Reopen obstetricsat St. Charles Madras

This letter is in response to the recent closure of the obstetric department at St. Charles Madras, formerly known as Mountain View Hospital.

The following doctors — Leland Beamer, MD; Suzanne El-Attar, MD; David Evans, MD; Carlos Kemper, MD; Douglas Lieuallen, MD; and George Waldman, MD — all former staff members at Mountain View who collectively have more than 100 years of experience providing obstetric care, disagree with this decision.

For a variety of reasons, the decision was made to close the OB ward at St. Charles Madras for 30 days. This was then extended to another 30 days. We urge the board of St. Charles to reopen, support and build the OB services at Mountain View for the following reasons.

The first reason is geographic. The hospital serves a large area, including the communities of Madras, Warm Springs, Maupin, Fossil, Shaniko, Antelope and Ashwood.

Having to drive an additional 26 or possibly 45 miles could result in significant problems.

The area is highly multicultural, more than any other community in Central Oregon. Mountain View has over the years become quite skilled at dealing with diverse populations, and it is the right place for local patients to deliver.

Lastly (and perhaps most importantly) is the issue of having your baby where your friends, family and support groups live. This is a joyous time for families, and adding a distance barrier to sharing the moment is not optimal patient care and goes against the mission of a community hospital.

Modern family physicians are trained to provide safe, high-quality obstetric care in the mother’s hometown so that mom, dad and baby have a healthy, safe and positive experience.

Douglas Lieuallen, MD

Madras

A ‘black eye’for memory care centers

While I’m grateful that the Aug. 13 Bulletin mentioned my new building, Country Side Living, in the article, “Experts urge caution when choosing memory care facility,” I’m disturbed by the “black eye” the article gave memory care communities in general.

Dr. Robert Kane is cited as saying that, “Memory care is usually a basis for jacking up the price.” Looking at his bio, he appears to be a well-educated man who has written many articles on long-term care but doesn’t profess to be a memory care specialist.

The reporter mentioned the lack of staffing requirements and training guidelines in memory care. While staffing numbers aren’t dictated in Oregon’s regulations, it’s clear that a facility must provide sufficient numbers of dementia care-trained staff to meet the needs of residents.

As a boy visiting some appalling nursing homes, I vowed that someday I’d build a place where people are happy and engaged in meaningful activities. To have anyone think I run memory care communities “to jack up the price” is far from the truth. If that were the case, I would not have continued to provide a home to a resident for 18 months after the person had run out of money.

I want to assure Central Oregonians that my passion has been and always will be to create the kind of place that anyone would be comfortable moving a loved one into if the need ever arises.

Erik Berkey

Bend

Bulletin’s editorial editors show their closed minds

I had to laugh when I read The Bulletin lead editorial for July 22.

The editorial was titled “Health care evaluators need open minds.” In it the editor(s) urged the Oregon Health Care Authority to approach a legislatively mandated study of health insurance options with an open mind.

This is always a good idea, but the editors fell victim to their own closed minds when they concluded (twice) that the study’s “do nothing” option is, “the only one that makes sense.”

How can The Bulletin’s editor(s) keep a straight face as they urge others to keep open minds when they have already closed their own with respect to health care options?

Isn’t the purpose of such a study to explore all the options without prejudgment?

A little less hypocrisy would be appreciated in Bulletin editorials.

John Cushing

Bend