President’s Letter from Bill Steinbach – Society Decision-Making

Our Society numbers greater than 2,700 members, at more than 500 institutions, across the country and around the world. Deciding where and when to speak using that larger Society voice on issues of importance and relevance to our field is a high wire act requiring shrewd maneuvering. It’s also one we seem to be getting plenty of opportunities to master these last few months.

Let’s take for example the HHS decision to remove children and pregnant people from the recommended list for COVID-19 vaccination. The decision to change the policy was not based on new scientific evidence or expert deliberation, but rather on executive fiat. As a result, six organizations plus a Jane Doe have filed suit on the change. PIDS was contacted to be a plaintiff in that suit. There were extensive considerations as to how we as a Society could be the most impactful, and various constraints ultimately led to Society leadership passing on joining as a formal co-plaintiff.

This was the best decision for the Society based on a matrix of factors. This is not unlike our initial decision to have the PIDS liaison to ACIP not participate in that first “new” meeting, but then we returned to the subsequent meeting so we could be a trusted voice of reason.  

To be clear, that decision did not mean we weren’t in complete agreement with the merits of the suit, that we did not also think this change was done outside of the proper framework, or that we did not see how the change will negatively affect children. Instead of joining the lawsuit formally, we made a concerted decision to support it in several different ways, including through direct participation by submitting an amicus brief to the court that will hear the case. 

This brief will inform the court that PIDS strongly believes that the judgement will impact our ability to pursue our mission (“To enhance the health of infants, children and adolescents by promoting excellence in diagnosis, management and prevention of infectious diseases through clinical care, education, research and advocacy.”). The filing of our amicus brief will be the latest of our countless tactics, which have included public statements as well as letters to congressional representation and administration leaders, that ensure our collective voice is heard, not silent.

There are leadership dilemmas, such as this, that only present unattractive options to choose from. But since we must make a choice, the leadership team worked together to hear a diversity of opinions before selecting our best option in plotting the organization’s course. Since this, like many of the actions we have undertaken, was performed more behind the scenes, I realize this approach may appear frustrating to some.

I assure you that we are in the metaphorical arena Teddy Roosevelt spoke about. We are striving valiantly in pursuit of our worthy cause and constantly re-evaluating how we can be the most impactful with our voice. We are fighting to have our patients respected, to not allow our members to be bullied or bulldozed, and to spend ourselves for the worthy cause of promoting the health and well-being of children through the prevention and control of infectious diseases worldwide.