We recently surveyed the members of the UCSF Faculty Association about whether they supported, opposed, or held a neutral position on the proposed affiliation between UCSF and Dignity Health.  We’ve since been encouraged to have the rest of the faculty weigh in on this most important issue.  At the bottom of this email is a link to the one question survey.  In the paragraphs to follow is our introduction to this matter.  The paragraphs in support and opposition were written with the cooperation of those on both sides of the issue in order to cast this as fairly as possible.  For the record, while a quarter of our members who voted held a neutral position, three quarters of the rest opposed the affiliation agreement with Dignity Health.

———————————————————————

As you may know, UCSF is proposing to enter into an affiliation agreement with Dignity Health, a group of non-profit Catholic hospitals.  People within our membership who normally agree on most matters are on both sides of this issue.  With no clear cut consensus having emerged, we thought we’d ask you to vote on whether we as an organization should support or oppose the affiliation agreement between UCSF and Dignity Health, or merely abstain from taking a formal position.

The arguments in support of the agreement are that Dignity Health has the capacity to serve as a portal into UCSF’s specialty services while providing high quality care in emergency services and hospital admissions when UCSF is at or near capacity for both.  Further, Dignity Health has a far better track record than most large non-profit health care organizations in providing uncompensated care, accepting Medi-Cal patients, and treating patients from vulnerable backgrounds.  For those who are fearful that UCSF faculty will have to abide by the dictates of a Catholic Health Care organization, we have been assured that there will be no oaths to sign nor will there be a ban on counseling patients on where they may receive services not offered at Dignity Health for religious reasons.

The arguments in opposition of the agreement are that UC is providing its imprimatur to an organization that does not provide a full-range of reproductive health services to women, limits the scope of contraceptive services and counseling available to patients of all genders, and restricts the extent of end of life care.  Because students and residents would be doing rotations in these facilities, during the time of the rotations the education would be delimited by the services not available.  Beyond the practical effects on the services provided and educational opportunities forgone, UCSF as a State of California health care organization would be tacitly accepting that the limits placed by an organization run in accordance with Catholic principles do not clash with our mission to provide the fullest range of evidence-based care.

We ask that you vote on what our position should be and provide in the text fields some of the rationale for your decision.

The Board of the UCSF Faculty Association