To the editor:
Dolph Simons' editorials about the possible St. Luke's and KUMC/KU Hospital merger are hopefully causing people to contact their state representatives. It would appear that Gov. Sebelius and Chancellor Hemenway have endorsed the arrangement in a less than forthright way.
I know from almost four decades of university employment that most universities are almost always interested in getting federal money. The typical logic is we should get a part of the federal pie since some state or university is going to get it anyway. Another more noble reason is we have what it takes to be the designated entity.
But, is this proposed merger the best deal for Kansans and will it really allow its promoters to get the National Cancer Institute designation? I agree with Simons who suggests KUMC/KU Hospital should go it alone, but only if they have what it takes without St. Luke's. However, I do not agree with the merger at all. Why support an arrangement where Kansas resources are placed under the authority or bound to other equal or lesser authorities from out of state (indirectly, the state of Missouri and directly, St. Luke's)?
Let's have our state representatives look at this so that a decision is not made from such a narrow point of view. Only they can give us the added balance needed for this decision, which will then represent most Kansans.
Carl Burkhead,
Lawrence
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
Fairness952 (anonymous) says…
If KUMC and the KU Hospital "go it alone," there will be no National Cancer Institute designation. The institutions do not "have what it takes without St. Luke's." Further, the affiliation is not now, nor has it ever been, a "merger." And the thought of Missouri resources being "placed under the authority or bound to other equal or lesser authorities from out of state" does not seem to concern residents of Missouri. The comment that state representatives should review the affiliation "so that a decision is not made from such a narrow point of view" but would have "the added balance needed for this decision" indicates that he doesn't know much about the state legislative process. He has read the editor's rant so often and for so long that he has swallowed the big lie about the affiliation and what it will mean for Kansas, KU, and KU Hospital.
OnlyTheOne (anonymous) says…
Seems to me that Fairness952's comment could've been issued by St. Lukes PR department.
jonas (anonymous) says…
"He has read the editor's rant so often and for so long that he has swallowed the big lie about the affiliation and what it will mean for Kansas, KU, and KU Hospital."
I don't think any PR department but a politician's would release this statement.