Ms. Lonsdale of Parksville (The News, March 4), outlines some of the arguments against placing a hospital in Oceanside, and I agree with her points.
In her letter and in several previous letters from other writers, both for and against having a new hospital, the delay in receiving emergency care is taken to be the elapsed time from the 911 call to the nearest ER.
Paradoxically, the more severe the condition the more important it becomes to reach a qualified facility as soon as possible, not necessarily the nearest actual hospital.
This was one of the key lessons from Vietnam in the 1970s: stabilization in the field, then rapid evacuation to a facility that can provide definitive care.
Implied is that seriously ill patients should be brought directly to a fully equipped hospital, fully staffed 24/7.
If the patient’s condition turns out not to need all the expertise of the regional hospital, he or she has been put through an inconvenience.
For the seriously ill, not stopping at a community facility may make the difference between living or not.
Having a community hospital frequently acts as a built-in delay in the treatment of seriously ill or injured patients.
One can imagine the forces at work in the promotion of the building of community hospitals: comfort for those with chronic illness — in that they know that a hospital is only a block or so away — convenience for the patients’ families, local economic stimulation, and feathers in the caps of some of the local politicians.
But the potential benefits to the local citizens do not justify the expenditures.
Recognizing that resources are limited, efforts should be made to make the regional hospitals as strong as possible, and that transportation to these medical centres be as expedient as possible.
The needs of the people of the Oceanside area would be best served by having a 24/7 walk-in clinic, and by bolstering the long-term care facilities.
Warren Bailey MD (Retired)
Qualicum Beach