We're behind in sharing letters from neighbors to the Editor of the Seattle Times. Here are two that made it to us but didn't make it into print:
To the Editor:
The Times overlooked an important story with its recent article (“Laurelhurst, Children's Hospital at it again over planned expansion,” 9/27/07).
Children’s Hospital appears to be seeking to limit the location and thus the accessibility of in-patient pediatric care in our region. The Hospital plans to concentrate in-patient pediatric services in a heavily congested area that is already well-served by hospital facilities. Parents on the Eastside and elsewhere need to hear this news.
The Hospital is actively working against a planned expansion of hospital beds by Swedish on the growing Eastside. The Times reported that the Hospital has formally complained to the Department of Health that expansion in Issaquah “concentrates too many hospital beds” in one place (“Hospitals challenge state's OK for Swedish in Issaquah,” 6/23/07). Yet Children’s has proposed twice as many new beds (350 vs. 175) for its facility in Northeast Seattle, hardly the center of population growth in our region.
Swedish appears to be quite a progressive institution. Its website celebrates its collaborative, regional heart-surgery program (“Mary Bridge, Swedish Establish Joint Pediatric Heart-Surgery Program,” 2/10/04). Physicians care for young patients close to homes and families. What a forward-thinking idea. Let’s get more of those on the table.
To the Editor:
"Children's unveils revised plan" [10/31/07] discusses tower heights, but omits more important questions:
Is such a large expansion warranted? The hospital plans to build 300+ beds, but the Department of Health projects it needs only 65.
CHRMC actually opposes Swedish Hospital's plan to build 175 beds (including pediatric beds) in the growing area of Issaquah ["Hospitals challenge state's OK for Swedish in issaquah", 6/23/07]. Why does CHRMC oppose a geographic expansion of in-patient health care?
If expansion is justified, where should it occur? CHMRC's mission would be better served by a second campus rather than by 15-20 years of major construction on their current working campus. A few reasons:
- A second campus would offer geographic diversity to serve a growing population.
- Contrary to your article, the cost of a second campus would be only 1/3 to 1/2 the cost of on-site expansion. This would free up at least $500 million for land acquisition, additional medical personnel, and state-of-the-art equipment.
- 15-20 years of construction dust, noise and obstruction would threaten patient health, staff morale, and staff attrition. In fact, CHMRC administrators say [CHMRC, 10/30/07] they would much prefer to build on a clean site if feasible.
