Lee Bartkowski, in his March 21 letter “Fentanyl crisis isn’t a ‘we’ issue,” objects to use of “we” in P. Todd Korthuis’ March 13 op-ed about overdose deaths from fentanyl (“Fentanyl is fueling a surging public health crisis in Oregon”). Korthuis called for action to stop a growing problem. Bartkowski doesn’t think he, as a non-drug user, belongs to the “we” who should be doing something about this problem.

Surely, though, Korthuis meant “we” as an entire group, with norms, customs and goals more or less in common for most of its members. By engaging in this discussion, Bartkowski is already making a contribution as a participant in the group being called to action. He is one of us, one of the “we” each of us belongs to, whether he likes it or not.

Bartkowski may resent the idea of collective responsibility for trouble not of his making, but Korthuis is right: “We,” all of us, are affected by this plague, and we will inevitably respond. Whether that response is carefully considered, humane and effective is not inevitable, however. Bartkowski has his opinion about what we should do or not do. Korthuis has some ideas, too. Let’s choose a direction as a group, with the strategies we can mostly agree to, and try to keep an eye on how we’re doing.

Chuck Brinkerhoff, Milwaukie