"The Ethicist" on Sidwell's Hospice Purchase

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I read the response in the NYTimes and it really didn't say anything and seemed pretty noncommittal to me. It didn't say Sidwell should continue running the hospital.

I don't see anything "ethical" involved here. The hospital is closing, it is not taking on new patients, existing ones will be rehoused elsewhere, assuming they are still alive in 21 months (sorry if I sounded cold but we all die someday). Sidwell is taking the land and building a school on it. Where's the ethical aspect of it?

I agree. The NYT column is pretty vague, but it seems Sidwell is doing exactly what the column suggested. Lots of the drama seems driven by the fact that *Sidwell* is involved here. If it had been No-Name Parochial School for Girls that purchased the property, none of the supposedly outraged posters would care, but because it's Sidwell, they're mad with rage.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I think it's just sour grapes that Sidwell got the property, a truly great property, masked with an ethical argument. I'm sure if WH needs more time to place its residents, Sidwell would be open to a negotiation. But WH is not asking for that now.

Sour grapes on the part of whom? Another independent school or a developer wanting to put 500 condos on the site?

[Anonymous]

As a close neighbor, aside from tearing down the buildings and making a public park, this is not a bad outcome. I assume that Sidwell will eventually end up controlling the post office and Fannie Mae building on the same block. That means less chance of a huge condo building. I have noticed that the Cathedral Commons still has a lot of empty store fronts so apparently there is no immediate need for more retails space.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about if Sidwell ensures that each of the current patients receives comparable care in DC at what they currently pay? For a start.

They might also take steps to ensure that the services that WH was providing, and gave every intention of continuing to provide until they got a huge monetary offer, continue to be provided in the DC area.

But at a minimum the supposed Quakers with their commitment to social justice should take care of the people they would otherwise put on the street.

Isn't your beef with WH, not Sidwell? Sidwell is paying $32 million, and certainly isn't stopping WH from spending every dime of that making sure that WH residents still living in a year and a half can continue to receive care and to find appropriate places to live. And, WH still owns the post office grounds, which provides them with significant income. If you're upset about what WH chooses to do with these millions, to make good an any contractual commitments or moral obligations to its residents, bring it up with WH. These are serious issues but the relationship and obligations between WH and its residents is not Sidwell's business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As a close neighbor, aside from tearing down the buildings and making a public park, this is not a bad outcome. I assume that Sidwell will eventually end up controlling the post office and Fannie Mae building on the same block. That means less chance of a huge condo building. I have noticed that the Cathedral Commons still has a lot of empty store fronts so apparently there is no immediate need for more retails space.

I agree with your practical viewpoint. The simple fact is that the property is being sold. The only question is what's reasonably going to replace it. Another multi-story apartment building would be the worst, but a string of town houses would be almost as bad because they'd just add more density and they'd suck up parking. School is the best use there. And if the school could also absorb the other Fannie building and the post office, that would make sense too. At the very least, the post office should shrink in size.

[Anonymous]

F the Poor!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:F the Poor!

Troll

[Anonymous]

I just read the ethicist piece. Hardly a slam dunk. It does say that Sidwell has an obligation if it is a wealthy institution. Wealth is relative and I don't know how rich Sidwell is. Obviously, it has enough money to buy the property, but may not have enough to continue managing it as a hospice with the same level of care the people that live there have now.

[Anonymous]

It doesn't sound like anyone in this thread knows *exactly* what the WH is doing for the patients. Until there is more information, it is unwise to judge, yes?

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure whether all the people responding to the OP even bothered to read the entire "Ethicist" piece, but really, all it says is that as a nonprofit Quaker institution that espouses certain humanitarian values, the school may have a greater obligation to assist the displaced residents of the Washington Home than the average for-profit corporate entity does. There is no suggestion, as some posters seem to insist, that Sidwell "take over" the management of the Home or care for the residents in perpetuity. The piece doesn't offer any specific suggestions, but obviously there are many ways that Sidwell might go the extra mile for the displaced residents that don't involve running a hospice. And it also notes that the school may well be doing those things.

There's quite a lot of middle ground between "Sidwell is a cold, soulless institution that is kicking penniless hospice patients into the street" and "Sidwell has an absolute ethical obligation to take over the care of these patients."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I'm not sure whether all the people responding to the OP even bothered to read the entire "Ethicist" piece, but really, all it says is that as a nonprofit Quaker institution that espouses certain humanitarian values, the school may have a greater obligation to assist the displaced residents of the Washington Home than the average for-profit corporate entity does. There is no suggestion, as some posters seem to insist, that Sidwell "take over" the management of the Home or care for the residents in perpetuity. The piece doesn't offer any specific suggestions, but obviously there are many ways that Sidwell might go the extra mile for the displaced residents that don't involve running a hospice. And it also notes that the school may well be doing those things.

There's quite a lot of middle ground between "Sidwell is a cold, soulless institution that is kicking penniless hospice patients into the street" and "Sidwell has an absolute ethical obligation to take over the care of these patients."

I agree with your description of the Ethicist piece. It just offers general platitudes.

The "take over management" discussion arose when posters here challenged the critics to offer concrete examples of what Sidwell supposedly should do. As far as I can see, only one person rose to the challenge. Her suggestions for what Sidwell must do -- "ensure that each of the current patients receives comparable care in DC at what they currently pay" and "ensure that the services that WH was providing ... continue to be provided in the DC area" -- sound a lot like she's expecting Sidwell to dive into the heathcare insurance and lobbying business.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with your practical viewpoint. The simple fact is that the property is being sold. The only question is what's reasonably going to replace it. Another multi-story apartment building would be the worst, but a string of town houses would be almost as bad because they'd just add more density and they'd suck up parking. School is the best use there. And if the school could also absorb the other Fannie building and the post office, that would make sense too. At the very least, the post office should shrink in size.

Why is parking such a hot topic in that area? It isn't like Adams Morgan or something. You can pretty much get a parking spot any time, day or night in the vicinity. The idea that townhouses there (which would likely each have one or two parking spots of their own) would be such a bad result is puzzling.

[Anonymous]

If the WH board was truly motivated to get the best price for the property to fund future hospice care services, why did they not market the property instead of entering into a confidential private sale with Sidwell? The NW DC real estate market is hot, and with competitive bidding it's easy to imagine that the price would have gone much higher. What if a much-maligned developer was willing to pay 30%-50% more for the property? If the property would sell at a premium for development because that is its highest and best use, wouldn't that have been in the WH's long-term interest? Maybe the fairest solution, if the WH board really is going to sell, is for Sidwell to stand aside and agree that WH can have a new, competitive tender, with Sidwell and other interested parties putting forward their best offers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
I agree with your practical viewpoint. The simple fact is that the property is being sold. The only question is what's reasonably going to replace it. Another multi-story apartment building would be the worst, but a string of town houses would be almost as bad because they'd just add more density and they'd suck up parking. School is the best use there. And if the school could also absorb the other Fannie building and the post office, that would make sense too. At the very least, the post office should shrink in size.

Why is parking such a hot topic in that area? It isn't like Adams Morgan or something. You can pretty much get a parking spot any time, day or night in the vicinity. The idea that townhouses there (which would likely each have one or two parking spots of their own) would be such a bad result is puzzling.

DC is changing the zoning rules so that developments don't need to provide much off-street parking anymore, especially if they are in "transit zones". 1 or 2 blocks away from a major bus line qualifies. So it's quite possible that a large development would increase demand for street parking in the immediate area.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell's response is basically, "F the Poor".

Quaker Family Values is pretty underwhelming.

Sorry your child didn't get it.