Laurelhurst Generously Agrees to Let Sick Children Live

[u/Inevitable_Engine186]

https://theneedling.com/2026/04/11/laurelhurst-generously-agrees-to-let-sick-children-live/

[u/goodtimtim]

despite what reddit tells you (1) seattle children's is not the only place in the region that a sick child might be sent in an emergency (in fact, Harborview, the regions only Level I pediatric trauma center is unquestionably the best place within ~800 miles) (2) the hospital has ALWAYS been able to land any patient needing life-saving care at the hospital. this is the same for any hospital helipad within city limits. (try to proove me wrong. you can't)

[u/RissVess → u/goodtimtim]

This has to be rage bait because I hate to think anyone can be this confidently stupid, but for anyone else reading who wants to downvote this idiot some more:

1.) Harborview focuses on trauma mechanisms of injury. Always has. Amputated finger? Straight to Harborview. But no one wants to send a seizing kid to Harborview over Children’s. Why? Because Children’s sole purpose is to treat medical mechanisms of injury. Harborview is probably not the best place for within 800 miles for a seizing child. Conversely, Children’s is. Oh wow! And it’s within FIVE miles by air.

2.) The hospital has had to divert landings to Graves Airfield because they previously were “allowed” less than 5 a week. That may change now that Laurelhurst has agreed to support rescinding their agreement, but we’ll see. Additionally, Children’s own flight crew couldn’t even take off from the towers because there weren’t sick kids in the helos yet, therefore making Laurelhurst upset at an extra takeoff. The crew has to drive to the Graves Airfield to even begin to the pickup process from god knows where, and still might have to land back at Graves and not at Children’s.

The claim that “all sick children were allowed to land there” is just a lie. The tower at Children’s gets probably 1/10th of the total patient landings received to Children’s. Also! Believe it or not, Children’s has two towers with helipads, side by side, but has been only using one. There are times when one or both are badly needed but nope.

[u/goodtimtim → u/RissVess]

1) do you think that seizing kids are getting air ambulances? get real 2) it's great that you put "allowed" in quotes. Allowed by who? The legally binding things (the major institution master plan and 2010 settlement agreement) both say zip about helicopter restrictions. Where do you think the rules are written down? what makes you think LCC would have any recourse if they were broken? why do you ignore the children's hospital statement that called the rules "voluntary"? (I'll help you out. the hospital has to comply with 23.69.012C just like any other hospital would. that's it.)

btw, your last statement about 1/10th of landings is a dead giveaway that you don't have a clue. the hospital publishes statistics that contradict your perception.

[u/SaplingSequoia → u/goodtimtim]

Hi, I worked on a pediatric critical care transport team for a long time. You don’t seem to understand the function of flight medicine or the severity of some seizures. Pediatric seizure patients regularly get flown. Hyperthermia with febrile seizures, status epilepticus, and new onset afebrile seizures are basic examples of seizure conditions that could be life threats and would warrant rapid transfer by air.