Dear Dr. Brotman,

I am a resident of the Mission and I gave birth to my first child at St. Luke's last October. After extensive hospital visits and research, I chose St. Luke's above all other options in the city because of its affiliation with Homestyle Midwifery. I am privately insured, and could have chosen one of the cross-town hospitals that are, perhaps, considered more "state of the art." However, what we wanted was quiet, non-intrusive, respectful care close to our home. We found it at St. Luke's. I was very grateful not to have to travel across town at the height of my labor. Upon arriving at St. Luke's, I found the attending doctor and nurse to be kind, supportive, and very respectful of our desire for an unmedicated birth. It was due to our extremely positive birth experience at St. Luke's that I chose to keep my gynecological care with Dr. Laura Norell after my birth. I know many women who have done the same. I have resources and choices that many of my neighbors here in the southern section of San Francisco do not have, and I can easily go to any doctor or hospital that I choose. I wonder what will happen to the people who do not have fancy insurance, or vehicles in which to traipse across town, when they need medical care. SF General is already overloaded, and from my friend's most recent experience there, if you aren't a trauma case, it may take hours to be seen there. For my next child, if birth at St. Luke's were not available, I would probably not choose CPMC, due to the fact that they have a reputation for a more conservative birthing program. I guess I would have to—somewhat begrudgingly—choose UCSF, due to the fact that they do work with midwives and doulas. But I would certainly prefer to stay in the neighborhood. Sutter sites the fact that St. Luke's is losing money as a good reason to close the hospital. I can't help but think that if St. Luke's were considered overall to be a better hospital, that it would draw manymore privately insured individuals, like myself, from nearby—and increasingly affluent—neighborhoods, such as Eureka Valley, NoeValley, Glen Park, and Bernal Heights. Rather than closing St Luke's, why not overhaul it, market it, and draw some of those private-pay clients, who would prefer not to go across town? It is my sincere hope that the needs of our community will be reconsidered, and that instead of closing St, Luke's, Sutter Health will instead strive to raise the level of medical care there in all departments and thus provide much-needed services to all residents of the southern part of our city.

Sincerely,
Sara Hale