Email  Print

ER enabled complete recovery

Editor, Index-Tribune:

    

  Previous letter writers objecting to the renewed parcel tax for the Sonoma Valley Hospital (Measure A on the March 6 ballot), should consider the consequences if a medical emergency should arise affecting their families. They would have to be transported to Petaluma (Highway 116), Santa Rosa (Highway 12) or Napa (Highway 121 and 29). That distance and time could affect the outcome, especially in the case of a stroke and/or heart attack.

  Even if the medical emergency is more routine, say an accident resulting in personal injury, the time to critical care is crucial. In 2009, I personally experienced the necessity of a local hospital. I was recovering from major surgery performed at UCSF when serious complications arose that required emergency hospitalization. My husband took me to the Sonoma Valley Hospital ER, where I received excellent and compassionate care. My doctors at the UCSF, were contacted and the ER staff was given instructions on how to manage the situation. This was handled in an efficient manner, and by the time the ambulance came to take me to UCSF I was stable and comfortable.

  I don’t know what the outcome would have been if my only option were to go to Napa, Santa Rosa, or Petaluma.

  I feel the immediate availability of SVH enabled me to make the complete recovery that I eventually did. It is important that we support Measure A on March 6 so that Sonoma Valley Hospital can continue to provide the community with timely and quality care.

  Victoria Berezin

Sonoma