I was asked for my religion today..

XxMCRxBabyxX

Sardonicat wrote: »

I'm not a catholic, and while I think that religion should be entirely private and have no place in public life I can tell you that I have worked in the NHS in the UK and a catholic hosp here. And the "ethos" of the latter did not affect any one adversely. In fact, in terms of ethics, I saw no difference except in the case of rescusitation (everyone who arrested in catholic hosps, not the case in nhs). And no one gave a **** that I was not religious,that some of the staff were protestant, muslim etc., if the patients were not catholic etc. So I can categorically state, Gurramok, you are talking ****e!

Out of curiosity Sardonicat, for the sake of this thread. Was the dreaded "what religion are you" question asked in those hospitals?

Sardonicat

In the NHS? YES! In fact, part of the patient admission form and nursing care plan included a section on the spiritual needs of the patients. This is standard nursing practice everywhere AFIK. If someone said atheist it was respected, in the catholic hosp also.

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

How do I know I got A1 treatment? I do wonder if i answered RC if I had received superior treatment especially on reading that horror story of the lung cancer patients.

I'm not Catholic, I answered as such on my admissions form in St. Vincents (a Catholic Hospital) and was given the best care afforded to anyone in the world.

I was admitted there specifically because they have one of the best neurology Depts in the world, the fact that I am not a Catholic made no difference in whether or not I was admitted. I was admitted into the Neurology dept's ward because I needed their care, I was admitted under the care of Prof. Tubridy because he is one of the best people in the world in his field and I would benefit from his care.

One year later and I am almost 100% back to normal, I have received and continue to receive the best care possible to be despite the fact that I didn't answer "Catholic" to the question "what is your religion" which was asked of me when I was first admitted. Your "argument" is ****ing retarded. Seriously, give up, you do nothing but make yourself seem like a paranoid idiot.
Time to give up the goat and accept that you are either (a) a troll or (b) an idiot.

Sofiztikated

Gurramok, let me give you some history on me.

I've been in and out of hospitals many times over the course of my 27 years.

Up until I was 18, my religion was always given as Presbyterian. My belief changed (well not really, but didn't have to attend with de Mammy and de Daddy), and since then, when I've been asked, I've either stated none or agnostic.

Never have I experienced poor care in hospitals due to this. (Waiting times are horrific, but thats the HSE for you.)

Not once has who is on the board of directors of a hospital affected me or my care, nor has their choice of beliefs.

Now your original question of "Why was I asked?" has been answered, and you seem more pissed about the fact that there are Catholics on the board than anything else. You are coming across to me as having a bit of a hate on for Catholics, or more so the Catholic church. You ****e on about respecting your beliefs, but you seem intent on them respecting yours so much that you fail to see there are other people around you that hold different beliefs.

Why are there Catholics on the board of the Mater hospital? Because it was founded by Catholics. Simple. Thats a bit like asking why do Polish people run the shops that sell Polish goods.

Great Ormond St in London has the Royal Family as Patrons of their hospital, does that make it a Church of England hospital? Does it matter?

I'd vote for this to be locked as well, and that goes against your belief that only religious people want this locked. I'm sorry, you have repeatedly come across as stamping your feet and huffing. I'm out, as they say.

gurramok

Sardonicat wrote: »

I know what the word "ethos" means. What I want to know if you are familiar with the wording of the Mater's ethos.

If it went against the ethos of tallaght hosp it would similarly have been blocked. Did it eventually get the go ahead?

How were you treated differently as a result of you saying "no religion". I'm waiting to here it.

Please tell us the Mater's ethos and how that is different from a Catholic ethos despite them espousing the Catholic ethos? Have to hear this one.

And how would it be any different from Tallaght who have no Catholic ethos?

As regards my treatment, I ain't a specialist in the field I was treated in so how would I know that the treatment was top notch?

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

I am yet to see evidence of these claims of yours. I think you're trying to imagine that everyone is religious to justify them not agreeing with you. The only person who has tried to bring the posters' personal beliefs are yourself. No one else has mentioned their beliefs without being given provocation first as far as I can see.

Start reading all these posts properly and not just taking from them what you want them to say to suit yourself.

Tis strange than non-Catholic posters are up front about their beliefs and yet those posters who spring to the defence of the Catholic ethos curse at my posts and yet continue to say they are not Catholic?

gurramok

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Gurramok, let me give you some history on me.

I've been in and out of hospitals many times over the course of my 27 years.

Up until I was 18, my religion was always given as Presbyterian. My belief changed (well not really, but didn't have to attend with de Mammy and de Daddy), and since then, when I've been asked, I've either stated none or agnostic.

Never have I experienced poor care in hospitals due to this. (Waiting times are horrific, but thats the HSE for you.)

Not once has who is on the board of directors of a hospital affected me or my care, nor has their choice of beliefs.

Now your original question of "Why was I asked?" has been answered, and you seem more pissed about the fact that there are Catholics on the board than anything else. You are coming across to me as having a bit of a hate on for Catholics, or more so the Catholic church. You ****e on about respecting your beliefs, but you seem intent on them respecting yours so much that you fail to see there are other people around you that hold different beliefs.

Why are there Catholics on the board of the Mater hospital? Because it was founded by Catholics. Simple. Thats a bit like asking why do Polish people run the shops that sell Polish goods.

Great Ormond St in London has the Royal Family as Patrons of their hospital, does that make it a Church of England hospital? Does it matter?

I'd vote for this to be locked as well, and that goes against your belief that only religious people want this locked. I'm sorry, you have repeatedly come across as stamping your feet and huffing. I'm out, as they say.

I don't hate Catholics nor any other religious adherents. Why are there no Presbyterians or agnostics for example on the board? All I got was an answer saying 'they founded it' and 'its tradition', and yet I give an example where such tradition interfered with science and some posters have no problem with this.:eek:

You must see the irony in all this?

Sofiztikated

I can't believe I'm getting back into this again.

How do you know there are none on the board. Have you asked?

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

Please tell us the Mater's ethos and how that is different from a Catholic ethos despite them espousing the Catholic ethos? Have to hear this one.

And how would it be any different from Tallaght who have no Catholic ethos?

As regards my treatment, I ain't a specialist in the field I was treated in so how would I know that the treatment was top notch?



Tis strange than non-Catholic posters are up front about their beliefs and yet those posters who spring to the defence of the Catholic ethos curse at my posts and yet continue to say they are not Catholic?

I am Catholic, quite happy to be Catholic, have no problem with being Catholic. I also have no problem with you not believeing in God. What I do have a problem with is your bigotry towards the peoples beliefs while, as the other poster said, waffling on about yours being disrespected. I don't think you are a troll because to be a troll would suggest a modicum of intelligence and that seems to be sadly lacking in your case. Nobodies treatment in a hospital is affected by them expressing a religious preference, and in a country that is still predominately Catholic its hardly a surprise that the odd Catholic might appear on the odd board here and there is it.Should I take offence if somebody didn't ask me what my religion is because I am religious? No. So get over it.

gurramok

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I can't believe I'm getting back into this again.

How do you know there are none on the board. Have you asked?

As stated earlier, they're all Catholic.

Each of these Boards consists both of members of the Congregation and members of the lay community with a range of different professional expertise and experience.

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

I am Catholic, quite happy to be Catholic, have no problem with being Catholic. I also have no problem with you not believeing in God. What I do have a problem with is your bigotry towards the peoples beliefs while, as the other poster said, waffling on about yours being disrespected. I don't think you are a troll because to be a troll would suggest a modicum of intelligence and that seems to be sadly lacking in your case. Nobodies treatment in a hospital is affected by them expressing a religious preference, and in a country that is still predominately Catholic its hardly a surprise that the odd Catholic might appear on the odd board here and there is it.Should I take offence if somebody didn't ask me what my religion is because I am religious? No. So get over it.

I ain't a bigot. Just because I question the status of a public hospital that has a Catholic ethos which serves the general public where the populace has a range of religions or no religion, I get accusations of bigotry :eek:

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

As stated earlier, they're all Catholic.




I ain't a bigot. Just because I question the status of a public hospital that has a Catholic ethos which serves the general public where the populace has a range of religions or no religion, I get accusations of bigotry :eek:

If I am in a predominately Muslim country and the hospital has a muslim ethos, I wouldn't complain. Same with a predominately jewish society, etc, etc, etc. Once it doesn't impinge on care who the hell cares. You have seriously little to worry about in life is this is of such a concern to you, when my loved ones need medical care I have never cared what the ethos of the hospital was, just that they got the care they needed. Like I said previously, next time you are in hospital walk around the wards, see what the real worries in life are and not this petty rubbish.I agree with people who say this thread should be locked, its at nonsense level at this stage.

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

They auto assumed I was religious and also the hospital put lung cancer patients in danger as per news report, that is very worrying in this day and age from a public hospital.

Its not assuming you are religious, its making sure that you do not receive the last rites at some stage in the future if you are dying while in their care. Its called respecting your beliefs but you are way too blinkered to see that point.

XxMCRxBabyxX

Sardonicat wrote: »

In the NHS? YES! In fact, part of the patient admission form and nursing care plan included a section on the spiritual needs of the patients. This is standard nursing practice everywhere AFIK. If someone said atheist it was respected, in the catholic hosp also.

So does that mean the UK hospitals are being intolerant too?! :O
Maybe it's a massive hospital wide conspiracy! :O

gurramok wrote: »

Tis strange than non-Catholic posters are up front about their beliefs and yet those posters who spring to the defence of the Catholic ethos curse at my posts and yet continue to say they are not Catholic?

So you're saying that because they are defending the ethos they have to be catholic? If they have said they are are not Catholic, obviously they aren't.

Also you do realise that your whole issue here appears to be that they auto-assumed that you're religious which is the EXACT same thing you are now doing to every poster here when they make a point against you

gurramok

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

If I am in a predominately Muslim country and the hospital has a muslim ethos, I wouldn't complain. Same with a predominately jewish society, etc, etc, etc. Once it doesn't impinge on care who the hell cares. You have seriously little to worry about in life is this is of such a concern to you, when my loved ones need medical care I have never cared what the ethos of the hospital was, just that they got the care they needed. Like I said previously, next time you are in hospital walk around the wards, see what the real worries in life are and not this petty rubbish.I agree with people who say this thread should be locked, its at nonsense level at this stage.

I have shown that it did affect care, it affected lung cancer patients.

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

So you're saying that because they are defending the ethos they have to be catholic? If they have said they are are not Catholic, obviously they aren't.

Also you do realise that your whole issue here appears to be that they auto-assumed that you're religious which is the EXACT same thing you are now doing to every poster here when they make a point against you

Why defend a Catholic ethos then? Only Catholics would do that.

Those posters have staunchly defended the Catholic Church, its obvious their background. I didn't have a conversation with the receptionist debating atheism or any religion before I was asked the question. Quite a difference there.

AudreyHepburn

Gurramok it's now becoming clear the real issue here is not the question or even the hospital's board and ethos.

The issue is that you have a clear hatred for anything remotely Catholic/Christian and that for all the intolerance you seem determined to experience you are the one being intolerant.

And exactly what business is it of yours is it what religious backrounds we come from? What difference does it make? Does it make our points any less relevent? Or do you think those of us with religous backrounds should not be allowed to post on this topic?

XxMCRxBabyxX

gurramok wrote: »

Why defend a Catholic ethos then? Only Catholics would do that.

Those posters have staunchly defended the Catholic Church, its obvious their background. I didn't have a conversation with the receptionist debating atheism or any religion before I was asked the question. Quite a difference there.

No, no they won't. You are auto-assuming.
They're defending the hospitals right to have an ethos considering the country's predominant faith and the history of people who set up the hospital. You don't have to be religious to do that

optogirl

Man - I have no time whatsoever for the Catholic church and have ranted and raved on boards many a time about how much I resent their stronghold on this country HOWEVER, your points are invalid and make no sense.

As I stated before - if you feel you were discriminated against due to your religious beliefs you should contact the complaints department at the HSE. It looks to me however that you are just making a mountain out of a molehill. The mater hospital was founded by and is run by a religious order. That is all. They do NOT discriminate against staff or patients who are not catholic. It is standard practice to be asked your religion in a hospital for a variety of reasons, not least being that some religions are against blood transfusion & organ donation. Also, you may or may not want the last rites as has been pointed out in several posts.

gurramok

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Gurramok it's now becoming clear the real issue here is not the question or even the hospital's board and ethos.

The issue is that you have a clear hatred for anything remotely Catholic/Christian and that for all the intolerance you seem determined to experience you are the one being intolerant.

And exactly what business is it of yours is it what religious backrounds we come from? What difference does it make? Does it make our points any less relevent? Or do you think those of us with religous backrounds should not be allowed to post on this topic?

Audrey, thats quite a jump you have done there.

Where have I displayed hatred for anything remotely Catholic/Christian or me being intolerant? Quote some posts.

Its the defence of said posters hiding behind their true identity. I think everyone of all types should post and they have.

XxMCRxBabyxX wrote: »

No, no they won't. You are auto-assuming.
They're defending the hospitals right to have an ethos considering the country's predominant faith and the history of people who set up the hospital. You don't have to be religious to do that

You have to explain how a stranger can auto assume my religion and a poster who staunchly defends the Catholic religion cannot be assumed to be a Catholic as your clutch at straws there MCR.

Why defend it in the modern age? I can understand if this was the 1950's with the power of the church over people but nowadays practising Catholic numbers have decreased and we are in a secular society with many religions and no religions from followers..

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

I have shown that it did affect care, it affected lung cancer patients.



Why defend a Catholic ethos then? Only Catholics would do that.

Those posters have staunchly defended the Catholic Church, its obvious their background. I didn't have a conversation with the receptionist debating atheism or any religion before I was asked the question. Quite a difference there.

I have not actually defended the Catholic church, I have defended the right of the hospital to ask the question. Its designed to get a clergyman for those who will need one and not to for those that don't, its a simple clarification. Would you rather sit on your death bed and see yourself being prayed over when you didn't want it.As for the lung cancer patients my understanding from the article is that it was a TEST DRUG, therefore the hospital is under no obligation to allow the patients to be tested with the drug while in their care so it did not affect their treatment as they received all the treatment normally given by any hospital to cancer patients in their care. Any hospital can refuse to give experimental drugs to its patients for any number of reasons so thats just ckutching at straws to back up a facile argument.

optogirl

gurramok wrote: »

hiding behind their true identity.

How can somebody 'hide behind their true identity'. You are just writing random words now :rolleyes:

HarryPotter41

optogirl wrote: »

How can somebody 'hide behind their true idenity'. You are just writing random words now :rolleyes:

That would be an ecumenical matter. And he hates those.

XxMCRxBabyxX

gurramok wrote: »

You have to explain how a stranger can auto assume my religion and a poster who staunchly defends the Catholic religion cannot be assumed to be a Catholic as your clutch at straws there MCR.

Why defend it in the modern age? I can understand if this was the 1950's with the power of the church over people but nowadays practising Catholic numbers have decreased and we are in a secular society with many religions and no religions from followers..

No straw clutching garramok my dear.
You are assuming that everyone who makes a point HAS to be a Catholic to make it. What ever way you decide to look at it you are still making an assumption which is what you are trying to argue against!

If people want to defend the religion that is their choice no matter what their personal beliefs are. I personally am in no way religious but I would probably still defend the church in certain situation. Are you saying I MUST be catholic then?

Despite all your claims against it, you are being ridiculously intolerant of the Catholic Church and other people's beliefs in this as so many have already said. By being determined to shoot down any statement on the Church's side you are refusing to acknowledge that Church = intolerance

gurramok

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

I have not actually defended the Catholic church, I have defended the right of the hospital to ask the question. Its designed to get a clergyman for those who will need one and not to for those that don't, its a simple clarification. Would you rather sit on your death bed and see yourself being prayed over when you didn't want it.As for the lung cancer patients my understanding from the article is that it was a TEST DRUG, therefore the hospital is under no obligation to allow the patients to be tested with the drug while in their care so it did not affect their treatment as they received all the treatment normally given by any hospital to cancer patients in their care. Any hospital can refuse to give experimental drugs to its patients for any number of reasons so thats just ckutching at straws to back up a facile argument.

Have you read the article? They were denied the drugs because of conflict with the Catholic ethos of the hospital

Actually, have a read of this good article also.
http://www.irishhealth.com/clin/sexual_health/features2.html?artid=16554

I take it you fundamentally disagree? :eek:

he Sisters of Mercy and Sisters of Charity still own two of Dublin, and Ireland's, biggest hospitals, the Mater and St Vincent's respectively.

Other healthcare institutions owned by The Sisters of Mercy include Temple Street Children's Hospital and National Rehabilitation Hospital in Dun Laoghaire. The Sisters of Charity also own St Michael's Hospital in Dun Laoghaire as well as other healthcare centres.

A look at the the Mater Hospital's website shows us how firm a grip the Catholic church still has on hospiutal governance. It tells us that the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital is single member company; a subsidiary of the Mater Misericordiae and the Children's University Hospitals (Temple St) Ltd.

"The majority of the members of the parent company are Sisters of Mercy and the remaining members represent the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, the Catholic Nurses Guild of Ireland, the Society of St Vincent de Paul and the Medical Consultants of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and the Children's University Hospital."

This statement reads like a historical document from the 1950s, rather than a description of how many would now feel a modern, almost wholly state-funded hospital should be run.

A further reading of the mission statements of the Mater and St Vincent's refer to their devotion for caring for the sick and concern at all times for the welfare of the patient. They also refer to upholding the spirit and ethos of the religious orders who own and run them.

And it is not just religious orders that still have a strong influence on healthcare provision. The Catholic Archbishop of Dublin is still Chairman of Crumlin Children's Hospital and Holles Street National Maternity Hospital. The recent Murphy report showed us how two appalling cases of abuse by two priests working at Crumlin hospital were neglected and covered up by predecessors of the current Archbishop.

A glance at the list of governors at Holles Street shows us that not only is the Archbishop Chairman, but three other local parish priests are on the board. These are all "ex-officio" governors, who automatically get onto the board because of the positions they hold.

The Ryan and Murphy reports have demonstrated gross abuses of power and of people by religious orders and the clergy.

Notwithstanding the good work many in both religious groupings still do, the recent revelations about child abuse and how it was neglected and covered up by the Church must inevitably lead to a questioning of its continuing role in the ownership and running of major hospitals .

If one even looks at the 'optics' of the current situation, is it appropriate to have the Sisters of Mercy owning a children's hospital (Temple Street) given the order's controversial history in the area of child welfare? This is course not to deny the excellent standard of care provided by staff at Temple Street. The new Children's hospital to replace the existing three Dublin hospitals will be built on the Mater site. It will be a HSE-owned hospital but will be linked to a major hospital still run by the Sisters of Mercy.

In the same vein, is it appropriate that the Archbishop of Dublin (however decent the current incumbent may be) should have a major say in running Crumlin and Holles Street Hospitals. Should the Hierarchy have any say any more in the provision of child health or women's health services?
1. Accountability.

Hundreds of million of taxpayers' euros are spent on running Catholic hospitals each year. The State provides the vast bulk of the funding for these hospitals, and has paid, over the years for developments at these institutions. Yet much of the ownership and governance of these hospitals is still vested in religious orders or members of a clergy who have a less than glorious recent history in catering for the needs of the vulnerable in our society, in particular to the needs of children. In this respect, their moral authority to own and run hospitals must be questioned. Even if one were to set aside the issue of child abuse for a moment, how appropriate is it today for major hospitals funded almost completely by the State to be run by private groups or companies? Ownership of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda was transferred from a religious order to the State in the 1990s - surely the same can be done in respect of other religious-run hospitals funded by the State.

2. Societal/cultural.

We live in an increasingly secular and multicultural world in which excessive religious influence on State-funded healthcare is now surely an anachronism. Surely good healthcare within the principles of humanism and justice can be delivered of a similar standard to the care ethos of the major religious orders without having to invoke Jesus or the Virgin Mary or only bring Catholic teaching to bear on how care is provided.

3. Damaged Goods?

Surely evidence of past (and some in the fairly recent past) abuses of power and people by the Church severely diminishes any remaining authority the Church has in terms of running institutions that care for sick and vulnerable people.

4. Influence on hospital policy

As recently as 2005, a trial of a cancer drug was delayed while a committee of the Mater Hospital deliberated over the fact that women who could get pregnant might have to take contraception while getting the drug to avoid fetal damage. Up until quite recently, women sometimes had to pay a heavy price for being treated in a Catholic hospital. The controversial practice of symphysiotomy, a surgical procedure to widen the pelvis which had serious after-effects, was practised in one Catholic hospital as recently as the early 1980s. One of the reasons given for this practice was that women subjected to the alternative of repeated Caesareans might be tempted to use birth control. Again, until recently the Catholic ethos of state-funded hospitals has sought to prevent or actively prevented procedures such as female strerilisation taking place, even though such procedures were legal and available in other hospitals. Such potential influence on hospital policy which can restrict patient choice of treatment is still potentially there. This is surely not appropriate in 2009.

Obviously, given the recent revelations and growing hostility to Church institutions, it is easy to descend into simple anti-clericalism, or 'priest-bashing'.

However we must start thinking about having a truly State-run health service. It is the State and the taxpayer, not priests, bishops or nuns who are paying for it and should be allowed run it without potential interference.

Sofiztikated

gurramok wrote: »

As stated earlier, they're all Catholic.

Each of these Boards consists both of members of the Congregation and members of the lay community with a range of different professional expertise and experience.

I don't see where it says there that they are all catholic. I see where it says it has both members from the Catholic congregation,a dn members from the lay community, as in not the congregation and have EXPERTISE.

gurramok

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I don't see where it says there that they are all catholic. I see where it says it has both members from the Catholic congregation,a dn members from the lay community, as in not the congregation and have EXPERTISE.

Are you having a laugh?

So you reckon a Protestant member of the board enforces the Catholic ethos?:rolleyes:

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

Have you read the article? They were denied the drugs because of conflict with the Catholic ethos of the hospital

Actually, have a read of this good article also.
http://www.irishhealth.com/clin/sexual_health/features2.html?artid=16554

I take it you fundamentally disagree? :eek:

If the hospital is under the auspices of any religious institution then it will reflect the beliefs of that institution. that is the way of the world. These hospitals were founded by the religious and provided care to the poor when the state wasn't able to. It's probably time to take all those hospitals into the state system, until then they are perfectly entitled to follow the teachings of that particular religion. The hospital you refer to denied patients an experimental drug. Not normal care.

gurramok

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

If the hospital is under the auspices of any religious institution then it will reflect the beliefs of that institution. that is the way of the world. These hospitals were founded by the religious and provided care to the poor when the state wasn't able to. It's probably time to take all those hospitals into the state system, until then they are perfectly entitled to follow the teachings of that particular religion. The hospital you refer to denied patients an experimental drug. Not normal care.

Way of the world in other words you don't care about the women who were forced to have horrific symphysiotomy procedures. They denied those cancer patients because of religious beliefs, nothing else. You see, that's why there is a problem with a Catholic ethos in public hospitals and it needs to change to prevent barbaric treatments as a result of religious influence happening again.
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=16907

The Survivors of Symphysiotomy (SOS) group today called for Health Minister Mary Harney to be sacked if she does not order an independent review of a controversial surgical procedure which left hundreds of women disabled.

Symphysiotomies were widely carried out in maternity units in Ireland between the early 1940s and the early 1980s. The procedure involves permanently widening the pelvis by surgically dividing the symphysis pubis, where the pubic bones come together.

The calls come following a Prime Time special on RTE last night which revealed that symphysiotomies were widespread here between 1944 and 1983. The programme also revealed that Ireland was the only country in the developed world where the procedure was widely practised in the 20th century.

At a press conference today organised by SOS, symphysiotomy was described as a "brutal and cruel treatment from the darkest ages", and the practice was described as "institutionalised abuse of women."

It is estimated it may have been carried out on around 1,500 women.

Around 111 women who were victims of symphysiotomy have come forward to date, and there are expected to be many more women suffering for years from the serious side effects of the procedure, which include extreme pain, incontinence and depression. Around 1,500 women are estimated to have had the procedure.

The SOS group claims the procedure was carried out in Ireland when it had long ceased in other countries. It is reported that it ceased in Holles Street Hospital in the mid-1960s, although there have been claims that it continued there until the early 1970s.

Symphysiotomies continued in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda until 1983.

It is believed that the procedure was encouraged by Catholic obstetricians as a birth-facilitating alternative to caesarean section, as it was believed that women facing repeated caesareans for future births might be tempted to use contraception.

Ailbhe Smyth of the National Women's Council of Ireland told the press conference she believed the practice of carrying out this procedure was a crime. "There can't be any normal person who would not weep to hear these women's experiences."

Colm MacGeehin, solicitor to over 100 symphysiotomy survivors seeking redress, said there was a deafening silence emanating from Government on the symphysiotomy issue. He said the Minister should resign due to her lack of action.

He said previous Health Minister Micheal Martin promised an independent review of the symphysiotomy controversy in 2003 but this never took place.

A briefing document from the Department of Health to the Oireachtas Health Committee last week stated that various obstetric experts from outside Ireland suggested by both SOS and the Department to carry out an independent review were not acceptable to one side or another.

Mr MacGeehin said one UK expert, Roger Clements, proposed by SOS, was turned down by the Department because he had not published any papers on symphysiotomy. However, Mr MacGeehin said that this was not a valid excuse as symphysiotomies were not extensively done outside Ireland, so therefore no papers could have been written.

Two other experts suggested by the Department were unacceptable to SOS as the experts suggested were regarded as pro-symphysiotomy. Mr MacGeehin said a list of four further experts suggested recently by SOS had not been responded to by the Department.

Mr MacGeehin said symphysiotomy was reintroduced into Ireland in the mid-1940s, due to fears that the alternative of repeated caesareans would lead to women practising birth control.

This was at a time when the practice of symphysiotomy was dying out in other countries,

Sofiztikated

gurramok wrote: »

Are you having a laugh?

So you reckon a Protestant member of the board enforces the Catholic ethos?:rolleyes:

Nope, didn't use the :pac: so I'm deadly serious.

You don't KNOW that all the members are staunch Catholics.

If you want to go down that route, I can point out to a number of places in the Presbyterian hymnbook that it still refers to as all one under the Catholic church.

Not all Protestant/Catholic relationships have to be at loggerheads. Its not always one or the other, the IS a middle ground.

gurramok

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Nope, didn't use the :pac: so I'm deadly serious.

You don't KNOW that all the members are staunch Catholics.

If you want to go down that route, I can point out to a number of places in the Presbyterian hymnbook that it still refers to as all one under the Catholic church.

Not all Protestant/Catholic relationships have to be at loggerheads. Its not always one or the other, the IS a middle ground.

Which is it? staunch Catholics or Protestants can be members to enforce the Catholic ethos?

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

Way of the world in other words you don't care about the women who were forced to have horrific symphysiotomy procedures. They denied those cancer patients because of religious beliefs, nothing else. You see, that's why there is a problem with a Catholic ethos in public hospitals and it needs to change to prevent barbaric treatments as a result of religious influence happening again.
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=16907

Lets see, I don't care about a group of people who were not part of the discussion until now. You really are stretching the bounds of reasonable argument at this stage and you're increasing anti Cathloic rantings are proving that you are rabidly anti Catholic/Christian. By the way, that article you quote uses the words "its believed" to describe why procedures were carried out, not that that is why they were carried out.

gurramok

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Lets see, I don't care about a group of people who were not part of the discussion until now. You really are stretching the bounds of reasonable argument at this stage and you're increasing anti Cathloic rantings are proving that you are rabidly anti Catholic/Christian. By the way, that article you quote uses the words "its believed" to describe why procedures were carried out, not that that is why they were carried out.

You didn't know about said scandal despite you defending the maintaining of the Catholic ethos? :eek:

Here's your believed as an explanation, a weak defence.

"It is believed that the procedure was encouraged by Catholic obstetricians as a birth-facilitating alternative to caesarean section, as it was believed that women facing repeated caesareans for future births might be tempted to use contraception."