Children's hospital finally gets the go-ahead

Podge_irl

maudgonner wrote: »

The fact remains that many unwell children will be transported to and from the hospital on a daily basis, and the default suggestion 'it will be easy for them to get there on public transport' is constantly trotted out, despite it being plainly ridiculous.

Literally nobody has said that. Public transport is obviously not an option for many patients.

Public transport absolutely is an option for many people visiting the hospital and it is extremely well connected. They have stated they will try to limit the number of people driving there - presumably attempting to limit it to transporting patients so that the parking that is available is there for them.

The concerns are valid. Calling the decision ridiculous or implying it stems from a corrupt process is not. What is dismissed is the idea that a perfect location was available and overlooked because it is evidently not true. The process for selecting James' is transparent and the logic clear.

maudgonner

Podge_irl wrote: »

Literally nobody has said that. Public transport is obviously not an option for many patients.

Literally nobody has said it? From a quick scan through the thread:

CIARAN_BOYLE wrote: »

If your child is in critical condition you will call an ambulance. If your child has a scheduled appointment why wouldn't you get a train.

Podge_irl wrote: »

No, they don't. Some undoubtedly do but, in general in Ireland and Dublin in particular, people do not have to drive.

Podge_irl wrote: »

People going for routine appointments and people visiting can and should be using public transport.

smash

laserlad2010 wrote: »

No acutely unwell child will have to drive past another hospital providing paediatric care in order to get to this new hospital.

In fact, having worked in the Oncology unit in Crumlin, the comments regarding that service belong on a Daily Mail blog. Any sick "chemo" patient has a shared care centre to attend. Chemotherapy is limited to OLCHC because it requires expertise to ensure high standards of care. It is also bloody expensive to produce and administer.

If you child is sick, and you happen to live more than 1.5 hours drive from the NCH, and for some reason you decide to drive to the NCH, you will inevitably drive past Paediatric services being provided at any of the following hospitals:

If you've worked in St. John's Ward as you claim then you'll know that acutely unwell children who attend the ward will often have to pass other hospitals providing paediatric care to get to the NCH, the same way they do now going to Crumlin. Not all children’s cancer patients attend shared care centres, and even across Ireland there are big gaps where there are no centres. Inevitably all children’s cancer patients will at some point have to go to the NCH for treatment, quite often on a regular basis. If a child living even as close as Wicklow or Meath for example spikes a temperature or need platelets they'll need to get straight to St. John's and they'd be doing this by car if the parents have one. And that's not a quick journey even now when avoiding the city centre traffic to get to OLCHC.

The Backwards Man

laserlad2010 wrote: »

There is outright, complete, and utter nonsense being spouted by posters on this thread. Particularly The Backwards Man, who I always took for a reasonable gent, descended into dribbling outrage at one point.

No acutely unwell child will have to drive past another hospital providing paediatric care in order to get to this new hospital.

In fact, having worked in the Oncology unit in Crumlin, the comments regarding that service belong on a Daily Mail blog. Any sick "chemo" patient has a shared care centre to attend. Chemotherapy is limited to OLCHC because it requires expertise to ensure high standards of care. It is also bloody expensive to produce and administer.

If you child is sick, and you happen to live more than 1.5 hours drive from the NCH, and for some reason you decide to drive to the NCH, you will inevitably drive past Paediatric services being provided at any of the following hospitals:

• Drogheda
• Mullingar
• Portlaoise
• Wexford
• Waterford
• Cork
• Tullamore
• Clonmel
• Cavan
• Sligo
• Letterkenny
• Galway
• Castlebar
• Tralee
• Limerick

I could go on. Here is what will happen to any acutely unwell child who has become sick suddenly: They should attend their local paediatric unit for review. Should their illness exceed the expertise of the local department, urgent transfer would be arranged by ambulance/helicopter to the National Children's Hospital.

Any child who is attending an outpatient appointment is not acutely unwell. They may have an illness which makes them sicker than a normal child, but the journey to the hospital is a necessity, because Dublin is the national hub in terms of population and therefore is the only choice for national services.

I've done a fair few journeys to hospitals and clinics throughout the island with patients ranging in ages from eight to eighty and probably below and above that. While the vast majority of them may not have been acutely unwell, every single one of them was unwell, hence their need to visit a faraway hospital. St James' has consistently been the worst hospital to get to and therefore the most uncomfortable journey for the patient in all my years doing this, and unless they are planning to extend the Port Tunnel out to the airport and under the Liffey, this will not change.

If you think that's dribble, then you must not have read many of my other posts on this site.

maudgonner

laserlad2010 wrote: »

There is outright, complete, and utter nonsense being spouted by posters on this thread. Particularly The Backwards Man, who I always took for a reasonable gent,

In fairness, this point should probably discredit everything else you've posted :P

Podge_irl

maudgonner wrote: »

Literally nobody has said it? From a quick scan through the thread:

Where does it say there it's easy for a very unwell child to use public transport?

People visiting (i.e. relatives, friends etc) absolutely should be using public transport. Someone going in for a routine and minor check-up is probably perfectly capable of using it too. I am tired of being told I'm suggesting every end-stage cancer patient hop on Dublin Bus.

For those who have no choice but to drive, hopefully those who do not need to will leave parking space for them. Traffic will still be an issue and that is regrettable but the clinical needs were considered more important.

Put bluntly - would you prefer a hospital that was easier to drive to but where clinical outcomes were perhaps marginally worse?

beauf

Podge_irl wrote: »

...

Public transport absolutely is an option for many people visiting the hospital and it is extremely well connected. They have stated they will try to limit the number of people driving there - presumably attempting to limit it to transporting patients so that the parking that is available is there for them....

The reality is that public transport is of minor importance.

They have to limit drivers, because of the existing congestion in the area, and there isn't going to be enough parking.

The main problem with James is exactly the same as Mater. The site is too small. There are constraints to access, parking, sewerage, height, green environment and further expansion. It will more expensive than a green site, I think they are only going to retain 35% of existing buildings.

There probably isn't enough space in Blanch anymore either considering they sold off much of their land to fund the current hospital. But that another subject.

beauf

Podge_irl wrote: »

...should be using public transport...

But they don't. Nothing will change that.

Podge_irl

beauf wrote: »

But they don't. Nothing will change that.

Well yes. That is part of a much more wide-ranging problem. I would be less pessimistic than you on the never changing front, but it certainly won't be easy.

I didn't really mean to go down this rabbit hole of public transport. I am well aware that James' is a rubbish place to drive to at certain times of the day - I just do not understand why people are so focused on that as the sole consideration for why it is a bad place to locate the hospital. The decision was predicated on the location they thought would provide the best care.

beauf

Podge_irl wrote: »

... I just do not understand why people are so focused on that ...

Vast experience

jmayo

Podge_irl wrote: »

No. Which is the entire point.

The idea of the NCH in fact predates Bertie. I'm at a bit of a loss as to what influence he was able to bring to bear on a planning and selection process that began well after he was gone though. If you have the name of someone who you think interfered in the process and is now someone benefiting then just say it. The Ministers of Health in office while this current process was ongoing have nothing to do with either site as far as I'm aware.

Ah jaysus you really are now pulling the pi**.
Are you just being obstreperous or seriously where were you when all those planning decisions were being discussed in those multi million pound tribunals.
Half of Dublin, and probably most other cities, have been planned through corruption.

A former minister, another now deceased TD and the City Manager were found to be on the fiddle influencing planning.

As someone said over on the Journal, there has been huge lobbying from within HSE.
Every major hospital wants to get the additional funds, the cache of having the national childrens hospital on their site, the additional power and prominence, etc.
It is all politics in the end.

And as for what influence could a person have on planning and selection process.
If you high enough you can direct the process and you can ensure certain sites/options are seen as preferable and certain other options are discounted.
Now how would you do that ?
Oh yeah you make sure the selection criteria suits the sites you want. :rolleyes:

Thus co-location with an adult hospital, co-location with a teaching hospital becomes the primary criteria.
Thus you immediately make sure only Vincents, Beaumont, Mater and James are in the running.

And bertie was there until 2008.
The Mater was in the picture before then.

maudgonner

Podge_irl wrote: »

I didn't really mean to go down this rabbit hole of public transport. I am well aware that James' is a rubbish place to drive to at certain times of the day - I just do not understand why people are so focused on that as the sole consideration for why it is a bad place to locate the hospital. The decision was predicated on the location they thought would provide the best care.

Most of us can't judge what will produce the best clinical outcomes. We have no expertise to say how James' is a better co-locate than Connolly. We're told we have to trust the reports, and reports are all well and good, but we've all seen reports that say whatever the authors (or their higher ups) want them to say.

So we have to judge it from our own experience. And the decision to locate it in a congested area, with limited room to expand, where we've all been stuck in traffic jams, seems crazy. You'd get the same reaction if it was any type of major infrastructure project, a new university let's say, but the difference is that the mitigation that's been cited over and over again (and I'm not getting at you here, it's something that was trotted out by the authorities going back years now), public transport, would be a much more feasible option in that case.

When a problem is pointed out, and is responded to with a solution that won't actually help, of course people get frustrated and fixate on it.

Podge_irl

jmayo wrote: »

Thus co-location with an adult hospital, co-location with a teaching hospital becomes the primary criteria.

Maybe, just maybe, that was the primary criterion because it is the most important? Why do people have to see conspiracy everywhere?

Anyway, I didn't realise the HSE report was from 2006, thought it was later. So he could realistically have influenced it I guess. He was well gone by the time they chose James obviously. Indeed he was well gone before anyone was seriously considering actually building this. Why didn't the new corrupt politicians change the plan to build the hospital in their own constituencies so?

Why on earth is it so difficult to believe that the people involved in the provision of health care in Ireland are trying to provide the best solution? Maybe people want to make sure that sick kids get the best standard of care available. Most of the planning tribunals involve issues like zoning (and I don't doubt that stuff still goes on). You're suggesting, essentially, a vast conspiracy to put a children's hospital in a sub-optimal location for...some yet to be defined reason.

Podge_irl

maudgonner wrote: »

Most of us can't judge what will produce the best clinical outcomes. We have no expertise to say how James' is a better co-locate than Connolly. We're told we have to trust the reports, and reports are all well and good, but we've all seen reports that say whatever the authors (or their higher ups) want them to say.

No, we can't judge. But unfortunately, at some point, we and those involved in the decision simply have to trust experts who contribute to, and people who compile these studies. Otherwise we are not going to get anywhere. And James' has 4 times as many specialist consultants as Connolly which is why it was taken out of consideration. That seems understandable and fair reasoning to me.

Expert opinions and surveys etc are obviously not flawless. But people judging things from personal experience will generally get it wrong more often because they do not have the full picture (nor can they be expected to). Skepticism of authority and experts is healthy - completely dismissal is not.

There isn't really a "solution" to the congestion issue around James'. It's going to suck for people.

gctest50

The Backwards Man wrote: »

I've done a fair few journeys to hospitals and clinics throughout the island with patients ranging in ages from eight to eighty and probably below and above that. While the vast majority of them may not have been acutely unwell, every single one of them was unwell, hence their need to visit a faraway hospital. St James' has consistently been the worst hospital to get to and therefore the most uncomfortable journey for the patient in all my years doing this, and unless they are planning to extend the Port Tunnel out to the airport and under the Liffey, this will not change.

If you think that's dribble, then you must not have read many of my other posts on this site.

Pure drivel

It's not on top of K2 like :

St James' has consistently been the worst hospital to get to

what are you bringing them on all these years ? a sled ?

and therefore the most uncomfortable journey for the patient in all my years doing this

The Bishop Basher

Just so I have this right...

We're building a new hospital, on the cramped and congested site of an existing hospital, in the middle of an already congested area of the city with not enough parking spaces before it even begins, and we're doing this so we can locate it close to the PEOPLE with various fields of expertise :rolleyes:

We're compromising on overall cost, building disruption, added traffic congestion and a poor outcome so that we can put everything close to these PEOPLE.

Is there not a massive flaw in that position ?

Why don't we just move the people :eek:

January

Swanner wrote: »

Just so I have this right...

We're building a new hospital, on the cramped and congested site of an existing hospital, in the middle of an already congested area of the city with not enough parking spaces before it even begins, and we're doing this so we can locate it close to the PEOPLE with various fields of expertise :rolleyes:

We're compromising on overall cost, building disruption, added traffic congestion and a poor outcome so that we can put everything close to these PEOPLE.

Is there not a massive flaw in that position ?

Why don't we just move the people :eek:

Because they don't want to move apparently. :rolleyes:

LeinsterDub

January wrote: »

Because they don't want to move apparently. :rolleyes:

Why don't you just move beside the hospital? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

/hyperbole

The Bishop Basher

January wrote: »

Because they don't want to move apparently. :rolleyes:

So we're wasting up to a billion of tax oayers money to keep a few consultants happy.

It's nothing short of astonishing.

How anyone can stand over this is beyond me.

Uriel.

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Why don't you just move beside the hospital? :rolleyes::rolleyes:

/hyperbole

Could be the basis of a new government policy? If you don't have children you're banned from living in dublin city... Frees up property for all those with children to move closer to the hospital.

Judge Trudy

Swanner wrote: »

Just so I have this right...

We're building a new hospital, on the cramped and congested site of an existing hospital, in the middle of an already congested area of the city with not enough parking spaces before it even begins, and we're doing this so we can locate it close to the PEOPLE with various fields of expertise :rolleyes:

We're compromising on overall cost, building disruption, added traffic congestion and a poor outcome so that we can put everything close to these PEOPLE.

Is there not a massive flaw in that position ?

Why don't we just move the people :eek:

Like I said previously, my sister is a paediatric nurse and would move out of Dublin in the morning but again the services in other counties are not there which is grossly unfair. People who say that this and that general hospital have good paediatric services should come and see the reality of the situation if they had a sick child but sure build a hospital slap bang in the middle of a congested city which is now the 4th expensive in Europe. Sure don't make sense to me. Guaranteed that this hospital would have been built 4 times over in a cheaper part of the country by the time it's actually built.

Allinall

bear1 wrote: »

I'd be surprised if it stops at 1 billion tbh. But I'd agree with Sept on that one.

I'd say it will be closer to 10 Billion, based on nothing much.

Any names for those that engaged in cronyism?

Anita Blow

maudgonner wrote: »

Podge_irl wrote: »

I didn't really mean to go down this rabbit hole of public transport. I am well aware that James' is a rubbish place to drive to at certain times of the day - I just do not understand why people are so focused on that as the sole consideration for why it is a bad place to locate the hospital. The decision was predicated on the location they thought would provide the best care.

Most of us can't judge what will produce the best clinical outcomes. We have no expertise to say how James' is a better co-locate than Connolly. We're told we have to trust the reports, and reports are all well and good, but we've all seen reports that say whatever the authors (or their higher ups) want them to say.

So we have to judge it from our own experience. And the decision to locate it in a congested area, with limited room to expand, where we've all been stuck in traffic jams, seems crazy. You'd get the same reaction if it was any type of major infrastructure project, a new university let's say, but the difference is that the mitigation that's been cited over and over again (and I'm not getting at you here, it's something that was trotted out by the authorities going back years now), public transport, would be a much more feasible option in that case.

When a problem is pointed out, and is responded to with a solution that won't actually help, of course people get frustrated and fixate on it.

Swanner wrote: »

January wrote: »

Because they don't want to move apparently. :rolleyes:

So we're wasting up to a billion of tax oayers money to keep a few consultants happy.

It's nothing short of astonishing.

How anyone can stand over this is beyond me.

January wrote: »

Swanner wrote: »

Just so I have this right...

We're building a new hospital, on the cramped and congested site of an existing hospital, in the middle of an already congested area of the city with not enough parking spaces before it even begins, and we're doing this so we can locate it close to the PEOPLE with various fields of expertise :rolleyes:

We're compromising on overall cost, building disruption, added traffic congestion and a poor outcome so that we can put everything close to these PEOPLE.

Is there not a massive flaw in that position ?

Why don't we just move the people :eek:

Because they don't want to move apparently. :rolleyes:

All 3 of you have managed to come up with some farfetched conspiracy here and it's absolutely astounding the mental gymnastics that it must have taken. On one hand some of you are arguing how consultants don't want it located at James' & prefer Connolly, and in the next breath proposing that it's some grand conspiracy with consultants holding the country to ransom.

Absolutely nowhere has any consultant from James' stated they don't want to move from James', you've made it up entirely. Either you're proposing that we move the consultants permanently from James' or making them commute between the two hospitals:
- You cannot move the consultants permanently because they are not paediatric doctors. They are specialised adult medicine practictioners who offer their expertise where there is no paeds equivalent. Therefore they cannot practice full-time in a paeds hospital.
- You cannot locate the NCH far from James' or a university hospital because emergency cases requiring such specialist input don't have the time it would take for consultant to transfer between the two.

January

Anita Blow wrote: »

All 3 of you have managed to come up with some farfetched conspiracy here and it's absolutely astounding the mental gymnastics that it must have taken. On one hand some of you are arguing how consultants don't want it located at James' & prefer Connolly, and in the next breath proposing that it's some grand conspiracy with consultants holding the country to ransom.

Absolutely nowhere has any consultant from James' stated they don't want to move from James', you've made it up entirely. Either you're proposing that we move the consultants permanently from James' or making them commute between the two hospitals:
- You cannot move the consultants permanently because they are not paediatric doctors. They are specialised adult medicine practictioners who offer their expertise where there is no paeds equivalent. Therefore they cannot practice full-time in a paeds hospital.
- You cannot locate the NCH far from James' or a university hospital because emergency cases requiring such specialist input don't have the time it would take for consultant to transfer between the two.

But the consultant will have to go to either of the satellite clinics if an emergency case presents there?

I just don't see why you can't transfer all the specialists to connolly. Do it in stages as the hospital is being built. That way it's still co located and connolly has the room for the expansion and room to build lecture halls and teaching facilities for the unis if needed too.

Why not do it right rather than having to redo it all again in 20 years time.

Oh and by the way I haven't made up anything another poster here stated that the consultants won't want to move from St James if another hospital was built. They cited unions as a reason.

markpb

If the hospital is put on the m50, everyone going there will drive because public transport won't be an option to anyone. The parking requirements for all the staff, all the patients and all the visitors would be enormous and the strain put on the road network would be inconceivable.

If the site on the m50 also had to house a replacement James' and a maternity hospital, those problems would be far, far worse.

Putting the hospital near the city centre means that people who can use public transport will do so and the rest can drive. Yes, there will be traffic congestion in the area but anyone arriving in a rush will get there by ambulance which function just fine right now.

And that's before you consider all the medical reasons for locating near James' which are far, far more important than the inconvenience of a little traffic.

Anita Blow

January wrote: »

But the consultant will have to go to either of the satellite clinics if an emergency case presents there?

I just don't see why you can't transfer all the specialists to connolly. Do it in stages as the hospital is being built. That way it's still co located and connolly has the room for the expansion and room to build lecture halls and teaching facilities for the unis if needed too.

Why not do it right rather than having to redo it all again in 20 years time.

Oh and by the way I haven't made up anything another poster here stated that the consultants won't want to move from St James if another hospital was built. They cited unions as a reason.

No he won't because the satellite campuses will be limited in what they can treat. If an acutely I'll child presents beyond that which the hospital can cater for, he/she will be stabilized and transferred to NCH for specialist care.

We can't transfer the consultants because the facilities aren't there in Connolly, it's a model 3 hospital while James, Tallaght, Vincent's, Mater are model 4 hospitals. You can't send a burns consultant to work where there's no burns unit, nor a cancer specialist where there's no specialist cancer facilities. Connolly was not built to be a specialist center. It may have a green field but that's all it has going for it. It would cost many multiples of what the NCH costs (and even more multiples of what it would cost to just upgrade the roads around James') to relocate the entirety of our largest hospital and we would get absolutely no improved clinical outcomes because we'd just be replicating facilities that already exist. Meanwhile our maternity hospitals are crumbling and over capacity, but we'd have no money to pay for those because the nearly entire capital budget for the HSE would be spent relocating James'. It would literally cost billions

bear1

Allinall wrote: »

I'd say it will be closer to 10 Billion, based on nothing much.

Any names for those that engaged in cronyism?

Nah I think it will be closer to 1 billion. But sure if it makes you happy 10 billion it is
I've loads of names that would blow your socks off.
Sworn to secrecy though

Spanish Eyes

I think the medical profession (consultants) in OLCH did not ever want to cross the river.

So the Mater was out, so was Connolly, and even Tallaght, OMG.

Their bessie mates were in the centre of excellence at James, so they wanted to be there too, and so it came to pass. Medical politics is worse than National politics. They got their way.

The only person I heard to demur was Finn Breathnach, but then again he is retired now, so will never have to cross the river or go to the badlands anymore.

Allinall

bear1 wrote: »

Nah I think it will be closer to 1 billion. But sure if it makes you happy 10 billion it is
I've loads of names that would blow your socks off.
Sworn to secrecy though

Quote: Podge_irl
It was hyperbole

Things run over budget all the time, it is not in isolation reflective of anything.


You made a statement which you phrased as it to be a complete 100% fact that .........
Don't see that as hyperbole but complete and utter exaggeration.

Sound familiar?

Keane2baMused

January wrote: »

But the consultant will have to go to either of the satellite clinics if an emergency case presents there?

As already said more than once, the satellite clinics will not treat emergency cases, these will be stabilised as much as possible and transferred.

maudgonner

Anita Blow wrote: »

All 3 of you have managed to come up with some farfetched conspiracy here and it's absolutely astounding the mental gymnastics that it must have taken.

Excuse me? Where exactly did I say that? I said that we've all seen reports that say whatever the authors want them to say. I didn't say this report was flawed or biased or there was any kind of conspiracy. That's your own mental gymnastics there.

wil

Allinall wrote: »

You know that's not what happened.

This decision was made after years of consultation, with reports compiled by experts who know a hell of a lot more than you or me ( or most others here).

The same experts who wasted years, millions and without a doubt, lives, by putting forward the Mater as the best site. Dogs in the street were howling at that suggestion.
Many of the top medical experts know James isn't a whole lot better.

In fact looking back over the years, I really wonder just how few decisions made by experts and well paid consultants have actually resulted in the best outcome for the country. They get paid no matter how bad the decision and rarely if ever are held to account when things go wrong. I'm sure you can think of a few examples.

Bottom line, and a very astute observation from a well known medical professional ( I paraphrase) -

The people who make these decisions on services rarely have to use them.

wil

Swanner wrote: »

Just so I have this right...

We're building a new hospital, on the cramped and congested site of an existing hospital, in the middle of an already congested area of the city with not enough parking spaces before it even begins, and we're doing this so we can locate it close to the PEOPLE with various fields of expertise :rolleyes:

We're compromising on overall cost, building disruption, added traffic congestion and a poor outcome so that we can put everything close to these PEOPLE.

Is there not a massive flaw in that position ?

Why don't we just move the people :eek:

Not only that,- these PEOPLE - we are already struggling to get the specialists we need to man such a hospital. We have a fraction of the per capita consultants in many other countries. Even a relatively well paid expert in his field is going to look at the living situation and house prices for them and their family and think I can get far better in another country with less hassle and easier travel.

khamilto

wil wrote: »

The people who make these decisions on services rarely have to use them.

How trite.

Ask someone who suffers from a life threatening illness that requires a medication costing €2million per year for his decision on the HSE adding that medication to the Drugs Payment Scheme.

Ask someone who suffers from an illness that will have its currently funded treatment removed from the DPS if the previous treatement is funded for his decision

Service/product users of a limited resource are the wrong people to make decisions. Yes they absolutely must be consulted with and listened to, but they should not and must not be the ones to make the decision.

QALYs for example, exist for a reason.

bear1

Allinall wrote: »

Quote: Podge_irl
It was hyperbole

Things run over budget all the time, it is not in isolation reflective of anything.


You made a statement which you phrased as it to be a complete 100% fact that .........
Don't see that as hyperbole but complete and utter exaggeration.

Sound familiar?

Should do... I wrote it.
Kind of hard to compare one person saying every single project in human history has gone over budget (twice he wrote it so hardly hyperbole) when I proved it wrong to me putting the word "cronyism" at end of a post.
Can you prove I'm wrong that there is absolutely zero evidence of cronyism?

Allinall

bear1 wrote: »

Should do... I wrote it.
Kind of hard to compare one person saying every single project in human history has gone over budget (twice he wrote it so hardly hyperbole) when I proved it wrong to me putting the word "cronyism" at end of a post.
Can you prove I'm wrong that there is absolutely zero evidence of cronyism?

So nothing to back up your accusation of cronyism?

Why did you say it in the first place?

BoatMad

All I say , it's great to see a world class facility for children , being built at last . I welcome it.

All the other concerns can be overcome or just spouting soft the same usual boards people that whinge at everything

bear1

Allinall wrote: »

So nothing to back up your accusation of cronyism?

Why did you say it in the first place?

Why do I need to justify what I think to you?

Allinall

bear1 wrote: »

Why do I need to justify what I think to you?

Quote: Podge_irl
So what exactly do you think their ulterior motive was? If the location is so obviously bad why do you think they picked it? Are we talking outright bribery here (by who?) or incompetence? Maybe the doctors who are going to be working there wanted a shorter commute and put pressure on the HSE for that.

And every project in the history of mankind runs over budget.


Quote: bear1
That's quite a claim, apart from the new hospital. Can you list all known projects in the history of mankind which ran over budget?


Are you going to back this up? Or just ignore it.

You're quite good at asking other posters to back up their claims, whilst refusing to back up your own claims.

Why is that?

I think it is because your claims are rubbish.

gladrags

BoatMad wrote: »

All I say , it's great to see a world class facility for children , being built at last . I welcome it.

All the other concerns can be overcome or just spouting soft the same usual boards people that whinge at everything

The Mater site was flagged early on as unsuitable,it turned out to. be a waste of time and a waste money.

Given that a new hospital has been needed snce the 1980's,it is no wonder that scepticism is abound,after so many false dawns and cock ups.

There should at least have been one dedicated CH built in the country by now.And at least another one built in the south or midlands/west.

They were capable of building houses to facilitate profit,and lines of financial services buildings that dominate the skyline over Dublin,and run from Butt bridge down to the North Wall,but they could not build one childrens hospital,in all that time.

As they say,how you treat children,is a reflection of what type of society we garner.

bear1

Allinall wrote: »

Quote: Podge_irl
So what exactly do you think their ulterior motive was? If the location is so obviously bad why do you think they picked it? Are we talking outright bribery here (by who?) or incompetence? Maybe the doctors who are going to be working there wanted a shorter commute and put pressure on the HSE for that.

And every project in the history of mankind runs over budget.


Quote: bear1
That's quite a claim, apart from the new hospital. Can you list all known projects in the history of mankind which ran over budget?


Are you going to back this up? Or just ignore it.

You're quite good at asking other posters to back up their claims, whilst refusing to back up your own claims.

Why is that?

I think it is because your claims are rubbish.

That's your opinion. I haven't claimed per se that this is all cronyism, I merely think that it played a part.
Now, taking a look at your own posts suggest to me that are talking utter nonsense with your own views.
Do I care? Not much.
If you were also able to read properly, I asked that poster to back up that claim, the poster refused and I was able to show evidence he was talking ****e. I asked you prove I may be wrong.
Instead you just badly quote posts and ask for proof yourself.
The thread in itself has become nothing but bickering to the point where it's pointless to even continue arguing.

wil

khamilto wrote: »

How trite.

Ask someone who suffers from a life threatening illness that requires a medication costing €2million per year for his decision on the HSE adding that medication to the Drugs Payment Scheme.

Ask someone who suffers from an illness that will have its currently funded treatment removed from the DPS if the previous treatement is funded for his decision

Service/product users of a limited resource are the wrong people to make decisions. Yes they absolutely must be consulted with and listened to, but they should not and must not be the ones to make the decision.

QALYs for example, exist for a reason.

Utter utter trite.

If you ever had the misfortune to walk the darkened hovels of St Johns ward of recent decades, you would never offer such poor examples of where the big decisions were being taken with the countries finances. It took mostly charity funding to get that replaced only very very recently.

It is the people of this country who pay for and use these services that should decide what and where, not faceless accountants and executives, who pay little heed to the almost daily calls for better services but who find little or no issue pumping billions into failed banks, severance payments to those who should have been sacked, huge pensions for so called "public representatives", wasted money setting up failed and unjustified quangos, oh god the list just goes on.

So don't talk of pocket money for lives when so few pocket so much for so little.

The Bishop Basher

BoatMad wrote: »

All I say , it's great to see a world class facility for children , being built at last . I welcome it.

Don't count your chickens. This is Ireland and FG are back at the helm so anything is possible. But given our current inability to create, manage or deliver any sort of adult health service, let alone a world class one, and the lack of priority this has been given by successive governments to date, my optimism levels on this one are through the floor...

BoatMad wrote: »

All the other concerns can be overcome..

That's the point though. They can't. Unless you have some magic dust that sorts traffic congestion in the city and creates magical fairy dust parking spaces...

BoatMad wrote: »

or just spouting soft the same usual boards people that whinge at everything

You realise you're just whinging about people whinging :rolleyes:

It mightn't be a big deal to you but the countless families that have been in this position and the many more that will be in this position disagree with you. They want, need and deserve a state of the art hospital that is easily accessed from anywhere in the country, with a surplus of parking and plenty of outdoor green field space. The current plan fails miserably on all counts and as of yet I haven't seen one good reason (other then the usual public sector style excuses and wiffle waffle) for that to be the case.

Anita Blow

Swanner wrote: »

BoatMad wrote: »

All I say , it's great to see a world class facility for children , being built at last . I welcome it.

Don't count your chickens. This is Ireland and FG are back at the helm so anything is possible. But given our current inability to create, manage or deliver any sort of adult health service, let alone a world class one, and the lack of priority this has been given by successive governments to date, my optimism levels on this one are through the floor...

BoatMad wrote: »

All the other concerns can be overcome..

That's the point though. They can't. Unless you have some magic dust that sorts traffic congestion in the city and creates magical fairy dust parking spaces...

BoatMad wrote: »

or just spouting soft the same usual boards people that whinge at everything

You realise you're just whinging about people whinging :rolleyes:

It mightn't be a big deal to you but the countless families that have been in this position and the many more that will be in this position disagree with you. They want, need and deserve a state of the art hospital that is easily accessed from anywhere in the country, with a surplus of parking and plenty of outdoor green field space. The current plan fails miserably on all counts and as of yet I haven't seen one good reason (other then the usual public sector style excuses and wiffle waffle) for that to be the case.

They can be overcome though. If parking or access becomes significant issue, more spaces can be built and roads widened. These are low density houses surrounding the hospital outside the city core so can be CPO'd at a comparatively low expense, as has happened with the current plan. Building adjacent to James' on the Rialto side will be cleared to provide housing for patient families. So access and parking is not insurmountable. It's far more realistic than re-locating the entirety of James', as has been suggested previously in this thread.

What you describe a "state of the art hospital that is easily accessed from anywhere in the country, with a surplus of parking and plenty of outdoor green field space" is absolutely an ideal, I agree. But it's not a realistic proposition, and that isn't just an Irish thing.
- Great Ormonde St. has notoriously poor access, but is co-located with the UK's national neurology/neurosurgery hospital and UCL hospital.
- Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto is located in the middle of Toronto city but is co-located with Toronto General and Mount Sinai
- Children's Hospital Pennsylvania is located in the middle of an extremely built up area essentially on a university campus, but is co-located with UPenn University Hospital.

They are the 3 top children's hospitals in the world, and co-location is the priority for all of them. Why should our NCH be any different? The priority for sick children is that the absolute best care, and that isn't possible on a green field site an hour or two from the nearest adult hospital and the associated specialist care it offers where there is no paediatric equivalent. Why the location isn't perfect, we must play the cards we are dealt and co-locate there and deal with any associated problems like parking and access secondarily

khamilto

wil wrote: »

Utter utter trite.

I'm guessing you don't understand what the word trite means. Hint, it isn't a noun.

If you ever had the misfortune to walk the darkened hovels of St Johns ward of recent decades

I've worked in Crumlin Hospital for the last decade.

you would never offer such poor examples of where the big decisions were being taken with the countries finances.

I never offered any examples. Why would I? It's a thread about a new NCH with all too many people basing arguments on how/where it should be constructed based on selfish desires.

It took mostly charity funding to get that replaced only very very recently.

Yes, because an organisation with limited resources prioritizes the allocation of those resources based on the greater good.

It is the people of this country who pay for and use these services that should decide what and where

There is no 'the people of this country'. People from Kenmare want a dual carriageway linking them to Cork a trilocated national hospital nearby and I'm sure they would also like a local world class university.

not faceless accountants and executives

The people are faceless too, particularly when a popular decision turns out to have been awful.

who pay little heed to the almost daily calls for better services

Your and others' calls for 'better services' in this thread would result in worse services. That is unequivocal and backed up by unanimous research.

but who find little or no issue pumping billions into failed banks, severance payments to those who should have been sacked, huge pensions for so called "public representatives", wasted money setting up failed and unjustified quangos, oh god the list just goes on.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with the location of the new NCH.

It's just the pathetic rantings of an imbecile who doesn't know why he feels angry and feels the need to flail out online.

So don't talk of pocket money for lives when so few pocket so much for so little.

Has nothing to do with anything that I have said.


By all means, continue your impotent ravings about faceless accountants and bailing out the banks in a thread about the construction of a new Hospital.

khamilto

Swanner wrote: »

It mightn't be a big deal to you but the countless families that have been in this position and the many more that will be in this position disagree with you. They want, need and deserve a state of the art hospital that is easily accessed from anywhere in the country, with a surplus of parking and plenty of outdoor green field space. The current plan fails miserably on all counts and as of yet I haven't seen one good reason (other then the usual public sector style excuses and wiffle waffle) for that to be the case.

Can you find me some sort of references or evidence as to the importance (any importance) of greenfield space in the design and operation of a Children's Hospital?

The top Children's Hospitals in the world are all located in urban areas. Boston Children's Hospital, Great Ormond Street, Texas CH, CHOP, CCHMC.

What is your knowledge that makes the best Children's Hospitals in the world entirely wrong in their approach to designing and operating a children's hospital?

Or is it simply that you're ok with worse patient outcomes for more convenience?

wil

khamilto wrote: »

I'm guessing you don't understand what the word trite means. Hint, it isn't a noun.


I've worked in Crumlin Hospital for the last decade.


I never offered any examples.


Yes, because an organisation with limited resources prioritizes the allocation of those resources based on the greater good.



There is no 'the people of this country'. People from Kenmare want a dual carriageway linking them to Cork a trilocated national hospital nearby and I'm sure they would also like a local world class university.


The people are faceless too, particularly when a popular decision turns out to have been awful.


Your and others' calls for 'better services' in this thread would result in worse services. That is unequivocal and backed up by unanimous research.


Which has absolutely nothing to do with the location of the new NCH.

It's just the pathetic rantings of an imbecile who doesn't know why he feels angry and feels the need to flail out online.


Has nothing to do with anything that I have said.


By all means, continue your impotent ravings about faceless accountants and bailing out the banks in a thread about the construction of a new Hospital.

Thank you for that voluminous explanation and diatribe.
I am now exceptionally well versed on "trite".

I am equally saddened, and possibly we have met, that this is the attitude that will keep our health system being bettered by third world countries.

A proud imbecile. /snaps flail in two

khamilto

It's fairly clear that
1)You still don't understand that trite is not a mis/alternative spelling of tripe.
2)You don't understand what voluminous is given that my 'explanation of trite' was 5 words.
3)You either don't understand diatribe, or failed to note the irony in the fact that you replied to my post about decisions having to balance the greater good over individual self-interest, with a furious spiel about the bankers and bureaucrats. That's a diatribe. Deconstructing your 'argument' and pointing out that most of it consisted of impotent ramblings about said bankers and bureaucrats, is not.

Have a nice day

BoatMad

Swanner wrote: »

Don't count your chickens. This is Ireland and FG are back at the helm so anything is possible. But given our current inability to create, manage or deliver any sort of adult health service, let alone a world class one, and the lack of priority this has been given by successive governments to date, my optimism levels on this one are through the floor...

The hospital will not even be open and this short lived minority government will be long gone , so the ridiculous political point is moot

In fairness to FG , at least the project has been brought to a conclusion , FF bottled it.

As for adult health service , no country in the world is happy with its services , world class and accessible to the ordinary public is virtually impossible to atain , even the Uk , with a vastly bigger tax base can't do it.

That's the point though. They can't. Unless you have some magic dust that sorts traffic congestion in the city and creates magical fairy dust parking spaces...

Clinical outcomes are what count not traffic congestion. I suspect every parent who has a sick child would trade a great clinical outcome over a bit of traffic conjestion

It mightn't be a big deal to you but the countless families that have been in this position and the many more that will be in this position disagree with you. They want, need and deserve a state of the art hospital that is easily accessed from anywhere in the country, with a surplus of parking and plenty of outdoor green field space. The current plan fails miserably on all counts and as of yet I haven't seen one good reason (other then the usual public sector style excuses and wiffle waffle) for that to be the case.

What " they " feel they deserve is irrelevant. The provision of medical facilities is an expert task , well beyond the understanding of the " countless families "

The advice is that the children's hospital SHOULD be co-located with a major adult university grade teaching hospital . This is the advice for the best CLINICAL outcome

Who are you to dispute that advice

wil

khamilto wrote: »

It's fairly clear that
1)You still don't understand that trite is not a mis/alternative spelling of tripe.
2)You don't understand what voluminous is given that my 'explanation of trite' was 5 words.
3)You either don't understand diatribe, or failed to note the irony in the fact that you replied to my post about decisions having to balance the greater good over individual self-interest, with a furious spiel about the bankers and bureaucrats. That's a diatribe. Deconstruction your 'argument' and pointing out that most of it consisted of impotent ramblings about said bankers and bureaucrats, is not.

Have a nice day

Dear god, Seriously?
We're talking hospitals and someone's concerned with their banal:pac::rolleyes: interpretation of my words.
Now we are really talking tripe:rolleyes::rolleyes:
Did I need to :rolleyes: everything for some fews benefit on an online forum.
If I needed an illustration of where things are going wrong for so long, those last two posts provide a very clear insight.
Have a pleasant day yourself.