Mother and babies homes information sealed for 30 years

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

Equally responsible for what exactly?
Being in the homes?
Those women and children being victims of atrocities perpetrated by the church?
For some reason you don't seem to want to say.

Try reading the rest of my post.

Cluedo Monopoly

Here you go Mary. This will help with the irrelevant 'facts'.

https://www.thejournal.ie/mother-and-baby-home-relationship-status-on-form-5463882-Jun2021/?utm_source=twitter_short

'Rape' and 'incest' listed as 'current relationship status' options on Commission form.

A SURVIVOR OF a mother and baby home has criticised the fact that the ‘box-ticking’ form filled in after she gave evidence to the Commission of Investigation into the institutions lists ‘rape’ and ‘incest’ as options for people’s ‘current relationship status’.

The woman in question, now aged in her 60s, wanted to keep her child but felt compelled to give them up for adoption in the early 1980s despite repeated attempts to keep them.

The woman’s daughter, Maura*, told The Journal that the form was filled in months after her mother gave her testimony, is “littered with inaccuracies” and “in no way captures the actual events or my mother’s story or suffering”.

What were this commission at for 5 years? They appear less and less professional every single day. Put Dr O'Rourke in charge of the review please!

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mother-and-baby-homes-testimony-may-be-examined-by-independent-expert-1.4591157

Mother and baby homes testimony may be examined by independent expert.
Ministers to consider new proposal to examine testimonies ‘through a human rights lens’.

A source said the Government was conscious that “survivors feel their full experience as they told it is not reflected in the summaries of their transcripts put in the confidential committee chapter and they don’t feel they are fully reflected elsewhere in report too”.

Therefore proposals are being progressed to appoint an expert to examine the common experiences such as forced adoptions or other experiences within the institutions.

The independent expert would provide a report with a new analysis reflecting the testimonies and this would sit alongside the commission’s final report which was published in January. It is understood the final proposals will be brought to Cabinet the week after next by the Minister for Children Roderic O’Gorman.

It comes as the three members of the commission turned down an invitation to appear before an Oireachtas committee. They have been urged by Government to reconsider their decision.

mrslancaster

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

......

Regarding death rates, demographers typically model all infant mortality before 1800 as 40%. Worth bearing that in mind.
.....

The report I read wasnt investigating infant mortality in the 1800's :rolleyes:

Igotadose

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/mother-and-baby-homes-testimony-may-be-examined-by-independent-expert-1.4591157

Mother and baby homes testimony may be examined by independent expert.
Ministers to consider new proposal to examine testimonies ‘through a human rights lens’.

If it's an expert from Ireland, forget it. Bring in someone from outside the country like they did for Savita. Otherwise they are likely to be compromised like this Commission was.

mrslancaster

Deleted User wrote: »

What comes across loud and clear, is how these poor girls were abused by the very people who should have, firstly educated them and secondly, cared for them. Their families. Yes, wrongs were done in some homes, but the bigger wrong happened in their own homes. The places they should have felt the safest.

Those girls & women went to the M&B Homes for help.

Maybe they were abandoned by parents & partners or shunned & ostracized in the deeply religious culture of the time but they needed help not censure, shame & to be permanently separated from their children. We all know that culture was instigated by McQuaide & supported, promoted & encouraged by Devalera as is evidenced by the many civil & legal restrictions imposed on society by those two RCC indoctrinated men. It hasn't gone yet.

Whatever their reasons for seeking help from the Christian organisations they were led to believe were caring, merciful & a place of refuge, they & their children were clearly not cared for, in fact it was the opposite. There is no point in constantly trying to pass the blame to families & away from the religious who ran those homes because everyone knows the truth.

Our fellow citizens both mothers & children were treated appallingly. It is shameful to me as an Irish citizen & it is way beyond time for the government to do something to right those wrongs & stop all the excuses & procrastination.

Yellow_Fern

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Do you understand that the Mother and Baby Home commission primarily focused on what happened in the Mother and Baby homes themselves? For example where do you put the blame for the exceptional mortality rates within the homes?

The report called the infant mortality rates the most "disquieting feature of these institutions." Bessborough had mortality rates up to 75% in certain years most probably from willful neglect.

What makes you say this claim? What is the mechanism? I do agree that high mortality in the 1940s in some homes is a scandal and that is the primary scandal, perhaps the only true scandal. Although its not unusual for such homes overseas to have such rates.

JupiterKid

Its clear that the report of the Commission is deeply flawed, very compromised and essentially a whitewash. It is a f*ck up of the highest order.

We need international experts on the area to come in and do it properly, without any bias.

The Catholic Church ruined countless lives in Ireland during their tenure as theocratic leaders of this country to uphold very twisted and sick "moral" values. They oppressed nearly everyone in Irish society in one way or the other. Vile, rotten to the core organisation that cares more about protecting its wealth and status than genuine love and care for those weakest in society.

The sooner they are expunged completely from Irish society (and the world) the better.

uptherebels

Deleted User wrote: »

Try reading the rest of my post.

Do you think I got to the end of your post without reading the start of it?
I asked a question on something you are very vague on. You then deflected instead of answering.
So again what are you holding the families equally responsible for?
And I do hope you don't deflect again, with your passion for stating the truth and apportioning blame correctly.

saabsaab

It was sad that at the time when this was happening the few reports that pointed out these abuses were shelved or the person making the report moved after interventions by the Churches.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-40312640.html

The admission led to widespread criticism of the final report and calls for commission members to appear before an Oireachtas committee to answer questions on its work over the past five years.

This week Belfast-based legal firm KRW Law asked Minister O’Gorman to set aside the final report to make way for a new independent and human rights compliant investigation with victims and survivors at the centre.

It pointed out that the terms of reference and the methodology of the Commission’s work drew criticism from EU and international human rights organisations prior to the publication of the final report in January.

The legal firm said the investigation did not comply with the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), in particular, Article 3, which prohibits torture, inhuman and degrading treatment.

It has raised its concerns over the investigation with the Irish government and Stormont Executive, as well as to the United Nations Committee against Torture (UNCAT), relevant UN Special Rapporteurs, the EU Parliament Petitions Committee, and the EU Human Rights Commissioner.

“Now it has become clear that the status of the report is untenable and it must be set aside and quashed by way of a judicial declaration,” Kevin Winters of KRW Law said.

The government cannot be trusted anymore to do this right. We need the UN or EU more involved.

Cluedo Monopoly

https://twitter.com/SocDems/status/1404764399701725190

It's a fair point - there are over 10 high court challenges to the findings of the Mother and Baby home commission report. The minister himself acknowledges that mistakes were made so it will be difficult for the government to defend the incorrect findings.

A thought provoking article here. Sorry, but it’s behind a paywall so I’ll only post a small section of it. It covers the reports into the Magadelean laundries, the symphysiotomy enquiry and the recent mother and babies enquiry. The enquiries found a lot of those interviewed had acquired false memories. Most notable in the symphysiotomy enquiry where it was found that a number of “victims” didn’t ever have the procedure!

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-quinn-blame-evidence-not-authors-for-mother-and-baby-homes-report-failure-9wbsmfh3b


“Some survivors of the mother and baby homes are angry that the report of the Murphy Commission also failed to follow the received narrative. However, as Murphy said in her letter to Funchion, just 1 per cent of women who gave birth in the homes since 1960 came forward to tell their stories, and only a small number of those were willing to given sworn testimony.

In addition, the stories varied. For example, while some of the tiny number of witnesses who remembered life in the Tuam mother and baby home had very bad memories of the place, others recalled it more positively. What was the commission meant to do in the face of such contradiction? It was led by two lawyers and a historian, so it based the final report on verifiable evidence, which is what we should expect from experts with their backgrounds and training.

If the Oireachtas wanted a different outcome, then it should have put a different kind of expert in charge of the commission and set different terms of reference, ones that included a more strongly therapeutic and subjective element. Then the outcome might have been more in keeping with the popular narrative, but that doesn’t mean it would have been more accurate.”

Yellow_Fern

I posted this Times article here. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117465159&postcount=2711

Yellow_Fern

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I posted this Times article here. https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=117465159&postcount=2711

Thanks for that YF. It makes interesting reading. There were others similar during the week. As the Queen might say “Recollections may vary”.

I will admit that I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet when people insist that the church and/or government are to blame while absolving the families and babies fathers of all responsibility.

Yellow_Fern

Deleted User wrote: »

Thanks for that YF. It makes interesting reading. There were others similar during the week. As the Queen might say “Recollections may vary”.

I will admit that I have a bit of a bee in my bonnet when people insist that the church and/or government are to blame while absolving the families and babies fathers of all responsibility.

Reading the report would leave one with a sour taste in their mouth about many of these men to honest. Grim reading. It is important to remember that for nearly all most of the studied period, most unmarried mothers did go into these homes. The data indicates they had their babies outside them with a proportion using abortion in the later period.

Unfortunately a mod removed the article I posted in the other post so I am reposting here. It is interesting and not everyone will be away they were sworn witnesses but that not every woman might not want to be a sworn witness.

Donal O’Donnell, the incoming chief justice, has warned against the increasingly strident attacks being made on his fellow judges, who make an easy target for critics because they “cannot and do not answer back”.

<snip>

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/david-quinn-blame-evidence-not-authors-for-mother-and-baby-homes-report-failure-9wbsmfh3b

TheChizler

Might be worth mentioning that article was written by one David Quinn.

Igotadose

TheChizler wrote: »

Might be worth mentioning that article was written by one David Quinn.

The I Own Her spokesdroid?

Dismiss anything that propagandist says.

TheChizler

TheChizler wrote: »

Might be worth mentioning that article was written by one David Quinn.

The beauty of Boards is that differing opinions can be aired. Sometimes met with scorn, but healthy debate is good.

TheChizler

[Deleted User] wrote: »

The beauty of Boards is that differing opinions can be aired. Sometimes met with scorn, but healthy debate is good.

This is true. What's also good is referencing your source material when presenting other people's opinions.

Yellow_Fern

There is a interesting editorial in the Times as well. I will post just a portion due to copyright.

The Sunday Times view on mother and baby homes: Don’t berate commission for doing as asked


‘Outrage at mum and baby probe” read the headline on one report about the mother and baby homes commission, describing the “fury” and “dismay” of representative groups. The words did not appear after the commission’s final report in January, however, or even during the demands last week for that report to be “repudiated” by the government. ..CUT..
<snip>

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-sunday-times-view-mother-and-baby-homes-commission-sl5xnbwv7

Cluedo Monopoly

TheChizler wrote: »

Might be worth mentioning that article was written by one David Quinn.

Thanks for the warning. I won't bother reading his nonsense.

Pathetic little man.

Yellow_Fern

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Thanks for the warning. I won't bother reading his nonsense.

Pathetic little man.

Personally I'd read anything handed to me. I even read some of the thesis of the genocidal manic, Xi Jinping, the world's most powerful person. Discounting something because of who wrote it is a problem. The second article I posted is the Times Editorial, not Quinn.

Cluedo Monopoly

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Personally I'd read anything handed to me. I even read some of the thesis of the genocidal manic, Xi Jinping, the world's most powerful person. Discounting something because of who wrote it is a problem. The second article I posted is the Times Editorial, not Quinn.

Oh right. You see I know that Iona are liars. They have proved that time and again. So no I wont read their nonsense.

Some here are trying to suggest that the brave Mother and Baby survivors who provided testimony cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I find that distasteful but not unsurprising. Abuse heaped upon abuse.

Yellow_Fern

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Oh right. You see I know that Iona are liars. They have proved that time and again. So no I wont read their nonsense.

Some here are trying to suggest that the brave Mother and Baby survivors who provided testimony cannot be trusted to tell the truth. I find that distasteful but not unsurprising. Abuse heaped upon abuse.

How would you feel about Judge Harding Clark's report which found at least one third of those who reported that they had undergone a symphysiotomy did not have one performed on them at all. Is she calling these women liars or is it that memory can deceive? Id recommend this podcast on how memories can mislead
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/free-brian-williams/id1119389968?i=1000413184954

Cluedo Monopoly

https://www.thejournal.ie/terri-harrison-mother-and-baby-homes-5469770-Jun2021/?utm_source=shortlink

'The Irish Handmaid's Tale': Mother and Baby Home survivor says reality was worse than fiction.

<snip>

I wonder which parts Terri is making up. Recollection issues around the abduction perhaps?

No illegal adoptions right?

Beasty

Please note when referencing copyrighted articles Site rules permit one paragraph. A link to the source must also be posted

Any questions PM me - do not respond to this post in-thread

brendanwalsh

Where is the best place to go to read the full story summary of the mother and baby homes ?

brendanwalsh

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Where is the best place to go to read the full story summary of the mother and baby homes ?

Try this. https://assets.gov.ie/118671/0df04013-bfc5-4241-b01e-773504253793.pdf

Cluedo Monopoly

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Thanks for the warning. I won't bother reading his nonsense.

Pathetic little man.

So, what you’re saying is that your viewpoint is as blindedly one sided as his.

Cluedo Monopoly

[Deleted User] wrote: »

So, what you’re saying is that your viewpoint is as blindedly one sided as his.

Huh? You do know who David Quinn is? So you support those fanatics in Iona now?

My opinion simply reflects those of many other people fighting for the rights of mother and baby home survivors. You will notice I often quite their insights. They are truly amazing, balanced and well educated people like Maeve O'Rourke, Catherine Connolly, Claire McGettrick, Catherine Corless etc.

Cluedo Monopoly

brendanwalsh wrote: »

Where is the best place to go to read the full story summary of the mother and baby homes ?

I think this is a good place to start.

http://clannproject.org/

I know True Vision Productions are currently producing a new detailed documentary on the whole mother and baby home scandal. I am not exactly sure when it will be aired but it will be comprehensive.

Cluedo Monopoly

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

Huh? You do know who David Quinn is? So you support those fanatics in Iona now?

My opinion simply reflects those of many other people fighting for the rights of mother and baby home survivors. You will notice I often quite their insights. They are truly amazing, balanced and well educated people like Maeve O'Rourke, Catherine Connolly, Claire McGettrick, Catherine Corless etc.

Whether one supports the Iona Institute or not, their opinion is as valid as any of the ladies you mention.

David Quinn’s “fanaticism” is somewhat akin to your own. Doesn’t make either viewpoint irrelevant.

Some wrongs occurred within the homes. Ignoring the events that led to the mothers being in the homes, is equally wrong.

Igotadose

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

How would you feel about Judge Harding Clark's report which found at least one third of those who reported that they had undergone a symphysiotomy did not have one performed on them at all. Is she calling these women liars or is it that memory can deceive? Id recommend this podcast on how memories can mislead
https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/free-brian-williams/id1119389968?i=1000413184954

Actually, the Examiner did an excellent job going through the Harding Clarke report; as they say, it raises more questions than it answers. Judge Clarke awarded 34 million Euros in damages, so she obviously knows Symphysiotomies were a problem for Ireland. Further, one great question that the Examiner asks but that Judge Clark did not, is why some Doctors in Ireland performed a disproportionate number of these surgeries, i.e., your probability of suffering one of these surgeries depended on your physician. Scary, eh?
https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-20432728.html

Cluedo Monopoly

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Whether one supports the Iona Institute or not, their opinion is as valid as any of the ladies you mention.

David Quinn’s “fanaticism” is somewhat akin to your own. Doesn’t make either viewpoint irrelevant.

Some wrongs occurred within the homes. Ignoring the events that led to the mothers being in the homes, is equally wrong.

I won't give the creeps in Iona any more oxygen thanks.

Who is ignoring events prior to entry into the homes? Seriously you are making no sense. Why don't you create a thread for events that happened outside the mother and baby homes?

uptherebels

Deleted User wrote: »

Whether one supports the Iona Institute or not, their opinion is as valid as any of the ladies you mention.

David Quinn’s “fanaticism” is somewhat akin to your own. Doesn’t make either viewpoint irrelevant.

Some wrongs occurred within the homes. Ignoring the events that led to the mothers being in the homes, is equally wrong.

Except the opinion of Dave/Iona who are nothing more than church apologists are not as valid as historians and human rights lawyers.

Wrongs? That's a funny way of describing the abuses/atrocities that occurred.

To acknowledge the events that led to the mothers being in the homes, you need to accept the influence that the RCC had on Irish society at the time, which you refuse to do.

Now that you have had a few days to think about it, have you decided what you are holding the families equally responsible for?

uptherebels

uptherebels wrote: »

Except the opinion of Dave/Iona who are nothing more than church apologists are not as valid as historians and human rights lawyers.

Wrongs? That's a funny way of describing the abuses/atrocities that occurred.

To acknowledge the events that led to the mothers being in the homes, you need to accept the influence that the RCC had on Irish society at the time, which you refuse to do.

Now that you have had a few days to think about it, have you decided what you are holding the families equally responsible for?

I have given the answer to your question before, so, to recap:

Rape.
Incest.
Abdication of responsibility, as in leaving ones lover in the lurch when they fall pregnant while believing that they are in a loving relationship.
Abandonment of children when they most need help.
Not educating children in the facts of life.
Letting the opinions of others overrule parental responsibility.

Though families are not equally responsible for the above crimes. As they happened before entry to the homes, the homes cannot be held responsible.

Cluedo Monopoly

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I have given the answer to your question before, so, to recap:

Rape.
Incest.
Abdication of responsibility, as in leaving ones lover in the lurch when they fall pregnant while believing that they are in a loving relationship.
Abandonment of children when they most need help.
Not educating children in the facts of life.
Letting the opinions of others overrule parental responsibility.

Though families are not equally responsible for the above crimes. As they happened before entry to the homes, the homes cannot be held responsible.

And who is holding the nuns and homes responsible for crimes that happened before entry?

Curious, did you read Terri Harrison's story I posted earlier? If so, who was responsible?

Yellow_Fern

Igotadose wrote: »

Actually, the Examiner did an excellent job going through the Harding Clarke report; as they say, it raises more questions than it answers. Judge Clarke awarded 34 million Euros in damages, so she obviously knows Symphysiotomies were a problem for Ireland. Further, one great question that the Examiner asks but that Judge Clark did not, is why some Doctors in Ireland performed a disproportionate number of these surgeries, i.e., your probability of suffering one of these surgeries depended on your physician. Scary, eh?
https://www.irishexaminer.com/opinion/commentanalysis/arid-20432728.html

Some Irish doctors made a deliberate choice to use them more in some hospitals than average internationally because they are safer than alternatives. Harding said she awarded money to many women who might not have had them but it could not be prove it either way. She also said that the women who did have them and had tough health later would have quite likely had the same health problems anyway. If you had a difficult labour anywhere in the world in 1950s, yes incontinence is a major risk. Still is today big shock right. Dr Peter Boylan made a passionate defence of symphysiotomies https://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1123/833859-health-symphysiotomy-compensation/

TheChizler

You might quote the part where he made a passionate defence of the procedure? There's a line that might be interpreted as defending the doctors involved but apart from that I don't see it.

Igotadose

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Some Irish doctors made a deliberate choice to use them more in some hospitals than average internationally because they are safer than alternatives./QUOTE]

Then, why were they banned if they are 'safer than the alternatives?' Have you got proof of that statement? I'll grant you given the poor quality of education in Ireland then perhaps that was the belief, but I wonder even at that, exactly what was the medical guidance?

Yellow_Fern

Igotadose wrote: »

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

Some Irish doctors made a deliberate choice to use them more in some hospitals than average internationally because they are safer than alternatives./QUOTE]

Then, why were they banned if they are 'safer than the alternatives?' Have you got proof of that statement? I'll grant you given the poor quality of education in Ireland then perhaps that was the belief, but I wonder even at that, exactly what was the medical guidance?

Symphysiotomies are not banned. They are still occasionally used like if you had a difficult labour without any hospital. It was at its peak here in the early 1950s when medics knew it was far safer than C sections. Elsewhere in Europe obs/gyns preferred C sections even though it was dangerous. But as it declining here it began to be used more in developing countries. It was always very rare here as Boylan points out on that interview which is well worth listening too, these women had immensely hard deliveries and the there was always going to be side effects but at least they didn't die. The period which symphysiotomies occurred most is same time that maternity mortality collapsed, from 54 in 1920 to 40 in 1940 to just 5 in 1960. So before we condemn the doctors of this era, lets not forget how many more lives they saved than their predecessors.

As for guidelines

Guidelines and Protocols for Symphysiotomy in Ireland:
There were no guidelines or protocols for symphysiotomy in mid-twentieth century
Ireland. This was not unusual: protocols did not exist for many aspects of medical
care in the twentieth century as a whole, which evolved through practical application,
and were revised on the basis of discussion in professional forums such as those
reported in the „Transactions‟ of the Dublin Hospitals (below), in the training of
students, and on the basis of published papers in medical journals. There was
however a general acceptance of the indications for symphysiotomy, which were
„mild to moderate disproportion‟: a greater degree indicated caesarean section.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/293879808.pdf

Yellow_Fern

TheChizler wrote: »

You might quote the part where he made a passionate defence of the procedure? There's a line that might be interpreted as defending the doctors involved but apart from that I don't see it.

I really recommend the interview rather then the article on the same page. You can also read a letter he wrote to the Irish Times years back in 2003.

Symphysiotomy and Caesarean section
Tue, Jun 17, 2003, 01:00

Madam, - This year approximately 50,000 women around the world will die from an avoidable complication of childbirth, obstructed labour. Many of the babies will also die. Among the ways of preventing these deaths are two operations, A and B.

Both operations are equally effective in saving babies' lives. The rate of long-term complications such as backache, urinary incontinence, infertility and leg pain are also the same for both operations. However, death of the mother is six times more frequent with operation A, and the need for blood transfusion is twice as common. No cases of walking difficulty following operation operation B have been identified, despite long-term follow-up.

Operation A is Caesarean section; operation B is symphysiotomy. These are the facts, revealed in a review of the world literature on this question in the 20th century, written by Dr Bjorklund from the Karolinska Institute in Sweden.

In June of last year I sent this review to the chairwoman of the "Survivors of Symphysiotomy", Ann O'Donnell of the National Women's Council. During a conversation with her I suggested that the group might benefit from expert assistance in clarifying the origins of their particular problems. Ms O'Donnell reassured me that they already had expert advice - from a lawyer!

Women who believe they have been harmed by symphysiotomy deserve to have their cases considered sympathetically, with accurate information regarding the clinical circumstances surrounding the relevant birth. What women don't need is inaccurate information based more on prejudice than correct analysis of the evidence, for such an approach only perpetuates a feeling of grievance without allowing an opportunity for resolution.

Judging by your report in last Wednesday's paper referring to symphysiotomy as a "barbaric" procedure it would appear that someone in a position of reponsibility is seriously misleading the women by either suppressing, or ignoring, the evidence. A grave injustice is being done if this is the case. - Yours, etc.,

PETER BOYLAN, MAO, FRCPI, FRCOG, National Maternity Hospital, Holles Street, Dublin 2.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/symphysiotomy-and-caesarean-section-1.362862

Cluedo Monopoly

https://twitter.com/maeveorourke/status/1405633869039165448

What is taking successive governments so long? You'd have to wonder are they stalling so that most of the survivors pass on. Article from 2019.

State must allow institutionalised people access to personal files.
Silencing of survivors of historical abuse by those in power has now lasted decades.

In May it will be 20 years since then taoiseach Bertie Ahern’s State apology for abuse suffered by tens of thousands of children in residential institutions.
It is to be hoped the Government will announce a dedicated independent archive of institutional and care-related records. For 20 years Irish politicians and government officials have silenced survivors of so-called historical abuse and perpetuated grave and systematic human rights violations by prohibiting the release of information.

Igotadose

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

I really recommend the interview rather then the article on the same page. You can also read a letter he wrote to the Irish Times years back in 2003.

https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/letters/symphysiotomy-and-caesarean-section-1.362862

Peter Boylan this time? What, couldn't find an editorial from David Quinn so used his sockpuppet anti-abortion doctor?

Anyway, let's put aside the symphisiotomy discussion -We went down this rabbit hole because you used an article talking about symphisotomy surgeries that pointed out that some of the women confused episiotomy with it. Fine. About 1/3 didn't have this particular surgery (episiotomy is also frowned on in most modern medical care, but this is Ireland, which has low standards.)

Does this in ANY way exonerate what went on in the Mother and Baby homes? Did the babies that were sold to America not get sold? Did the women who died in them not die? Were they not abused by their captors? Did not the Nund do the horrible things I highlighted some days back with just 30 seconds of searching through the report?

Or is your argument, "some were, some might have misremembered." If so, I counter with, the delaying tactics used by the RCC and its apologists like you and the greyhound-abuse-denier on this thread, might contributed to elderly women misremembering as it took 5 *years* for this inept commission to produce its widely ridiculed report.

TheChizler

Igotadose wrote: »

Peter Boylan this time? What, couldn't find an editorial from David Quinn so used his sockpuppet anti-abortion doctor?

Peter Boylan was one of the main faces of the repeal campaign, not sure who you're thinking of.

Igotadose

TheChizler wrote: »

Peter Boylan was one of the main faces of the repeal campaign, not sure who you're thinking of.

My bad. I apologize for that part of my post

Yellow_Fern

TheChizler wrote: »

Peter Boylan was one of the main faces of the repeal campaign, not sure who you're thinking of.

It is extraordinary how imprisoned people are by ideology. I mean if Peter Boylan was a reincarnation of Archbishop McQuaid it shouldn't matter given the extraordinary statistics in favour of symphisiotomy quoted in that Irish Times letter he wrote.

Igotadose wrote: »

Does this in ANY way exonerate what went on in the Mother and Baby homes? Did the babies that were sold to America not get sold? Did the women who died in them not die? Were they not abused by their captors? Did not the Nund do the horrible things I highlighted some days back with just 30 seconds of searching through the report?

Or is your argument, "some were, some might have misremembered." If so, I counter with, the delaying tactics used by the RCC and its apologists like you and the greyhound-abuse-denier on this thread, might contributed to elderly women misremembering as it took 5 *years* for this inept commission to produce its widely ridiculed report.

I dont think any babies were sold. I think there were abuses but I don't think every one experienced them.

From what I can see nearly all the worst abuses occurred before entering the home or after, to children who fostered out.

The RCC isnt delaying anyone. They have dont nothing either way. They were never against the Commission. They provided the records they had.

Cluedo Monopoly

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is extraordinary how imprisoned people are by ideology. I mean if Peter Boylan was a reincarnation of Archbishop McQuaid it shouldn't matter given the extraordinary statistics in favour of symphisiotomy quoted in that Irish Times letter he wrote.

I dont think any babies were sold. I think there were abuses but I don't think every one experienced them.

From what I can see nearly all the worst abuses occurred before entering the home or after, to children who fostered out.

The RCC isnt delaying anyone. They have dont nothing either way. They were never against the Commission. They provided the records they had.

Time and time again you have to be educated. Time and time again you deny the obvious.

"From what I can see...." You refuse to open your eyes. Sad.

Cluedo Monopoly

Yellow_Fern wrote: »

It is extraordinary how imprisoned people are by ideology. I mean if Peter Boylan was a reincarnation of Archbishop McQuaid it shouldn't matter given the extraordinary statistics in favour of symphisiotomy quoted in that Irish Times letter he wrote.

I dont think any babies were sold. I think there were abuses but I don't think every one experienced them.

From what I can see nearly all the worst abuses occurred before entering the home or after, to children who fostered out.

The RCC isnt delaying anyone. They have dont nothing either way. They were never against the Commission. They provided the records they had.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=116420015&postcount=2062

Read it this time.

There are none so blind as those who will not see.