Tommy
Holm

A central hospital with full emergency services is crucial for the people of Ostrobothnia. In acute cases such as heart attacks, strokes, or serious accidents, fast medical care can save lives. Without full emergency services in Vaasa, patients may have to be transported long distances, increasing the risk of severe complications or even death. Bilingualism makes full emergency services even more important. In critical situations, patients must be able to communicate in their native language to receive the right care. For many Swedish-speaking residents, this is a matter of safety and security. A strong central hospital with full emergency services helps attract and retain specialists and healthcare professionals in the region. If the hospital loses its full-service status, its appeal decreases, leading to a shortage of doctors and nurses, which would weaken the entire healthcare system in Ostrobothnia. Ultimately, this is a matter of equality. Everyone deserves access to high-quality healthcare close to home, regardless of where they live. The people of Ostrobothnia should not have to travel across the country to receive the specialized care they need. We have the right to the same safety and quality of care as the rest of Finland. Maintaining full emergency services in Vaasa is not just a healthcare issue – it is a matter of fairness, safety, and the future of Ostrobothnia.

The right to accessible healthcare should be close to you and not restricted by municipal borders, which often have little relevance in this context.

I believe this should be an absolute last resort. I can understand its benefits, for example, in the archipelago where distances to a village center are long, but I still think the cost per euro spent is far too high.

Preventive healthcare is always significantly cheaper in the long run. This has been known for decades in occupational health services, where companies invest substantial resources in preventive measures.

I don’t have all the necessary knowledge to fully answer this question, so my response is more from an emotional perspective. I understand the benefit of having a personal doctor who knows you and your health issues, but I almost see a greater advantage in having multiple experts review a problem or someone with different experience offering a new perspective. However, this can nowadays be solved through technology, so I feel torn on the matter.

Coming from the private sector, I can understand the advantage of hired doctors, but it is crucial that the tool is used and regulated correctly. In the private sector, we use temporary labor to manage workload peaks – when we have a lot of work, we hire additional staff, and when the workload decreases, we avoid having too many employees. I would like to see the hired doctor system used in a similar way.

If the need exists, it is clear that resources should be directed there in the short term, but in the long term, the focus should be on preventive measures.

I believe that, in the long run, our society benefits more from having short healthcare queues than what we lose on service vouchers. However, once again, this should be used as a temporary solution during peak periods.

I have never seen much benefit in centralization – but of course, it depends on what we are talking about. Health centers need to be close to the people who use them, while specialized healthcare should be located where the specialists are.

The first contact with the patient or an immediate emergency situation is crucial for saving lives.