has criticized Iranian officials for their public executions, but his administration has approved this one. Hasan, a former Army major who killed 13 people and injured 32 others in a 2009 mass shooting at Fort Hood in Texas, was shot in the spine during his arrest and is paralyzed from the waist down. I understand people want to see justice served, but regardless of the crime, this is the execution of a human being — not a video game to be livestreamed. Where is our decency? It is very troubling. What have we become?
Catherine Poynton, Havertown
. . .
I suppose we should not be surprised that a presidential administration that is driven by retribution and vengeance would choose to livestream the firing squad execution of a mass murderer.
I believe in capital punishment for the worst of the worst, and the criminal who perpetrated this atrocity qualifies, but I draw the line at making this a public spectacle that impressionable children could watch.
What will be next, gathering thousands of people in a town square to jeer and chant as they witness a hanging?
When Kamala Harris ran for president, she pledged that “we are not going back.” She was wrong. We have, and we will continue to go back for as long as Donald Trump and his cast of clownish federal officials are in power.
Oren Spiegler, Peters Township
Treatment interference
Doctors should be the authority on patient care. As trained professionals in our respective medical specialties, we work directly with patients and have years of experience in diagnoses and treatment plans, all of which help build relationships and trust with our patients.
So when a doctor prescribes a patient medication to treat their condition, that should be the accepted treatment plan. Unfortunately, current policy allows pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) to limit or control patients’ access to necessary medication.
PBMs serve as middlemen between insurers and pharmacies, controlling drug prices and influencing which medications patients can receive. As a rheumatologist, many of my care plans involve prescribing specialty medication to mitigate chronic joint pain, inflammation, and mobility decline. Because of PBMs, however, my patients are forced to fight for their medications or pay higher insurance premiums, despite having a treatment plan that a medical professional has decided would be best for them.
Lawmakers in Washington can help to reduce this delay and confusion by supporting PBM accountability and transparency reforms through legislation such as the PBM Transparency Act, the PBM Fiduciary Accountability, Integrity, and Reform (FAIR) Act, and the DRUG Act.
Patients with chronic pain from rheumatic conditions shouldn’t have to delay or find alternatives to care. Let doctors do our jobs and remove PBMs from the treatment equation.
Jorge Alexis Rosario Vega, Elkins Parks
Join the conversation: Send letters to letters@inquirer.com. Limit length to 150 words and include home address and day and evening phone number. Letters run in The Inquirer six days a week on the editorial pages and online.
