"The Ethicist" on Sidwell's Hospice Purchase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I beg to differ. You or I might disagree with her perspective, but her contributions on a message board about the ethics of the sale were hardly ridiculously misplaced.

I disagree. She is ascribing blame to the buying entity, when in fact it is the Board of the selling entity that has charge to take care of the patients.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

I beg to differ. You or I might disagree with her perspective, but her contributions on a message board about the ethics of the sale were hardly ridiculously misplaced.

I disagree. She is ascribing blame to the buying entity, when in fact it is the Board of the selling entity that has charge to take care of the patients.

I just read her posts again, and she seems to be questioning the ethics of both - on which I agree, there seems to be at least enough reason to question

[Anonymous]

Given your concern with the GDS deal on a Sidwell thread, I think you are actually part of the anti-development crowd in Tenleytown.

Anonymous wrote:I am in the business, happens all the time. Sorry you are so misinformed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I thought Sidwell was a special place that cared for people, especially the less fortunate.

Guess not.

As noted earlier, Sidwell Friends may have a reputation for quality, but they have no more business running a hospice and nursing home then the Washington Home has in running a school. If TWH concluded that it couldn't sustain operating its facility in today's market (and they're the experts, having been at it for over 100 years), how could Sidwell care for TWH's traditional mission any better than that institution itself?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Given your concern with the GDS deal on a Sidwell thread, I think you are actually part of the anti-development crowd in Tenleytown.

Anonymous wrote:I am in the business, happens all the time. Sorry you are so misinformed.

To the contrary, I think a PP's conclusion that the NY Times' Ethicist charade was the work of a self-styled "GDS-icist" is spot on.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought Sidwell was a special place that cared for people, especially the less fortunate.

Guess not.

As noted earlier, Sidwell Friends may have a reputation for quality, but they have no more business running a hospice and nursing home then the Washington Home has in running a school. If TWH concluded that it couldn't sustain operating its facility in today's market (and they're the experts, having been at it for over 100 years), how could Sidwell care for TWH's traditional mission any better than that institution itself?

Who's saying running the home was/is the only option available to them to proceed ethically?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Interestingly, virtually everyone continues not to disclose their identify. (Co-Chair here again). TWH is no more "heavily subsidized" than any other LTC facility in the city (or indeed the US) who accepts Medicaid patients (which the vast majority do). My brother and I sold my mother's home when she became profoundly disabled after a catastrophic stroke at age 66. We paid the proceeds of that to TWH for her care, after looking at other homes in the area, and in reliance on TWH's stated mission (which it has now changed). Like virtually everyone who gets that sick, her funds could not support her for her entire life (though her social security still goes to TWH) and out of necessity from her illness, she went on Medicaid. As for name calling, if you don't think "sour grapes" was name calling, well, I can't help you. As for TWH's financial status, it was NOT, and is not a failing institution (as management has repeatedly assured). I have no need to defend what we have done to further confirm the fair market value of the 6 acres in upper northwest, and am quite comfortable with our due diligence (properties can and do sell below market value all the time). The real estate end of the sale may raise very significant concerns, but without transparency to the process (perpetuated by both Sidwell and TWH) no one will be able to assess them. We certainly would "move on" were there a realistic option to do so in the time permitted; however, bed space in decent skilled nursing facilities in DC is virtually non-existence, with the highest occupancy rates in the country. Waiting lists were well over a year before the addition of over 100 new residents looking for placement. The readers of this forum, purportedly concerned with public welfare, should think about talking to their lawmakers about the crisis of skilled nursing options in DC before they, or one of their loved ones, is forced by circumstance into precisely the situation TWH residents find themselves. People's willingness to anonymously offer uniformed opinions never ceases to amaze me - in this forum and others. But regardless or how uninformed (or indeed vituperative) some of these posts are, I hope you at least have enough empathy to pray that you never have to walk a mile in the shoes of these residents and their families. A fate I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy. This will be my last post here; it was enlightening at first but has clearly devolved. Best to you all. Mary Mason

The city is an expensive place to have a nursing home, so I understand the scarcity. What you are basically advocating for is some sort of subsidized nursing home in DC beyond Medicaid and social security, which I don't agree with.

And you're silly. Everyone dies. Everyone has to make hard choices in the future. You're not the only one. What I don't understand is this - You can't force your elderly relative on anyone, not even a family member, or even any nursing home. A nursing home has every right to accept who they want to accept, however arbitrary their selection criteria are. Why would you force a school to take care of your dying relative?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who's saying running the home was/is the only option available to them to proceed ethically?

Different poster responding -- When someone earlier posed the question of what critics suggest Sidwell should have done different, the only response I recall reading was basically that Sidwell needs to become a business partner with Washington Home and start operating an alternate long-term case facility, presumably at a location and price-point the current tenants of WH approve. See pages 2-3 of this thread. That suggestion seems fairly ridiculous to me. Do you have other concrete suggestions about what steps you think the school should take?

Personally, I think the only people who are in any position to comment on the ethics of this situation are those in the Sidwell community. As the NYTimes piece indicated, the only reason the buyer might have any moral responsibility at all toward the seller's tenants is because of whatever ethical requirements are imposed by the school's Quaker beliefs. I'd find it pretty offensive if someone outside my faith's community started telling me what my faith requires, and I suspect Sidwell's community finds similarly offensive the running commentary of DCUM critics who have convince themselves they know better what Sidwell's ethics require than Sidwell itself does.

Consider for a moment how you would react if some anonymous critic told you you shouldn't be allowed to manage your own affairs, because that critic had decided you weren't operating consistent with his interpretation of your religious faith. In the context of another school discussion from these boards, are people here going to start investigating whether GDS has accounted for all the potential racial impacts of its campus consolidation, arguing that GDS's history of racial inclusiveness somehow now obligated GDS to be meet certain obligations? Not me. I consider each person's ethics to be his own responsibility, so while I might disagree with your ethical decisions or might make a different decision, I don't get to tell you what your ethical framework requires.

[Anonymous]

What an un-Quakerly response! Quakers have often been outspoken on how other Christians ought to behave. They definitely didn't shy away from debate and activism when they believed that others outside of their faith were carrying on in an unjust way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's saying running the home was/is the only option available to them to proceed ethically?

Different poster responding -- When someone earlier posed the question of what critics suggest Sidwell should have done different, the only response I recall reading was basically that Sidwell needs to become a business partner with Washington Home and start operating an alternate long-term case facility, presumably at a location and price-point the current tenants of WH approve. See pages 2-3 of this thread. That suggestion seems fairly ridiculous to me. Do you have other concrete suggestions about what steps you think the school should take?

Personally, I think the only people who are in any position to comment on the ethics of this situation are those in the Sidwell community. As the NYTimes piece indicated, the only reason the buyer might have any moral responsibility at all toward the seller's tenants is because of whatever ethical requirements are imposed by the school's Quaker beliefs. I'd find it pretty offensive if someone outside my faith's community started telling me what my faith requires, and I suspect Sidwell's community finds similarly offensive the running commentary of DCUM critics who have convince themselves they know better what Sidwell's ethics require than Sidwell itself does.

Consider for a moment how you would react if some anonymous critic told you you shouldn't be allowed to manage your own affairs, because that critic had decided you weren't operating consistent with his interpretation of your religious faith. In the context of another school discussion from these boards, are people here going to start investigating whether GDS has accounted for all the potential racial impacts of its campus consolidation, arguing that GDS's history of racial inclusiveness somehow now obligated GDS to be meet certain obligations? Not me. I consider each person's ethics to be his own responsibility, so while I might disagree with your ethical decisions or might make a different decision, I don't get to tell you what your ethical framework requires.

[Anonymous]

+1 Also, really, the only people who can speak to morality here are members of the "Sidwell community?" How many of them are practicing Quakers? The school is a Quaker *institution* and makes much of its supposed heritage. One can look at the exact words the school uses on its website and ask whether it's conduct measures up to its words.

Anonymous wrote:What an un-Quakerly response! Quakers have often been outspoken on how other Christians ought to behave. They definitely didn't shy away from debate and activism when they believed that others outside of their faith were carrying on in an unjust way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's saying running the home was/is the only option available to them to proceed ethically?

Different poster responding -- When someone earlier posed the question of what critics suggest Sidwell should have done different, the only response I recall reading was basically that Sidwell needs to become a business partner with Washington Home and start operating an alternate long-term case facility, presumably at a location and price-point the current tenants of WH approve. See pages 2-3 of this thread. That suggestion seems fairly ridiculous to me. Do you have other concrete suggestions about what steps you think the school should take?

Personally, I think the only people who are in any position to comment on the ethics of this situation are those in the Sidwell community. As the NYTimes piece indicated, the only reason the buyer might have any moral responsibility at all toward the seller's tenants is because of whatever ethical requirements are imposed by the school's Quaker beliefs. I'd find it pretty offensive if someone outside my faith's community started telling me what my faith requires, and I suspect Sidwell's community finds similarly offensive the running commentary of DCUM critics who have convince themselves they know better what Sidwell's ethics require than Sidwell itself does.

Consider for a moment how you would react if some anonymous critic told you you shouldn't be allowed to manage your own affairs, because that critic had decided you weren't operating consistent with his interpretation of your religious faith. In the context of another school discussion from these boards, are people here going to start investigating whether GDS has accounted for all the potential racial impacts of its campus consolidation, arguing that GDS's history of racial inclusiveness somehow now obligated GDS to be meet certain obligations? Not me. I consider each person's ethics to be his own responsibility, so while I might disagree with your ethical decisions or might make a different decision, I don't get to tell you what your ethical framework requires.

[Anonymous]

What an un-Quakerly response! Quakers have often been outspoken on how other Christians ought to behave. They definitely didn't shy away from debate and activism when they believed that others outside of their faith were carrying on in an unjust way.

Well I'm not a Quaker, so I don't give a flip what some random member of that religion said in some other context at some other time. Perhaps I'm just a "religious libertarian."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What an un-Quakerly response! Quakers have often been outspoken on how other Christians ought to behave. They definitely didn't shy away from debate and activism when they believed that others outside of their faith were carrying on in an unjust way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's saying running the home was/is the only option available to them to proceed ethically?

Different poster responding -- When someone earlier posed the question of what critics suggest Sidwell should have done different, the only response I recall reading was basically that Sidwell needs to become a business partner with Washington Home and start operating an alternate long-term case facility, presumably at a location and price-point the current tenants of WH approve. See pages 2-3 of this thread. That suggestion seems fairly ridiculous to me. Do you have other concrete suggestions about what steps you think the school should take?

Personally, I think the only people who are in any position to comment on the ethics of this situation are those in the Sidwell community. As the NYTimes piece indicated, the only reason the buyer might have any moral responsibility at all toward the seller's tenants is because of whatever ethical requirements are imposed by the school's Quaker beliefs. I'd find it pretty offensive if someone outside my faith's community started telling me what my faith requires, and I suspect Sidwell's community finds similarly offensive the running commentary of DCUM critics who have convince themselves they know better what Sidwell's ethics require than Sidwell itself does.

Consider for a moment how you would react if some anonymous critic told you you shouldn't be allowed to manage your own affairs, because that critic had decided you weren't operating consistent with his interpretation of your religious faith. In the context of another school discussion from these boards, are people here going to start investigating whether GDS has accounted for all the potential racial impacts of its campus consolidation, arguing that GDS's history of racial inclusiveness somehow now obligated GDS to be meet certain obligations? Not me. I consider each person's ethics to be his own responsibility, so while I might disagree with your ethical decisions or might make a different decision, I don't get to tell you what your ethical framework requires.

I'm not a Quaker, but I still struggle with how Sidwell Friends is acting "unjustly" here. The Washington Home's board wanted to sell and pursue a completely different service model. Sidwell was exploring how to expand/enhance their campus. If the Washington Home was selling, it made perfect sense for Sidwell to buy, both for their own purposes and to prevent TWH from falling to some different use that might negatively impact the school. Clearly TWH board felt that Sidwell's purchase offer was fair and attractive and will fund the in-home care model that TWH wishes to pursue. As has been asked by various PPs, how would it have been more "just" for Sidwell to have stood by, knowing that it could use the property, and watch some developer fill the site with condos, offices and stores? Sidwell is not TWH's bank or landlord. It is not evicting TWH. In fact, it agreed to an extended period (at TWH's option) before the school takes possession. There certainly could be a need in DC for additional subsidized nursing home/hospice facilities, but why aren't charitable institutions focused on health care doing that? It seems unreasonable to the point of ridiculous to expect that somehow a school should and could underwrite such a facility, particularly when that is neither its mission nor its area of expertise.

[Anonymous]

PP here: I still struggle to understand how the school is supposedly acting "unjustly"....

[Anonymous]

Because there are some people, many of whom seem to be affiliated with family members who are to be displaced, who are looking to someone to help address their family needs. Since Sidwell has a mission of ethical behavior, they somehow are ascribing the purchase of an adjacent property by a willing seller as assuming responsibility for the long term care and housing of those displaced.

It seems to me that they are barking up the wrong tree. Some of the many millions Sidwell is paying to The Washington Home should be dedicated to finding replacement housing and care for those patients. I believe The Washington Home has already said that is the case.

So in the short term, you have all of this angst being expressed on this forum, directed at Sidwell, whose mission has nothing to do with the direct care of housing of the elderly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:+1 Also, really, the only people who can speak to morality here are members of the "Sidwell community?" How many of them are practicing Quakers? The school is a Quaker *institution* and makes much of its supposed heritage. One can look at the exact words the school uses on its website and ask whether it's conduct measures up to its words.

Anonymous wrote:What an un-Quakerly response! Quakers have often been outspoken on how other Christians ought to behave. They definitely didn't shy away from debate and activism when they believed that others outside of their faith were carrying on in an unjust way.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who's saying running the home was/is the only option available to them to proceed ethically?

Different poster responding -- When someone earlier posed the question of what critics suggest Sidwell should have done different, the only response I recall reading was basically that Sidwell needs to become a business partner with Washington Home and start operating an alternate long-term case facility, presumably at a location and price-point the current tenants of WH approve. See pages 2-3 of this thread. That suggestion seems fairly ridiculous to me. Do you have other concrete suggestions about what steps you think the school should take?

Personally, I think the only people who are in any position to comment on the ethics of this situation are those in the Sidwell community. As the NYTimes piece indicated, the only reason the buyer might have any moral responsibility at all toward the seller's tenants is because of whatever ethical requirements are imposed by the school's Quaker beliefs. I'd find it pretty offensive if someone outside my faith's community started telling me what my faith requires, and I suspect Sidwell's community finds similarly offensive the running commentary of DCUM critics who have convince themselves they know better what Sidwell's ethics require than Sidwell itself does.

Consider for a moment how you would react if some anonymous critic told you you shouldn't be allowed to manage your own affairs, because that critic had decided you weren't operating consistent with his interpretation of your religious faith. In the context of another school discussion from these boards, are people here going to start investigating whether GDS has accounted for all the potential racial impacts of its campus consolidation, arguing that GDS's history of racial inclusiveness somehow now obligated GDS to be meet certain obligations? Not me. I consider each person's ethics to be his own responsibility, so while I might disagree with your ethical decisions or might make a different decision, I don't get to tell you what your ethical framework requires.

+1. The FTC should be looking into the accuracy and evidence behind their promotional claims.

Oh wait, that cannot happen because they are a non-profit. So, not only they can make misleading claims, but they pay no taxes. All in the "public benefit" of educating a very small elite paying $40k in tuition.

Wonderful.