Observing recent political campaigns, Americans have learned that being able to frame the debate - either accurately or not - is a useful tool in winning. Political consultants coach their clients in ways they can shape the argument to their advantage, if not always in the best interests of the truth.

This same tactic appears to be at work in Butler as the administration at Butler Memorial Hospital engages in a public relations effort to support the current plan to build a new hospital at a new site.

Some people in the community don't agree that that approach is the best way to solve the hospital's problems. They believe that there is a more cost-effective solution, involving building a new hospital at the current site while still using the "Main" building, which was constructed about 24 years ago. None of the older buildings are worth salvaging, but an argument can be made that using the Main building, with an estimated $35 million replacement cost, is reasonable.

Rather than explain why such an approach, using the Main building in some capacity - for psychiatric care, for transitional care or even for administrative offices - will not work, BMH officials choose to mischaracterize those who question their plans as wanting the old hospital to remain untouched.

Anyone with any experience at the current hospital agrees that a major investment - $100 million or more - needs to be spent to bring Butler Memorial's capabilities up to date and prepare it for the future.

Though it's not evident in the hospital's public relations efforts, the debate is not an "all or nothing" situation. A new, or largely new hospital, could be built on the current site. But so far, hospital officials have not allowed a detailed feasibility study to go forward that would evaluate that option.

The message from the hospital administration appears to be: Unless we build a brand new hospital - for an estimated $161 million or more - on a new, greenfield site, healthcare in Butler County will suffer, because the current hospital campus will remain frozen in time.

To say that no significant improvements can be made while working on the current campus is a false argument and one that misleads more than it informs. There are other options, and people deserve to know what those options are and what they might cost.

Nationally known hospital's in Pittsburgh and other larger cities routinely build, renovate and reinvent themselves on their landlocked, urban locations. Health care in those cities is considered advanced, despite their urban, cramped settings.

Yet, the chairman of Butler Memorial's board of trustees has labeled those who question the hospital's current bias toward building on a new site as a "select few" who are "trying to deceive the community."

To most observers, the discussions about a new hospital have been about learning more about the construction options and have largely been respectful, even though some have expressed deep reservations about the board's independence and the level of due dilligence performed regarding the exploration of all viable options for a new hospital.

To label these people as deceivers is wrong. The debate should be about identifying the best, most efficient investment the community can make for a new hospital - not about calling critics names or mischaracterizing their position.

The hospital's refusal to permit a thorough feasibility study of the current site, including renovation of the Main building along with construction of a new hospital tower leads many people to the conclusion that the hospital leadership doesn't want people to know what is possible on the current site.

What other explanation could there be to wanting to suppress a detailed analysis of the current location? A thorough study would prove either that the current site can be made to work for substantially less money or it would suggest that moving to a new, greenfield site and abandoning the current campus is, after all, the best option. Any effort to learn more about such a monumental decision should be seen as a positive, not a negative.

The official BMH message is that only a 100 percent new building/complex will work. Anything less will condemn the community to antiquated medical care. That is a disingenuous position and one that misrepresents the debate.

The community deserves a more honest discussion about something as important as a new hospital that will impact the lives of residents for decades to come.