The National Review editorial board has been warning for years about the dangers of hospitals with too much art and too many lights.

But when the American Hospital Association said in April that hospitals should “remove all art and light” from their buildings, the magazine responded with a response that seemed to confirm its own fears: “You can’t take out the lights and replace them with a new one.”

The response is indicative of how the hospital industry has become increasingly comfortable with the “artificial light,” as the National Review’s editor-in-chief, Jonah Goldberg, described it.

In this excerpt from his book, Goldberg writes: Art is the new lighting in hospitals, where it has been used to replace real light and real sound.

For example, when the lights go out in the emergency room, the nurse is forced to wear a mask.

This artificial lighting creates a sense of security that does not exist in real hospitals.

It gives patients a sense that they are safe, that the doctors are there to treat them.

And it adds a little something to the atmosphere.

When the lights went out, we all saw it.

When they went out again, the patients were left in the dark.

It is all just artifice, but that is what it is.

In reality, hospitals often lack art.

They lack the real beauty that makes life worth living.

A hospital that lacks art is just as empty and devoid of life as the one we all see in The Shining.

The truth is, the American Medical Association’s recent policy statement, “Art in the Healthcare Setting,” was an attempt to address the problem of hospital art, not a response to the problem.

It makes no mention of the art problem in the hospital, but the policy document does acknowledge that hospitals need to keep up with the evolving art and lighting standards.

Hospitals need to take a cue from other industries and not “throw out” art altogether, and instead use art in some ways that make it more “authentic” than art that is “boring.”

For example: The hospital should remove all art from the lobby.

There is no need to go “all-in” with the art department.

The hospital is a place of healing and compassion, and art is not a substitute for that.

The art in the lobby should reflect that.

If the art in a hospital is not the best, then the art must improve.

A recent New York Times article noted that many hospitals are “mimicking the Hollywood films,” adding that they want their art to be “not just ‘realistic,’ but realistic.”

The Times article also noted that the hospitals that do not comply with the new standards are not getting any less art.

It was a striking commentary on the problem that the American Psychiatric Association had already called for hospitals to “reject the ‘artsy’ approach of the movie industry,” and that the hospital art guidelines were “not meant to make the art less real,” but instead to “improve the art.”

The American Hospital Associations new guidelines are a step in the right direction, but a step too far.

The American Medical Associations’ new standards for art and music in the health care system are the antithesis of what the American Academy of Arts and Sciences (AAS) has said it is trying to achieve.

The AAS, which is a trade association representing more than 700 hospitals and health care facilities, has called for the removal of all art, sound, and lighting in health care settings.

The standards require hospitals to provide a “level playing field” for patients.

The guidelines do not include a “safe environment,” but they do not even specify what “safe” means.

They have no requirements that hospitals meet.

The new guidelines were proposed in 2014 by the AAS and are scheduled to go into effect on July 1, 2020.

If you want to see what the AAs guidelines look like, you can watch this video of the new guidelines being discussed in the Senate.

There are several problems with the Aas guidelines.

First, the guidelines do nothing to address what is called the “Artificially Lighted Corridor” — a concept that has been criticized by hospitals in recent years.

In the United States, hospitals are not required to follow the Aase, or AAS standard, because it is a technical, not an ethical, standard.

So, hospitals can keep up their standards, and then there is no oversight or oversight.

In addition, the Aases standards don’t include “safe environments” — which are the areas in hospitals that can be considered “safe.”

In some cases, the “safe areas” can be dangerous.

For instance, in some of the areas where there are no lights, there is the possibility of an infection that can spread quickly.

And the Aasing standards do not provide for a level playing field.

In other words, the standards do nothing but set a standard that may not even be safe for patients to be in, and which