1. Then the idea that a 9 year old vote should direct all actions today would be like the idea that a family meeting 9 years ago when dad was briefly in the ICU post-op should establish the guiding principals now that dad has had 2 strokes and has been on a ventilator for a week.
2. Then the idea that the only evidence that should be used when thinking about quality of care should be studies done at Alameda Hospital would be like arguing that a particular medicine or procedure was no good since it had not been tested in that particular patient (and by the way, it would be ridiculous to even try it because we know it doesn’t work because it hasn’t been tested).
3. Then the idea that being open, transparent, and following the Brown Act were just too inconvenient and might endanger future deals (and only should be followed anyway based on the risk of getting into trouble vs. actual principals) would be like suggesting that following HIPAA and the patient’s bill of rights were just too inconvenient and might get in the way of treating the patient.
4. Then the idea that using published sources in real time (such as PubMed) during Board meetings was uncivil would be like telling the patient that everything on the Internet was crap because the physician didn’t like being challenged.
I certainly would not want a physician who acted like that, but apparently the Board majority and many Alamedans thinks that how physicians SHOULD act.