Anonymous wrote:The New York Times provides some suggestions as to "what Sidwell can do." But you are all so self-satisfied and hostile to anything that threatens your self image as social justice advocates, you say things like "NY and ethicist" is an oxymoron. Even though most of you would kill to get your kid into Columbia or a job at the NY Times.

So, wait, you think that people will kill to get their kids into a prestigious NYC school or themselves a prestigious NYC job, but that it's outrageous to suggest that ethical standards aren't NYC's forte?

The school is an educational institution. It's not a charitable foundation that funds and operates health care institutions.

Anonymous wrote:Sidwell is wealthy, and supposedly "Because Friends believe that faith requires action in the world, the schools emphasize the development of a caring community, peaceful resolution of conflict, and service to others, especially those less fortunate. Friends have a long tradition of putting love into action." So yes, they could take their wealth and put love into action. That's the point of the article, that Sidwell espouses greater responsibility than the average commercial actor.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you're saying that in addition to the $34 M purchase payment, Sidwell shoukd pay to operate a hospice and nursing facility indefinitely into the future? That's insane.

And Sidwell Friends has agreed to a long closing period followed by a leaseback option, providing almost two years from when the purchase was announced for remaining patients to be relocated. Do you think that Lerner or Bozzuto developers would have done that?

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?

Real hospice patients should be dead in 6 months. Long term poor patients will just have to find somewhere else to live. Sometimes is sucks being poor. I don't get what all the fuss is about.

Sidwell is wealthy, and supposedly "Because Friends believe that faith requires action in the world, the schools emphasize the development of a caring community, peaceful resolution of conflict, and service to others, especially those less fortunate. Friends have a long tradition of putting love into action." So yes, they could take their wealth and put love into action. That's the point of the article, that Sidwell espouses greater responsibility than the average commercial actor.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So you're saying that in addition to the $34 M purchase payment, Sidwell shoukd pay to operate a hospice and nursing facility indefinitely into the future? That's insane.

WH has not been taking in new residents for some time in preparation for the sale. The $34 million purchase price should give WH plenty of funds to make sure remaining residents are settled comfortably in other homes. Sidwell students will continue to volunteer there.

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.

Really? So if I buy your house, I am responsible for where your au pair lives?

How about the Board of the Washington Home, you know, takes care of the obligations it has towards it patients.

If an entity other than Sidwell had purchased the property, the bulldozers would already be lining up.

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.

So you're saying that in addition to the $34 M purchase payment, Sidwell shoukd pay to operate a hospice and nursing facility indefinitely into the future? That's insane.

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.

The New York Times provides some suggestions as to "what Sidwell can do." But you are all so self-satisfied and hostile to anything that threatens your self image as social justice advocates, you say things like "NY and ethicist" is an oxymoron. Even though most of you would kill to get your kid into Columbia or a job at the NY Times.

I am more interested to know what will happen to the Bethesda property.

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.

Anonymous wrote:What exactly should Sidwell do better in this situation? Washington home does not want to operate the home after next December. Should Sidwell take it over? Insist WH continue to run it? What are the options you suggest?

People have asked the accusers that question dozens of times here, but not one of them has offered an answer. I'd like to hear an answer from them.

What exactly should Sidwell do better in this situation? Washington home does not want to operate the home after next December. Should Sidwell take it over? Insist WH continue to run it? What are the options you suggest?