I was asked for my religion today..

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

Then why did they ask you the question......? Catholic or non-religous....which one? Do you know the difference? Are you confused...? You're not much good at this debating stuff, are you....?:D

I was told here, especially by the fundamentalists that it was for 'future reference'. There was no legal basis to ask the question. No, i'm not confused, I know which belief I believe in thanks

drkpower wrote: »

Ooh, I beg to differ as do a few posters here, im sure.....It seems you let a simple question about religon or lack of it dictate the next few days of your life in a display of teenage angst.

Huh? I ain't a teenager! :mad:

I've educated people with well thought out posts on the crazy out of date non-secular discriminatory position by the religious in some of our hospitals!

jayteecork

I got that as well in the Mercy Cork.

Your one says "Catholic are you?"

I just said "I was baptised as one anyway" and she started laughing.

No point making a fuss out of these things.

optogirl

gurramok wrote: »

You should care. Those doctors work for a Catholic hospital whereby their judgement can be influenced by the religious(like in the article). Maybe all the staff are, whats their hiring policies?

As you say the Catholic church has never been an all inclusive organisation, that proves my point conclusively.

I worked there - I'm an atheist and was never asked my religion at the interview. The hospital is not 'Catholic-controlled'. Don't be ridiculous.

gurramok

optogirl wrote: »

I worked there - I'm an atheist and was never asked my religion at the interview. The hospital is not 'Catholic-controlled'. Don't be ridiculous.

So you say if you did work there. Why the Catholic ethos then?

optogirl

gurramok wrote: »

So you say if you did work there. Why the Catholic ethos then?

Is there any reason why you doubt me? Many of my collegues were Arabic, Muslim etc - I really don't see what point you're trying to make here?

The Catholic Ethos is because it was founded and run by the Sisters of Mercy. There is however, no policy of only hiring catholics or treating non-catholic patients in any different way to catholic ones - why would there be?

I have been both an employee and patient in the Mater and the question of religion only arose once, when I was asked whether I wanted the last rites or not. I declined. There was no outcry and they still operated on me!

MagicSean

optogirl wrote: »

Is there any reason why you doubt me? Many of my collegues were Arabic, Muslim etc - I really don't see what point you're trying to make here?

The Catholic Ethos is because it was founded and run by the Sisters of Mercy. There is however, no policy of only hiring catholics or treating non-catholic patients in any different way to catholic ones - why would there be?

I have been both an employee and patient in the Mater and the question of religion only arose once, when I was asked whether I wanted the last rites or not. I declined. There was no outcry and they still operated on me!

/Thread

gurramok

optogirl wrote: »

Is there any reason why you doubt me? Many of my collegues were Arabic, Muslim etc - I really don't see what point you're trying to make here?

The Catholic Ethos is because it was founded and run by the Sisters of Mercy. There is however, no policy of only hiring catholics or treating non-catholic patients in any different way to catholic ones - why would there be?

I have been both an employee and patient in the Mater and the question of religion only arose once, when I was asked whether I wanted the last rites or not. I declined. There was no outcry and they still operated on me!

Just because some employees are not Catholic does not mean they have a say in the running of the place. Its Catholic controlled and that says alot. Why do they keep holding onto their Catholic ethos if they are welcoming to other religions?

optogirl

gurramok wrote: »

Its Catholic controlled and that says alot.

it really doesn't. If you have a problem with the care you received and you perceive yourself to have been the victim of religious intolerance, contact the hospital complaints board.

optogirl

gurramok wrote: »

So you cannot answer why religious staff are on hospitals. Why not answer the question?

Because it would be grossly intolerant and a severe restriction of human rights if they were stopped from working in hospitals? You are obviously trolling man. Ridiculous.

gurramok

optogirl wrote: »

it really doesn't. If you have a problem with the care you received and you perceive yourself to have been the victim of religious intolerance, contact the hospital complaints board.

optogirl wrote: »

Because it would be grossly intolerant and a severe restriction of human rights if they were stopped from working in hospitals? You are obviously trolling man. Ridiculous.

Not trolling, valid questions. You picked up that wrong. I meant why are they on the boards of the hospitals? (not staff like nurses)

Why not change to ethos to a neutral one?

shaunab

This is getting so pedantic.

The person at registration doesn't give a flying fcuk what your religion is/was/ whatever!
You were most likely the 150 person she registered that day/night and 95% of those probably said 'none' or maybe even 'jedi' she/he's heard it all before, none of it is new.

The nurse or doctor also doesn't care a flying monkeys what you pray to when on bended knee - they won't notice anything about you.

Nobody is going to put a big red X beside your name just because you are/are not RC/Muslim/islam/Wiccan/COI/Jedi or WHATEVER.
Now if you are a Jehovah witness then they will flag your religion as it is important in medical matters re: blood and the patient will tell you this 10000 times.

Oh, and if she "WOBBLED HER HEAD" it's probably because he/she's sorry she/he asked but it's on the computer system which is years old , needs updating and was probably easier to ask rather than skip over and not because she/he cares a jot that you have no religion.

If you think for a minute it will affect your care in any way - then cop on - it won't because no one will notice OR CARE.

philologos

gurramok wrote: »

As above, why are they still running them, Ireland is a secular country to cater for all beliefs including yours yes?

Personally, I really don't care who runs the hospital as long as they are capable to operate professionally on a medical level.

As for "secular". I think you're confusing a secular State, with a secular society. Ireland isn't a secular society. Given that private hospitals can set up in Ireland as well it always be possible for people to set up hospitals provided that they have people with the correct medical credentials to run them.

Personally, I think a hospital with numerous religious representatives to take care of the spiritual needs of patients is all I want. I don't particularly care if the hospital has an ethos, I wouldn't get annoyed by it.

You make it out as if it is an archaic question, it really isn't. The influence of religion has increased in the 21st century. People on a large scale still believe. You don't. I don't see what the problem is actually.

gurramok

Jakkass wrote: »

Personally, I really don't care who runs the hospital as long as they are capable to operate professionally on a medical level.

As for "secular". I think you're confusing a secular State, with a secular society. Ireland isn't a secular society. Given that private hospitals can set up in Ireland as well it always be possible for people to set up hospitals provided that they have people with the correct medical credentials to run them.

Personally, I think a hospital with numerous religious representatives to take care of the spiritual needs of patients is all I want. I don't particularly care if the hospital has an ethos, I wouldn't get annoyed by it.

You make it out as if it is an archaic question, it really isn't. The influence of religion has increased in the 21st century. People on a large scale still believe. You don't. I don't see what the problem is actually.

As the hospital in question does not have them, will you be boycotting it?

philologos

gurramok wrote: »

As the hospital in question does not have them, will you be boycotting it?

Boycott it and die? No not really, but if I am going to die in hospital, I'd like to know that I could have someone to be with me to pray before I meet my Maker if I will.

Personally, I think it's wholly ignorant of you to be so opposed to peoples genuine needs. Atheist or not, it's just ridiculously petty and a little irksome. If the State is meant to represent people of belief and non-belief, then this should be the case in our hospitals.

I wonder why it is always atheists who start such threads banging on about religion here.

gurramok

Jakkass wrote: »

Boycott it and die? No not really, but if I am going to die in hospital, I'd like to know that I could have someone to be with me to pray before I meet my Maker if I will.

Personally, I think it's wholly ignorant of you to be so opposed to peoples genuine needs. Atheist or not, it's just ridiculously petty and a little irksome. If the State is meant to represent people of belief and non-belief, then this should be the case in our hospitals.

Err, have you not read the thread? Where have I been opposed to people's genuine needs?!

All I ask is that mine and my fellow non-believers needs be catered for as well as all believers of religion. Cherry picking people based on religion is outrageous in a secular society.:mad:

philologos

I read the thread. You've ignored the spiritual needs of patients which as far as I would see it are crucially important.

If you want an atheist state, go to North Korea. Governmental secularism doesn't mean that they deny people of faith the right to have spiritual guidance and assistance in hospitals.

Ireland isn't a secular society. There are believers and non-believers, this isn't a secular society. Is it a secular Government, by all accounts yes, but not a secular society.

gurramok

Jakkass wrote: »

I read the thread. You've ignored the spiritual needs of patients which as far as I would see it are crucially important.

If you want an atheist state, go to North Korea. Governmental secularism doesn't mean that they deny people of faith the right to have spiritual guidance and assistance in hospitals.

Ah here, you are totally picking that up wrong.

Where have I ignored the spiritual needs of patients? I said to allow religious reps as well as athiests on the boards of hospitals.

I don't want an athiest state. I want inclusivetivity for all and not just for one religion hence a secular state.

philologos

Your complaint isn't even a problem with inclusivity. You were asked what religion you were. The answer you gave. No religion. That's nothing to do with inclusivity. You give them the answer and you get on with your life.

gurramok

Jakkass wrote: »

Your complaint isn't even a problem with inclusivity. You were asked what religion you were. The answer you gave. No religion. That's nothing to do with inclusivity. You give them the answer and you get on with your life.

She should of asked 'Do you have a religion' instead of auto assuming I have one in the first place. Thats intolerance of my beliefs.:mad:

farna_boy

gurramok wrote: »

Err, have you not read the thread? Where have I been opposed to people's genuine needs?!

All I ask is that mine and my fellow non-believers needs be catered for as well as all believers of religion. Cherry picking people based on religion is outrageous in a secular society.:mad:

So instead of a having priest/rabbi by you bed when you die, you want a random man/woman?

How can a hospital cater for your religious/spiritual needs if you have none?

Anyway, I thought you were treated? If so how is anyone being cherry picked (aside from the public/private health insurance)? Are you telling me that a Catholic run hospital is going to refuse you admittance/emergency treatment because of your religion?

philologos

Your answer would be the same. The result and event would have been exactly the same. This is a non issue.

Marcus.Aurelius

gurramok wrote: »

She should of asked 'Do you have a religion' instead of auto assuming I have one in the first place. Thats intolerance of my beliefs.:mad:

Seriously?

gurramok

farna_boy wrote: »

So instead of a having priest/rabbi by you bed when you die, you want a random man/woman? The doctor/surgeon

How can a hospital cater for your religious/spiritual needs if you have none? By not summonsing religious to affect my needs(that Catholic ethos)

Anyway, I thought you were treated? If so how is anyone being cherry picked (aside from the public/private health insurance)? Are you telling me that a Catholic run hospital is going to refuse you admittance/emergency treatment because of your religion? No. As stated earlier in the linked article, there was Catholic interference in womens choices

Jakkass wrote: »

Your answer would be the same. The result and event would have been exactly the same. This is a non issue.

Nope. Its a non-issue to you as the religious run the hospitals. I have no say hence an issue.

Caesar Augustus wrote: »

Seriously?

Yes. Why you ask?

philologos

gurramok: Religious or non-religious I couldn't care who runs the hospitals. By the by, I'm a non-Catholic, I'd be quite happy to be treated in a Catholic hospital provided that they could provide me access to my minister / spiritual advisor if I was in urgent need of this.

This is why your previous reference to non-Catholics was inadequate.

farna_boy

gurramok wrote:

She should of asked 'Do you have a religion' instead of auto assuming I have one in the first place. Thats intolerance of my beliefs.

I thought atheism was a lack of belief?

gurramok wrote: »

By not summonsing religious to affect my needs(that Catholic ethos)

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you explain please?

gurramok wrote: »

No. As stated earlier in the linked article, there was Catholic interference in womens choices

No there wasn't. A study was being performed in a hospital that went against the ethos of the hospital so it was stopped.

It's like if a doctor announced he was willing to perform euthanasia in Ireland. Euthanasia goes against the ethos/law of the state and the doctor would be stopped and told he couldn't do it in Ireland.

Seaneh

Could a Mod please close this thread or move it somewhere else (recycle bin preferably). It's going nowhere and the OP obviously trolling.

whydoibother?

We keep coming at this with the assumption that "what is your religion?" is an inappropriate question that needs to be justified. But lets go back a step and ask is it, can anybody come up with a serious reason why its inappropriate?.

The things I imagine people saying are possibly:

1. It's private. Well, it's not compulsory. You don't have to say a religion or atheist. You can say "I'd prefer not to answer."

2. People who are not Catholic in a largely Catholic country might feel uncomfortable. Well, tbh I've worked in an administrative job in healthcare in very rural Ireland, and I've come across all sections of society, so if you're telling staff in major Dublin hospitals are taken aback when encountering non-Catholics (girl rolled her head), I have to laugh. Trust me, the admin. girl couldn't give two hoots what the answer is, she just wants to record it accurately so the medical staff have it right if it's needed.

3. People will make assumptions about the person based on their religion. See answer for 2.

Please provide me with an answer as to why being asked religion is offensive Gurramok. I can't think of any reasons that I find strong.

gurramok

Seaneh wrote: »

Could a Mod please close this thread or move it somewhere else (recycle bin preferably). It's going nowhere and the OP obviously trolling.

So says the fellow who has offered nothing but abuse on this thread:rolleyes:

gurramok

farna_boy wrote: »

I thought atheism was a lack of belief?

I have a belief that I don't belief in what you believe in for example. Thats what I mean.

farna_boy wrote: »

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Can you explain please?

As said earlier, the Catholic ethos is as it says it is. Leave the religious out of it when catering for my needs.

farna_boy wrote: »

No there wasn't. A study was being performed in a hospital that went against the ethos of the hospital so it was stopped.

It's like if a doctor announced he was willing to perform euthanasia in Ireland. Euthanasia goes against the ethos/law of the state and the doctor would be stopped and told he couldn't do it in Ireland.

Whats euthanasia got to do with religion? Thats not relevant as in the article, there was interference from religious lay people on the board of the hospital.

gurramok

Jakkass wrote: »

gurramok: Religious or non-religious I couldn't care who runs the hospitals. By the by, I'm a non-Catholic, I'd be quite happy to be treated in a Catholic hospital provided that they could provide me access to my minister / spiritual advisor if I was in urgent need of this.

This is why your previous reference to non-Catholics was inadequate.

Sorry, missed this post.

You say it does not affect you. That is very strange when the board of the hospital consists of lay people from another religion.

How do you feel about what happened in the article? The Catholic run ethos interfered in medical practice.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Sorry, missed this post.

You say it does not affect you. That is very strange when the board of the hospital consists of lay people from another religion.

How do you feel about what happened in the article? The Catholic run ethos interfered in medical practice.

When will this ridiculous stream of random arguments end?

I can't speak for Jakkass but oddly enough the religion of those on the board of management makes no difference whatsoever to their ability to effectively manage a hospital. I don't care if they're Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Christian, all I care is that they are competent and nothing more. They do not discriminate against those not of their religion so you have no reason to complain.

Another thing,

Medical research =/= Medical practice

philologos

Last week, Dr John Neill, the Church of Ireland Archbishop of Dublin, spoke of being "extremely concerned" about the future of a meaningful Church of Ireland involvement in Tallaght Hospital. He talked of "solemn agreements" given by the Government and approved by the Oireachtas in 1996 being ignored or frustrated.

Tallaght Hospital is not, of course, "a Protestant hospital for Protestant patients", he said. Its charter, written in 1996 stated that it would have "a multidenominational and pluralist character".

I agree with John Neill gurramok.

Religion has become a private matter in Ireland.

This simply isn't true.

As for the contraceptives lark, doctors should advise the best they can given their professional knowledge of medicine. Personally, I couldn't care less whether or not people use contraceptives. I think it is risky for terminally ill patients to do so, due to the fact that contraceptives don't always work. I think if doctors come to this conclusion they should advise their patients to abstain if it will mean harm to any child conceived into such a situation or if it will mean an abortion.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

When will this ridiculous stream of random arguments end?

I can't speak for Jakkass but oddly enough the religion of those on the board of management makes no difference whatsoever to their ability to effectively manage a hospital. I don't care if they're Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim or Christian, all I care is that they are competent and nothing more. They do not discriminate against those not of their religion so you have no reason to complain.

Another thing,

Medical research =/= Medical practice

Its a potential conflict of interest, thats why its brought up. Why no athiests on the boards?

At present, they have precedence in interfering with medical research, what next?:eek:

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

I have a belief that I don't belief in what you believe in for example. Thats what I mean.

That makes no sense whatsoever. You either hold a religious belief or you do not. You cannot hold a belief that you don't believe in what others believe in.

As said earlier, the Catholic ethos is as it says it is. Leave the religious out of it when catering for my needs.

Answer this and answer it directly. Highlight one way in which the "Catholic ethos" of the Mater hospital adversely affected your treatment.

Whats euthanasia got to do with religion? Thats not relevant as in the article, there was interference from religious lay people on the board of the hospital.

He wasn't saying euthanasia had anything to do with religion. He was using it to illustrate a point.

gurramok

Jakkass wrote: »

I agree with John Neill gurramok.

This simply isn't true.

As for the contraceptives lark, doctors should advise the best they can given their professional knowledge of medicine. Personally, I couldn't care less whether or not people use contraceptives. I think it is risky for terminally ill patients to do so, due to the fact that contraceptives don't always work. I think if doctors come to this conclusion they should advise their patients to abstain if it will mean harm to any child conceived into such a situation or if it will mean an abortion.

I see. Why can't the Mater have "a multidenominational and pluralist character"? (which is what I have been explaining today). Its entirely Catholic at the mo without any representation from Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Atheists..etc.

philologos

I would prefer if it did actually. As I said before, all that matters is 1) I can get access to the medical assistance that I need, and 2) I can get the pastoral help that I need as a Christian while I'm in hospital.

No doubt they would probably ask you about your religion anyway.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That makes no sense whatsoever. You either hold a religious belief or you do not. You cannot hold a belief that you don't believe in what others believe in.

Why does a belief have to be a religious belief? I believe in no religion so what i'm asking is respect my belief, understand now?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Answer this and answer it directly. Highlight one way in which the "Catholic ethos" of the Mater hospital adversely affected your treatment.

I haven't been seriously ill yet or on my deathbed(I hear ye clap ), its a slight worry that using religion in a hospitalised scenario will have interference from the religious board who run the hospital.

Maybe I should ask to be sent to Tallaght hospital to allay my fears But I shouldn't have to do that in order to get treatment at any hospital.

Seaneh

gurramok wrote: »

Why does a belief have to be a religious belief? I believe in no religion so what i'm asking is respect my belief, understand now?

That makes no sense. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. You done believe in Atheism, you just don't believe in anything else. How hard is that to comprehend? Also, they way you are arguing, you are making out that Atheism IS a belief structure, in which case it would be a religion of sorts and the question asked by the admin staff would be perfectly legitimate for EXACTLY the reason you say it is offensive.


Seriously, give up, all you are doing is making yourself look worse and worse, you are running yourself in your own stupid circle and falling over your own arguments.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Its a potential conflict of interest, thats why its brought up. Why no athiests on the boards?

A potential conflict of interest. Thankfully bigoted and discriminating people rarely have the ability to run a hospital so that doesn't seem to be an issue. Again, I do not care what religion the members of a hospital board happen to be and neither should anyone else. If they are competent in their job and running of their hospital then that is all that matters.

At present, they have precedence in interfering with medical research, what next?:eek:

First of all that sentence makes very little sense. Second of all they do not interfere with medical research. A major consideration of medical research is ethics. You do not realise that those that practice and research medicine do more than just deal with the physicality of medicine.

gurramok

Seaneh wrote: »

That makes no sense. Atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. You done believe in Atheism, you just don't believe in anything else. How hard is that to comprehend? Also, they way you are arguing, you are making out that Atheism IS a belief structure, in which case it would be a religion of sorts and the question asked by the admin staff would be perfectly legitimate for EXACTLY the reason you say it is offensive.

You promise not to shout abuse like last time before I answer your post?

partyatmygaff wrote:

A potential conflict of interest. Thankfully bigoted and discriminating people rarely have the ability to run a hospital so that doesn't seem to be an issue. Again, I do not care what religion the members of a hospital board happen to be and neither should anyone else. If they are competent in their job and running of their hospital then that is all that matters.

Why only Catholic lay people on the Mater then? You do not care that they enforce a Catholic ethos on the hospital?

partyatmygaff wrote:

First of all that sentence makes very little sense. Second of all they do not interfere with medical research. A major consideration of medical research is ethics. You do not realise that those that practice and research medicine do more than just deal with the physicality of medicine.

The trials from the article. Yes, ethics can be compromised by religious doctrine, they are intertwined hence my fear of a Catholic ethos run hospital.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Why only Catholic lay people on the Mater then? You do not care that they enforce a Catholic ethos on the hospital?

Why do you care if they're catholic or not? They are competent at their job and that's all they're required to be. No one cares what religion they are. I don't get what you mean by they enforce a catholic ethos. It's not as if they have daily bible study classes with the patients or something. They provide healthcare and a "Catholic ethos" no matter how you may wish to believe does not adversely affect the service they provide.

The trials from the article. Yes, ethics can be compromised by religious doctrine, they are intertwined hence my fear of a Catholic ethos run hospital.

What?

"Ethics can be compromised by religious doctrine"? Are you claiming that a virtually passive religious ethos makes for unethical practice? If you are then... No comment.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Why do you care if they're catholic or not? They are competent at their job and that's all they're required to be. No one cares what religion they are. I don't get what you mean by they enforce a catholic ethos. It's not as if they have daily bible study classes with the patients or something. They provide healthcare and a "Catholic ethos" no matter how you may wish to believe does not adversely affect the service they provide.

There are priests and nuns on the board, not just ordinary people who go to mass. The former have strict beliefs about their religion and thats where the conflict of interest can arise.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

What?

"Ethics can be compromised by religious doctrine"? Are you claiming that a virtually passive religious ethos makes for unethical practice? If you are then... No comment.

How do you know its passive, it looks active to me.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

There are priests and nuns on the board, not just ordinary people who go to mass. The former have strict beliefs about their religion and thats where the conflict of interest can arise.

Mr. Donal Walsh (Chair)
Mr. Des Lamont
Mr. Eamonn Clarke
Dr. Frank Dolphin
Ms. Justice Mary Finlay Geoghegan (Judge)
Mr. Tony Kilduff
Ms. Eve Linders
Mr. John Morgan (Chair, Board of Directors, MMUH)
Mr. Don Mahony (Deputy Chair, Board of Directors, MMUH)
Dr. Philip Nolan
Prof. Bill Powderly (Head of UCD School of Medicine and Medical Science, & CAO – DAMC)
Sr. Margherita Rock (Director of Mission Effectiveness, MMUH)
Ms. Rosemary Ryan
Mr. Sean Sheehan
Mr. Martin Walsh
Fr. Kevin Doran
Mr. Kevin Murphy

In Attendance:

Dr. Liam Claffey (Chair, Medical Board, CUH)
Mr. Brian Conlan (Chief Executive, MMUH)
Mr. Paul Cunniffe (Chief Executive, CUH)
Ms. Mary Day (Director of Nursing, MMUH)
Prof. Conor O’Keane (Chair, Medical Board, MMUH)
Ms. Rita O’Shea (Director of Nursing, CUH)
Mr. Aidan Gleeson (CEO, Cappagh National Orthopaedic Hospital)

Correspondence:

Sr. Peggy Collins (Provincial Leader, Sisters of Mercy)
Mr. Pat Mahony (Company Secretary)

No i'm afraid there isn't. There's one priest and one nun on a board of many doctors, professors and a judge. You quite obviously haven't even bothered finding out who's on the board before making your outlandish claims.

How do you know its passive, it looks active to me.

No.

Sardonicat

What evidence do you have that the presence of priests and nuns on the board affects the ethical practice of the health professionals working in the mater?

If you are referring to things such as euthanasia or abortion, I assume you are aware that these are illegal here anyway, so a priest or a nun on the board wouldn't make the slightest difference to the clinical decisions that a Dr. or nurse is able to make in regard to either.

As you were at such great pains to remind us two nights ago, your visit was a straightforward, uncomplicated visit to a fracture clinic; how did the priests and nuns affect the ethical practice of the staff you encountered that day?

Are all the staff catholic? I doubt it. Would you prefer all health workers to be atheist?

AudreyHepburn

Gurramok I really think you are making a big deal out of nothing.

You were asked a simple question that the receptionist was probably trained to ask and which could have been answered with a simple 'None' or 'I don't have a religion'.

In no way was she jumping to conclusions about you nor was the hospital imposing any ethos on you as I think you know.

And so long as the staff do their jobs well, what difference do their beliefs make? None, I think you'll find.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No i'm afraid there isn't. There's one priest and one nun on a board of many doctors, professors and a judge. You quite obviously haven't even bothered finding out who's on the board before making your outlandish claims.

The whole board has to enforce a Catholic ethos, why has there been no change if there is only 1 priest and 1 nun on board? I suspect rightly that the professionals are strong religious people too and are happy with the status quo.

http://www.mater.ie/aboutus/mmcuh.htm

The Company is a subsidiary of Mater Misericordiae and the Children's University Hospitals Limited, a company limited by guarantee and not having a share capital. 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 of Children's University Hospital.

The activities of the Company are charitable, to relieve, cure and prevent sickness and disability in the community in general by the establishment and provision of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in accordance with the mission and traditions of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy in Ireland.

Under this new structure, the Sisters of Mercy continue to be involved in the ownership of the two hospitals (as the Members of the holding company). The management responsibility of each hospital is delegated to the respective subsidiary company and their Boards of Directors. 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.

As I suspected. No surprise there.:mad:

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No.

gurramok

Sardonicat wrote: »

What evidence do you have that the presence of priests and nuns on the board affects the ethical practice of the health professionals working in the mater?

If you are referring to things such as euthanasia or abortion, I assume you are aware that these are illegal here anyway, so a priest or a nun on the board wouldn't make the slightest difference to the clinical decisions that a Dr. or nurse is able to make in regard to either.

As you were at such great pains to remind us two nights ago, your visit was a straightforward, uncomplicated visit to a fracture clinic; how did the priests and nuns affect the ethical practice of the staff you encountered that day?

Are all the staff catholic? I doubt it. Would you prefer all health workers to be atheist?

No. All inclusive would be nice. See above post regarding the board.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Gurramok I really think you are making a big deal out of nothing.

You were asked a simple question that the receptionist was probably trained to ask and which could have been answered with a simple 'None' or 'I don't have a religion'.

In no way was she jumping to conclusions about you nor was the hospital imposing any ethos on you as I think you know.

And so long as the staff do their jobs well, what difference do their beliefs make? None, I think you'll find.

Why have an religious ethos then if there is nothing to worry about?

Sardonicat

"The activities of the Company are charitable, to relieve, cure and prevent sickness and disability in the community in general by the establishment and provision of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in accordance with the mission and traditions of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy in Ireland"

Those bastards!

AudreyHepburn

gurramok wrote: »

Why have an religious ethos then if there is nothing to worry about?

Because as has been pointed out already the Hospital was founded by a religious order.

Why does it both you so much? Did it actually affect in any adverse way?

gurramok

Sardonicat wrote: »

"The activities of the Company are charitable, to relieve, cure and prevent sickness and disability in the community in general by the establishment and provision of the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital in accordance with the mission and traditions of the Congregation of the Sisters of Mercy in Ireland"

Those bastards!

Yes, we seen that when they stopped possible life saving tests been carried out on lung cancer patients.
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/three-who-stopped-the-cancer-tests-234253.html

THE people whose advice delayed the treatment of lung cancer patients at a major hospital are a priest, a nun and a businessman.
The three members of the board of Dublin's Mater Hospital were key to the decision to stop trials of the drug for lung cancer patients.

They objected because female patients who get could get pregnant would have to take contraceptives under the treatment.

The subcommittee of the board - Fr Kevin Doran, Sr Eugene Nolan and John Morgan - were delegated the task of examining the conditions attached to testing the drug.

They looked to see if the conditions contravened the hospital's Catholic ethos.

The drug to be tested may prolong the lives of lung cancer patients by several months.

But it emerged last night that these patients, who have already exhausted all other forms of treatment, will have to wait until October 18 before knowing if the trials are approved.