Church-run hospitals told to ditch holy symbols

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

You either believe that all citizens regardless of religious beliefs - or lack thereof - have the right to equal treatment in State Funded hospitals or not and that this includes an equal right to peace of mind during recovery. It doesn't matter how many might be distressed. It matters that the State recognises all citizens as equal in the provision of healthcare and doesn't privileged the psychological comfort - or ethos - of some over the potential distress of others.
It's as simple as that.

As I said, in any medical facility funded from it's own resources they can deck it out like the Vatican if they want - my tax won't be funding it.

I wouldn’t have any issue if those people who object to the State providing funds to hospitals owned and run by religious organisations decided to organise themselves and set up and run their own hospitals and applied for funding from the State on an equal basis as those hospitals owned and run by religious organisations.

In truth though I’d sooner recommend private hospitals over publicly funded hospitals, but I understand not everyone has the capacity to afford private healthcare.

gctest50

SoundsRight wrote: »

Would you ask a Muslim nurse to remove her headscarf?

Ah, the "old drag the thread off topic again"

SoundsRight

gctest50 wrote: »

Ah, the "old drag the thread off topic again"

Er, the topic is religious symbols in hospitals?

Cryptopagan

Rayne Attractive Pocketknife wrote: »

Seriously ... the "impact of the decor" on patients?

Most people in hospital want good doctors and timely, effective treatment, and couldn't give a toss about the "decor."

Of course decor matters. It doesn’t matter as much as good staff, good equipment, and cleanliness, but it does matter. A patient’s optimism or lack of it in face of illness can be an important factor in their recovery, and decor can influence their mental state. For me, crucifixes carry bleak connotations, and I wouldn’t want to be surrounded by them when laid up with illness.

uck51js9zml2yt

I had more hassle from the c of I minister than the RC representative when I was in hospital.
Barged into ICU after me just waking from 14 hour surgery.

RC. never came near me.

Crosses don't bother me.

Bannasidhe

Bannasidhe wrote: »

A specifically RCC 'Chapel' has no place in a State funded facility. A designated room for those who wish to pray to their god or gods in a private setting is fine - although why they couldn't do that in a garden with a covered area that everyone could enjoy is beyond me.

So when you said you wanted separation of Church and State, you're fine with religious places of worship being built and maintained, and having a visible presence in state-funded hospitals?

You said "You'd struggle to walk around a city like Dublin or Cork without regularly encountering places of Christian worship with all of the imagery that attaches to those places." - we aren't discussing places of Worship. We are discussing State funded hospitals. Places of worship can be ignored

Well they cannot really be ignored, that was my point. You don't have to enter a place of worship to notice the symbolism, the icons. They are everywhere.

What do you suggest in those cases, that they should grow vines?

It doesn't matter how many might be distressed. It matters that the State recognises all citizens as equal in the provision of healthcare and doesn't privileged the psychological comfort - or ethos - of some over the potential distress of others.
It's as simple as that.

Of course the numbers matter when it comes to patient opinions. It's as simple as trying to find a balance between providing comfort to (perhaps) a majority, whilst discommoding the fewest amount of patients.

It's worth bearing in mind that there's a big difference between state-funded and state-owned. The State doesn't own many of the hospitals in question, they have agreed to provide funding for its operations, but not to acquire the property. Personally, I and many others object to that, of course. But it is not the property of the State, after all.

Bannasidhe

SoundsRight wrote: »

There is no difference. Both are religious symbols. Either we are tolerant of our faith and other faiths, or we have an outright ban. I'd rather live in a tolerant society instead of one where we have these new Puritans looking to tear down anything they think can cause offence.

There is a difference because the nurse or doctor wearing a hijab is an individual expressing their personal religious belief and is no different to an individual wearing a yarmulke or cross or turban or bindi while at work.

To make it equivalent we would need to have texts from the Koran (images being forbidden), shrines to Dhanvantari etc etc prominently displayed along corridors and stairwells. Every religions 'ethos' should get a look in... so there goes blood transfusions for a start...

Or we could just say sorry - this is a State funded hospital and as we do not have a State religion and our Constitution specifically says the State may not endorse any religion no religious iconography from any religion is permitted and no ethos is allowed to dictate medical treatment.

Pints of O neg for everyone in the audience!

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

What I don't understand about this is the health service is falling down and people still have a horn about religious relics.

If I were seriously ill I really couldn't care less about some statue on the wall

True but about a decade ago, I was getting ready to be wheeled off to theatre for a serious operation. A priest came into my ward and went to each bay, asking if each patient would like to be blessed. I’d no problem with that at all. So when he got to me, I said “No thank you”. I know I’m me so I’m biased but I know I was polite to him. Perhaps a bit distracted because I was getting in the zone for my operation but polite. Well jaysus, it’s ten years ago and I can still see the hurt puppy dog look on his face and the shoulders hunched posture he adopted whilst backing away from my bed while saying “Oh... oh. Alright then.” in a hurt tone of voice.

I totally respected his right to be there and other patients were comforted by the blessing they received from him. But not everyone admitted to hospital is going to be religious and that should also be respected. I had a lot on my mind and feeling guilted for turning down a blessing from a priest was something I did not need. He acted personally offended. That’s not very compassionate.

Mr.Maroon

SoundsRight wrote: »

Would you ask a Muslim nurse to remove her headscarf?

Why would I ask her to remove it?
The hospital sets the infection control protocols - I'm sure they've made the necessary procedures for head scarfs.
She'd also be a nurse, so she would fully understand the infection control protocols and how important they are.

The people who come around offering communion will often enter my room without wearing disposable gowns or latex gloves. They'll wander from patient to patient without washing their hands, touching door handles, light switches etc.
It only takes one of these idiots to bring highly infectious bugs into a room.

Acosta

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They live in the same universe as you do where you wish we could have a “proper” conversation, a conversation which appears to be entirely about how the universe should be based upon your views, as opposed to you having to accept that the reason other people would have no interest in taking part in a conversation controlled by you, is that they simply don’t share your views, and don’t consider your views worth entertaining.

Does your interfering with people’s way of life undo history or something?

How am I controlling things in a scenario where an assembly formed of people from all walks of Irish life come together to discuss how and why horrible things happened to people for decades so that as a country maybe we can move learn and move on from it?

Saying that removing religious iconography from public spaces is interfering with peoples lives is pathetic. Catholics can practice religion in a church or in private other religions.

beejee

seamus wrote: »

Patient outcomes are influenced by (amongst other things), the comfort of the surroundings, and their perceived competence of the hospital treating them.

Thus patients recover better at home than in a hospital, better in a modern hospital than in a old run-down building, and better in an old run-down building than in a medical tent in a warzone.

It doesn't really matter how competent your staff are, or how modern your equipment is - if your hospital looks like a timewarp back to the 1970s, you will have poorer patient outcomes than a modern hospital.

Portiuncla is a good example of a timewarp hospital. When you're standing inside of it, you'd think you were in a church building that was converted to a hospital. There's a 4-foot Mary statue with all those offering candles at the front door. Archaic stuff.

Great staff, great care. But the building itself and the decor inspires no confidence.

I don't see any issue with patients requesting that religious iconography be removed.

That's quite a few leaps of the imagination there!

Actual comfort is one thing, but trying to tie that to décor? "oh I'm sorry, your father died because we forgot to paint the walls a different colour"

Ridiculous.

As per usual, I'm sure this is a case of internet-dwelling freaks looking for a reason to exist, in this case complaining about the decorations in a hospital that THEY are not in. Complaining on behalf of others (its all about themselves, really), the usual shyte.

The Catholic church should should just close up shop, close all the schools, hospitals etc and then sell it to the highest bidder. Im sure the mongo's and complainers running the country will buy it (fat chance), and then do a better job of providing facility (laughable).

Cee-Jay-Cee

orourkeda1977 wrote: »

What I don't understand about this is the health service is falling down and people still have a horn about religious relics.

If I were seriously ill I really couldn't care less about some statue on the wall

But some idiots patients do.

I have zero time for the RC church but many people do. I don't know why we are so quick in this country to remove/change so much just because a very small minority (and not usually native) Irish people 'may' be offended. Let them be offended, it wont hurt them and may make them in to better more tolerant people.

Bannasidhe

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So when you said you wanted separation of Church and State, you're fine with religious places of worship being built and maintained, and having a visible presence in state-funded hospitals?

Well they cannot really be ignored, that was my point. You don't have to enter a place of worship to notice the symbolism, the icons. They are everywhere.

What do you suggest in those cases, that they should grow vines?


Of course the numbers matter when it comes to patient opinions. It's as simple as trying to find a balance between providing comfort to (perhaps) a majority, whilst discommoding the fewest amount of patients.

It's worth bearing in mind that there's a big difference between state-funded and state-owned. The State doesn't own many of the hospitals in question, they have agreed to provide funding for its operations, but not to acquire the property. Personally, I and many others object to that, of course. But it is not the property of the State, after all.

Don't do multiquote so this is brief.

I said I have no issue with a designated room where people can find solace - possibly by praying to their god or gods - I also suggested that a nice garden would probably be more of more benefit.
There is a world of difference between a discrete designated room and a stairwell full of portraits of Sr Mary Perpetua of the Small Mouth, Bishop Thunderer, etc and statutes of Mary, Bridget, Holy St Joseph and scenes of the favourite Roman form of execution for treason in alcoves throughout the place.

Yes, they can be ignored. I do it everyday.

No. It's not about balance. It's about every citizen having an equal right to their beliefs or lack of them when accessing medical services. Having religious iconography from one religion is not balance - it is endorsing on the tax payers's cent.

I am well aware of the difference. That doesn't mean the State cannot attach terms and conditions to funds - it already does in fact.
It would also help if the State didn't pay for hospitals and then allow religious orders to manage them.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

That's definitely not acceptable. Hard to blame the nurses and docs who, as you say, can't police them. I'd be writing an email to the hospital manager in that case. Nobody should be casually entering areas of a hospital where infection is a concern.

Happens in the day ward I’m currently visiting weekly too. It’s very much tolerated by all the staff present. And this is in a ward where most patients are very immunocompromised due to either their illness or the treatment they are receiving.

gctest50

beejee wrote: »

That's quite a few leaps of the imagination there!

Actual comfort is one thing, but trying to tie that to décor? "oh I'm sorry, your father died because we forgot to paint the walls a different colour"

Ridiculous.

As per usual, I'm sure this is a case of internet-dwelling freaks looking for a reason to exist, in this case complaining about the decorations in a hospital that THEY are not in. Complaining on behalf of others (its all about themselves, really), the usual shyte.

.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/6143402/





Records on recovery after cholecystectomy of patients in a suburban Pennsylvania hospital between 1972 and 1981 were examined to determine whether assignment to a room with a window view of a natural setting might have restorative influences. Twenty-three surgical patients assigned to rooms with windows looking out on a natural scene had shorter postoperative hospital stays, received fewer negative evaluative comments in nurses' notes, and took fewer potent analgesics than 23 matched patients in similar rooms with windows facing a brick building wall.


.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Every religions 'ethos' should get a look in... so there goes blood transfusions for a start...

I don’t know if you’re aware of just how difficult it is to refuse a blood transfusion. It’s made almost impossible, by design. I refused permission to be given a blood transfusion if it was deemed necessary, and the anesthetist nearly had a fit, good thing we were in a hospital :pac:

beejee

gctest50 wrote: »

He showed, using clinical data, that patients with tree views had “shorter postoperative hospital stays, fewer negative evaluative comments from nurses, took fewer moderate-to-strong analgesic doses, and had slightly lower scores for minor postsurgical complications.”

"I'm sorry, your father died because the angle of his window precluded the view of a tree, whereas Mary in the opposite bed could see a few branches so shes fine."

Such nit-picking nonsense in order to hold up some argument against religion. The only revelation (it isn't) is that someone gets paid to conduct such trivial research, while there aren't even enough physical beds for people in this country. Nonsense.

When we have perfectly functioning health systems get back to me about the views patients have to endure.

gctest50

beejee wrote: »

"I'm sorry, your father died because the angle of his window precluded the view of a tree, whereas Mary in the opposite bed could see a few branches so shes fine."

Such nit-picking nonsense in order to hold up some argument against religion. The only revelation (it isn't) is that someone gets paid to conduct such trivial research, while there aren't even enough physical beds for people in this country. Nonsense.

When we have perfectly functioning health systems get back to me about the views patients have to endure.

Which part of shorter post operative stays do you not understand ?





Records on recovery after cholecystectomy of patients in a suburban Pennsylvania hospital between 1972 and 1981 were examined to determine whether assignment to a room with a window view of a natural setting might have restorative influences. Twenty-three surgical patients assigned to rooms with windows looking out on a natural scene had shorter postoperative hospital stays, received fewer negative evaluative comments in nurses' notes, and took fewer potent analgesics than 23 matched patients in similar rooms with windows facing a brick building wall.

ohnonotgmail

beejee wrote: »

"I'm sorry, your father died because the angle of his window precluded the view of a tree, whereas Mary in the opposite bed could see a few branches so shes fine."

Such nit-picking nonsense in order to hold up some argument against religion. The only revelation (it isn't) is that someone gets paid to conduct such trivial research, while there aren't even enough physical beds for people in this country. Nonsense.

When we have perfectly functioning health systems get back to me about the views patients have to endure.

So you dont think a functioning health system should do what it can to improve patient outcomes? Very odd to call improving patient outcomes "Nit picking"

ohnonotgmail

gctest50 wrote: »

Which part of shorter post operative stays do you not understand ?



Records on recovery after cholecystectomy of patients in a suburban Pennsylvania hospital between 1972 and 1981 were examined to determine whether assignment to a room with a window view of a natural setting might have restorative influences. Twenty-three surgical patients assigned to rooms with windows looking out on a natural scene had shorter postoperative hospital stays, received fewer negative evaluative comments in nurses' notes, and took fewer potent analgesics than 23 matched patients in similar rooms with windows facing a brick building wall.

In fairness i could have told you that without bothering to pay for a study. I think that needs to be filed under "the bleedin obvious"

beejee

gctest50 wrote: »

Which part of shorter post operative stays do you not understand ?





Records on recovery after cholecystectomy of patients in a suburban Pennsylvania hospital between 1972 and 1981 were examined to determine whether assignment to a room with a window view of a natural setting might have restorative influences. Twenty-three surgical patients assigned to rooms with windows looking out on a natural scene had shorter postoperative hospital stays, received fewer negative evaluative comments in nurses' notes, and took fewer potent analgesics than 23 matched patients in similar rooms with windows facing a brick building wall.

On the scale of importance, its negligible nonsense. Negligible nonsense being presented in such a way as to support an argument against religious symbols...what a stretch.

Heres a study conducted by useless phd student number 5003486342

"The perceived outcomes of wearing warmer socks while impaled on a spike are better than wearing less well-insulated socks".

As the poster stated, "the bleedin' obvious"

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

In fairness i could have told you that without bothering to pay for a study. I think that needs to be filed under "the bleedin obvious"

I don’t think it could necessarily be predicted that window-adjacent people would need less painkillers and need to stay in hospital for a shorter postoperative period without a study really. The fewer negative comments part is probably the only thing you’d surmise using common sense.

SoundsRight

Mr.Maroon wrote: »

Why would I ask her to remove it?
The hospital sets the infection control protocols - I'm sure they've made the necessary procedures for head scarfs.
She'd also be a nurse, so she would fully understand the infection control protocols and how important they are.

The people who come around offering communion will often enter my room without wearing disposable gowns or latex gloves. They'll wander from patient to patient without washing their hands, touching door handles, light switches etc.
It only takes one of these idiots to bring highly infectious bugs into a room.

Because the government wants to remove religious symbols, regardless of whether they're hygenic or not.

Regarding the spread of infection, there's no link to the distribution of Communion. It's an important role that many patients appreciate greatly. The Eucharistic ministers are probably more at risk of catching something off the likes of you than vice versa. It's the patient visiting times that you should really be more concerned about.

BattleCorp

Would those who object to crosses, statues and other religious paraphernalia object to receiving lifesaving treatment from a muslim doctor wearing a hijab?

ohnonotgmail

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

I don’t think it could necessarily be predicted that window-adjacent people would need less painkillers and need to stay in hospital for a shorter postoperative period without a study really. The fewer negative comments part is probably the only thing you’d surmise using common sense.

sitting next to a window with a nice view will release endorphins so i would expect less pain medication to be required.

Cryptopagan

beejee wrote: »

On the scale of importance, its negligible nonsense. Negligible nonsense being presented in such a way as to support an argument against religious symbols...what a stretch.

Heres a study conducted by useless phd student number 5003486342

"The perceived outcomes of wearing warmer socks while impaled on a spike are better than wearing less well-insulated socks".

As the poster stated, "the bleedin' obvious"

If what’s on the wall us so trivial, it’s no big deal if we take the crosses and stuff down then, right?

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

Would those who object to crosses, statues and other religious paraphernalia object to receiving lifesaving treatment from a muslim doctor wearing a hijab?

not sure why you think that comparison is in any way valid.

beejee

Cryptopagan wrote: »

If what’s on the wall us so trivial, it’s no big deal if we take the crosses and stuff down then, right?

You know whats even easier than doing something trivial? NOT doing something trivial

Cryptopagan

beejee wrote: »

You know whats even easier than doing something trivial? NOT doing something trivial

Ok, so as we renovate and redecorate existing hospitals, and build new ones, we won’t put religious symbols up, right?

gctest50

SoundsRight wrote: »

.......

Regarding the spread of infection, there's no link to the distribution of Communion.

.

Any data to back that up ?

How about this radical idea: the state puts its money where its mouth is and purchases/secures legal title from the relevant religious organisation to these hospital buildings and lands first?

I would love if they issued such a threat to withdraw state funding from these privately owned religious hospitals which masquerade as our "public hospitals", and in response the churches denied them use of the hospitals which they legally own. Then, it might finally force the Irish state to put the money into making our supposedly "public" hospitals actually publicly owned for the first time in the state's history.

Rinse and repeat with all our supposedly "public" schools (despite their dependence upon state funding for current and capital expenditure, only about 15% of all Irish schools are owned by the Irish state).


In the meantime, RCC-owned hospitals will quite rightly continue to show all the RCC symbols they like in their hospitals. Beggars - that's the Irish state, by the way - can't be choosers.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Don't do multiquote so this is brief.

I said I have no issue with a designated room where people can find solace - possibly by praying to their god or gods - I also suggested that a nice garden would probably be more of more benefit.
There is a world of difference between a discrete designated room and a stairwell full of portraits of Sr Mary Perpetua of the Small Mouth, Bishop Thunderer, etc and statutes of Mary, Bridget, Holy St Joseph and scenes of the favourite Roman form of execution for treason in alcoves throughout the place.

Yes, they can be ignored. I do it everyday.

No. It's not about balance. It's about every citizen having an equal right to their beliefs or lack of them when accessing medical services. Having religious iconography from one religion is not balance - it is endorsing on the tax payers's cent.

I am well aware of the difference. That doesn't mean the State cannot attach terms and conditions to funds - it already does in fact.
It would also help if the State didn't pay for hospitals and then allow religious orders to manage them.

What hospitals look like this in 2019.

In sounds like something from 100 yrs ago.

Mr.Maroon

SoundsRight wrote: »

Because the government wants to remove religious symbols, regardless of whether they're hygenic or not.

Regarding the spread of infection, there's no link to the distribution of Communion. It's an important role that many patients appreciate greatly. The Eucharistic ministers are probably more at risk of catching something off the likes of you than vice versa. It's the patient visiting times that you should really be more concerned about.

I'm not saying the distribution of communion is linked to the spread of infection. It's the fact that these people are going from room to room without obeying the infection control protocols when giving out communion.
The fact I had to spell that out for you really shows your ignorance & stupidity on the matter.

As for patient visiting hours - I've never had a family member/friend of another patient enter my room - the majority of people who come to visit others in hospital will have the manners to stay out of other patients rooms.
Anyone who comes to visit me will obey the infection controls procedures.

Regarding your other comment - that probably sums you up as a person.

beejee

Deleted User wrote: »

How about this radical idea: the state puts its money where its mouth is and purchases/secures legal title from the relevant religious organisation to these hospital buildings and lands first?

I would love if they issued such a threat to withdraw state funding from these privately owned religious hospitals which masquerade as our "public hospitals", and in response the churches denied them use of the hospitals which they legally own. Then, it might finally force the Irish state to put the money into making our supposedly "public" hospitals actually publicly owned for the first time in the state's history.

Rinse and repeat with all our supposedly "public" schools (despite their dependence upon state funding for current and capital expenditure, only about 15% of all Irish schools are owned by the Irish state).

In the meantime, RCC-owned hospitals will quite rightly continue to show all the RCC symbols they like in their hospitals. Beggars - that's the Irish state, by the way - can't be choosers.

That's just it, its all moaning until reality hits home.

If you want to see the efficiency of state run healthcare all one needs do is look at the new childrens hospital.

The government and opposition parties wouldn't dare to encroach too much on religious facilities, not because of some reverence, but because they know this country cant run a bath.

All these individuals complaining about religious symbols and trying to tie the ropiest "research" into their arguments are simply people with too much time on their hands. They have their internet fingers stuck in everything these days, from religion to fashion. They'll be complaining about trivial shyte till theyre dead :P

gctest50

[Deleted User] wrote: »

How about this radical idea

How about this radical idea : the church pays the compensation it should be paying

beejee

Cryptopagan wrote: »

Ok, so as we renovate and redecorate existing hospitals, and build new ones, we won’t put religious symbols up, right?

If the state builds hospitals, sure, why not.

At the rate theyre going however, I wouldn't expect much to happen!

ohnonotgmail

beejee wrote: »

That's just it, its all moaning until reality hits home.

If you want to see the efficiency of state run healthcare all one needs do is look at the new childrens hospital.

The government and opposition parties wouldn't dare to encroach too much on religious facilities, not because of some reverence, but because they know this country cant run a bath.

All these individuals complaining about religious symbols and trying to tie the ropiest "research" into their arguments are simply people with too much time on their hands. They have their internet fingers stuck in everything these days, from religion to fashion. They'll be complaining about trivial shyte till theyre dead :P

you do realise that all the staff in hospitals are HSE staff? that the churchs involvement in day to day running is somewhere around 0%?

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

not sure why you think that comparison is in any way valid.

Crosses etc. are religious paraphernalia. Isn't a hijab religious paraphernalia?

I'm not religious by the way, I couldn't give a sh1te but you can't outlaw one side's religious gear and not outlaw the other sides religious gear.

sk8erboii

beejee wrote: »

That's just it, its all moaning until reality hits home.

If you want to see the efficiency of state run healthcare all one needs do is look at the new childrens hospital.

The government and opposition parties wouldn't dare to encroach too much on religious facilities, not because of some reverence, but because they know this country cant run a bath.

All these individuals complaining about religious symbols and trying to tie the ropiest "research" into their arguments are simply people with too much time on their hands. They have their internet fingers stuck in everything these days, from religion to fashion. They'll be complaining about trivial shyte till theyre dead :P

Do... people actually believe the church runs state facilities?

gctest50

gctest50 wrote: »

How about this radical idea : the church pays the compensation it should be paying

There are clear legal avenues to sort that out. Has the state got the willingness to make a "final settlement" with the RCC: buy them out of their ownership of the vast majority of hospitals and schools in Ireland, and as part of the settlement the RCC pays the compensation it owes to the Irish state (whose political representatives were more than happy to turn a blind eye to the thuggery of agents running RCC institutions as it saved the state from having to recruit its own thugs and build its owns hospitals and schools)?

beejee

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you do realise that all the staff in hospitals are HSE staff? that the churchs involvement in day to day running is somewhere around 0%?

Sure whats the big deal then? Get the government to buy them out. And the schools too.

You trust the leadership of this country to do a good job, right?

Look at it from the governments point of view too. A small bunch of people are ranting and raving about a few crucifixes on a wall somewhere. In order to fix that gigantic, serious issue, they would have to fork out untold amounts of money. If you were to make a rational decision, would you do it?

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don’t know if you’re aware of just how difficult it is to refuse a blood transfusion. It’s made almost impossible, by design. I refused permission to be given a blood transfusion if it was deemed necessary, and the anesthetist nearly had a fit, good thing we were in a hospital :pac:

My point, as you know :P, was that we if allow the ethos of one religion to dictate what procedures can and cannot be performed in a State Funded medical facility then surely all religious ethos should get a look in.
The ethos isn't dictated by best medical practice after all. It's dictated by dogma. And all things being equal in a country where religious freedom is enshrined in our Constitution then logically (:pac:) all religions dogma should be allowed to interfere with inform our healthcare provision.

BattleCorp

BattleCorp wrote: »

Crosses etc. are religious paraphernalia. Isn't a hijab religious paraphernalia?

I'm not religious by the way, I couldn't give a sh1te but you can't outlaw one side's religious gear and not outlaw the other sides religious gear.

When Ireland's "public hospitals" are, in fact, the property of religious institutions the state is in a bit of a bind when it comes to telling the owners of said properties that they cannot display their own religious paraphernalia on their own religious property.

The state could pay billions and buy all those properties and do what it likes, though. What do you think most Irish taxpayers would prefer: save billions by not buying RCC hospitals but continuing using them, or spend billions to legally own them and use them?

I prefer the latter option, but I suspect that for entirely financial reasons most Irish taxpayers would prefer the status quo.

Bannasidhe

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

What hospitals look like this in 2019.

In sounds like something from 100 yrs ago.

You have obviously never had to ascend the stairwell in Cork's Mercy hospital.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

sitting next to a window with a nice view will release endorphins so i would expect less pain medication to be required.

That’s the theory. You couldn’t say that would happen with certainty without researching it.

5starpool

BattleCorp wrote: »

Crosses etc. are religious paraphernalia. Isn't a hijab religious paraphernalia?

I'm not religious by the way, I couldn't give a sh1te but you can't outlaw one side's religious gear and not outlaw the other sides religious gear.

More valid comparisons would be:

1. If someone who objected to someone giving them treatment wearing a crucifix (or other Christian symbols) as part of their outfit/jewelry would object to someone wearing a hijab/turbin/etc giving them treatment.

or

2. If someone who complains about people complaining about crosses (or other Christian symbols) on the walls, would accept if those religious symbols were replaced with the equivalent muslim/jewish/etc symbols?

What you had stated previously is a totally false comparison between room décor and a persons own expression via their clothes, etc.

ohnonotgmail

beejee wrote: »

Sure whats the big deal then? Get the government to buy them out. And the schools too.

You trust the leadership of this country to do a good job, right?

Look at it from the governments point of view too. A small bunch of people are ranting and raving about a few crucifixes on a wall somewhere. In order to fix that gigantic, serious issue, they would have to fork out untold amounts of money. If you were to make a rational decision, would you do it?

you seem to got your knickers in a twist. nobody has described it as a gigantic, serious issue. secondly nobody has asked all religios paraphanalia is taken down. Only that if a patient asks for somehing in their room to be taken down that the hospital complies. Total cost of all that will be **** all.

One eyed Jack

Bannasidhe wrote: »

My point, as you know :P, was that we if allow the ethos of one religion to dictate what procedures can and cannot be performed in a State Funded medical facility then surely all religious ethos should get a look in.
The ethos isn't dictated by best medical practice after all. It's dictated by dogma. And all things being equal in a country where religious freedom is enshrined in our Constitution then logically (:pac:) all religions dogma should be allowed to interfere with inform our healthcare provision.

I thought you were coming at it from the point of view of things being forced on people that they object to, such as blood transfusions or religious iconography. It’d be the opposite of respecting a patients wishes, but it’d be considered best medical practice.

Best medical practices are often dictated by ethos and ethics, and in order to achieve fairness and equality, the State should fund healthcare regardless of the providers of said healthcare. It already does this in providing funding for 26% of public hospitals with some form of religious involvement, and 74% of public hospitals which have no religious involvement, and the report found that there was no difference in the quality of care provided-


The review group, chaired by former secretary-general of the European Commission Catherine Day, was asked to examine the relationship between the State and Church-run hospitals. There are currently seven voluntary hospitals owned by faith-based organisations and a further five with some degree of religious order involvement in their governance arrangements.

The 12 hospitals receive €1.34bn in State funding and are responsible for operating 26pc of publicly funded inpatient beds.

The report found there was no difference in the quality of care provided by hospitals with religious ethos and those with none.


So where’s the actual problem? The problem seems to be with some individuals complaining about their care. I get that, but the idea that there should be no State funding provided to religious ethos hospitals who are providing their services to the State? Hold that walnut while I crack it with this hammer :pac:

One eyed Jack

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you seem to got your knickers in a twist. nobody has described it as a gigantic, serious issue. secondly nobody has asked all religios paraphanalia is taken down. Only that if a patient asks for somehing in their room to be taken down that the hospital complies. Total cost of all that will be **** all.

That’s not what was recommended by the report at all. They’re a small political lobby group with plenty of big ideas.

Bannasidhe

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I thought you were coming at it from the point of view of things being forced on people that they object to, such as blood transfusions or religious iconography. It’d be the opposite of respecting a patients wishes, but it’d be considered best medical practice.

Best medical practices are often dictated by ethos and ethics, and in order to achieve fairness and equality, the State should fund healthcare regardless of the providers of said healthcare. It already does this in providing funding for 26% of public hospitals with some form of religious involvement, and 74% of public hospitals which have no religious involvement, and the report found that there was no difference in the quality of care provided-


The review group, chaired by former secretary-general of the European Commission Catherine Day, was asked to examine the relationship between the State and Church-run hospitals. There are currently seven voluntary hospitals owned by faith-based organisations and a further five with some degree of religious order involvement in their governance arrangements.

The 12 hospitals receive €1.34bn in State funding and are responsible for operating 26pc of publicly funded inpatient beds.

The report found there was no difference in the quality of care provided by hospitals with religious ethos and those with none.


So where’s the actual problem? The problem seems to be with some individuals complaining about their care. I get that, but the idea that there should be no State funding provided to religious ethos hospitals who are providing their services to the State? Hold that walnut while I crack it with this hammer :pac:

As I said.

A person either believes that ALL citizens should feel equally welcome and cared for when accessing state funded medical services or they believe that the religious beliefs of some citizens should be given precedence.

We currently have the latter.
In a republic we should have the former.

You might be ok with that.
I'm not.

Same goes for education.