The NMH at St. Vincents

murpho999

RobertKK wrote: »

The Catholic Church is the biggest provider of healthcare and education on the planet after state provided healthcare and education.

It was shown on Newsnight how in the poor regions of the world that the only providers in some of these areas are the religious provided services and which are open to all.
So the world would be in a much worse state without it.

What has that got to do with Ireland which is wealthy and has government programs in place?

How is that relevant to the argument about the new maternity hospital?

Walter H Price

RobertKK wrote: »

The Catholic Church is the biggest provider of healthcare and education on the planet after state provided healthcare and education.

It was shown on Newsnight how in the poor regions of the world that the only providers in some of these areas are the religious provided services and which are open to all.
So the world would be in a much worse state without it.

Were not a poor country and there aren't providing sh!t here , no priests in classrooms (thankfully) Teachers paid for by the state , schools built and maintained by the state and voluntary contributions of parents , Hospitals built and maintained by the state , not staffed with nuns but by qualified doctors and nurses again paid for by guess who , the state.

They own the land and the ethos that's all , there in the way in all honesty we could more than do with out them a CPO for the land at Vincents would have been ideal.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

We are talking about Ireland. How other countries run themselves is their business.

The nuns own the land, the state chose to use their land, it doesn't matter if Ireland or elsewhere the same principles in these areas would apply.

One eyed Jack

Walter H Price wrote: »

Senior figures in the church here and all the way up to the previous Pope , were complicit in covering up child sex abuse , they moved paedo priests from parish to parish and paid of victims/ victims family's to protect their own interest etc... the orders committed a liteney of abuse in those laundries , homes and industrial schools including the selling of Irish children abroad and the dumping of babies in make shift mass graves. They should be made pay the money they owe and the should be removed from public life.

I don't agree that they should be removed from public life, and I don't think any amount of money will ever be sufficient compensation crimes committed. We start down that road, we'll be ending up with cases like the Brazilian woman who was raped here who expected compensation as that's the way the justice system works in Brazil (a population of 140m people, the majority of whom are Roman Catholic btw). Money won't undo the past, but reform of the Church to put procedures in place so that collusion between the State and the Church like happened in the past, will never happen again, is the way forward IMO.

To be honest religion is a personal choice that alone should mean it plays no role in state owned , state funded Healthcare or Education. If Catholics want catholic Schools and Hospitals they should pay for them privately , state owned tax funded institutions should be secular and of no particular ethos.

I personally would have no problem with that, if it also meant that I didn't have to pay over 40% of my income to cover the cost of education, welfare and healthcare for other people or their children. I already pay for private health insurance, I was almost going to pay for private education when my child didn't get a place in the first two schools of my choice (both schools being within 100 yards of where I live, but due to the sibling rule he didn't get in and will now be attending a school 25km away).

I'm not so sure Catholics or non-religious who don't have my means, would be too happy about everyone paying for themselves though. It would mean far more children would get trapped in grinding second and third generation poverty and wouldn't receive even the minimum standard of education, but hey, the leafy suburb minority would have their political Utopia at least.

murpho999

RobertKK wrote: »

The church is letting the state use church owned property to provide state education.
It was Bertie who said that the church saved the state billions by not having to buy property to provide state education.

You don't ask yourself how the church got this property then that is worth billions?

You don't think the DOC should meet its debts under the redress scheme before being handed a €300m hospital?

Walter H Price

RobertKK wrote: »

The nuns own the land, the state chose to use their land, it doesn't matter if Ireland or elsewhere the same principles in these areas would apply.

So CPO , if this was my land and it was by a rail line that needed expanding or a motorway or a hospital or a gas pipeline or whatever i would have been given a compulsory purchase order , so why weren't the Nuns and while we were issuing that CPO why wasn't the cost just recovered from the millions they still owe in compensation for the kids they killed, sold , abused and dumped in septic tanks ?

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

The nuns own the land, the state chose to use their land, it doesn't matter if Ireland or elsewhere the same principles in these areas would apply.

The state is paying the building AND running costs of the hospital. Why should the nuns own the building?

RobertKK

Walter H Price wrote: »

Were not a poor country and there aren't providing sh!t here , no priests in classrooms (thankfully) Teachers paid for by the state , schools built and maintained by the state and voluntary contributions of parents , Hospitals built and maintained by the state , not staffed with nuns but by qualified doctors and nurses again paid for by guess who , the state.

They own the land and the ethos that's all , there in the way in all honesty we could more than do with out them a CPO for the land at Vincents would have been ideal.

CPOs are mostly used for transport infrastructure projects and are highly costly, and that is usually for rural farmland, not land in cities.

The owners of the land, are they voluntarily allowing their land to be used?

andekwarhola

osarusan wrote: »

How much does the CC actually pay towards the cost of schools and hospitals these days though?

I was under the impression that the site is owned by the nuns and the state are funding the hospital. I would imagine the cost of a greenfield site in county Dublin would be possibly equal if not more than the cost of building it? As would the expense of either buying out existing schools/hopsitals owned by religous orders or funding new ones.

I personally don't agree with the situation (and am horrified by the idea that such an institution as the NMH should be controlled by a religious order and one that has not discharged its debts to abuse victims) but there are more players here than the CC. The state has basically outsourced these instututions to the CC, originally for religious reasons obviously but increasingly to save costs in keeping with a model in Ireland where services (motorway tollls, water charges, infracstructure, you name it) are demanded by the electorate (ironically many of whom are aghast at the hopsital scandal) but it's politcal suicide for any goverment to actually attempt to pay for them through adequate taxation.

murpho999

Sister Agnes Reynolds, who sits on the board of the St Vincent's Healthcare Group, told the Irish Times that the new hospital will "always respect the rights of the mother and the baby.

This is what the crux of the matter is.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

The state is paying the building AND running costs of the hospital. Why should the nuns own the building?

But do they actually own the buildings?

I could allow a wind turbine electricity producer to put up wind turbines on my land, but not own the wind turbines.

Are the nuns simply on the board as their way of payment and the land is used voluntarily and the buildings rent free to the state?
Just asking as I was not around when the news broke.

Walter H Price

RobertKK wrote: »

CPOs are mostly used for transport infrastructure projects and are highly costly, and that is usually for rural farmland, not land in cities.

The owners of the land, are they voluntarily allowing their land to be used?

Incorrect , i have worked for a long time in utilities both here and abroad, CPO's are actually quite an efficient way of acquiring land for large capital project of any nature, either in the city or rural areas.

The Sister's should have been handed a CPO wit a 0 balance and told we'll knock it off your tab and you can keep your poxy ethos out of our Hospital , where again it has literally no place whats so ever

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

But do they actually own the buildings?

I could allow a wind turbine electricity producer to put up wind turbines on my land, but not own the wind turbines.

Are the nuns simply on the board as their way of payment and the land is used voluntarily and the buildings rent free to the state?
Just asking as I was not around when the news broke.

they will own the building.

RobertKK

Walter H Price wrote: »

Incorrect , i have worked for a long time in utilities both here and abroad, CPO's are actually quite an efficient way of acquiring land for large capital project of any nature, either in the city or rural areas.

The Sister's should have been handed a CPO wit a 0 balance and told we'll knock it off your tab and you can keep your poxy ethos out of our Hospital , where again it has literally no place whats so ever

CPOs are not free land though.
Also the state could not use the situation the way you make out.
It would have been a Pandora's boxful of issues for the state to associate private property to the redress bill.
The state went for the easiest solution as what you say would have led to court cases, delays and rising costs.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they will own the building.

So is that the payoff for not buying the land?

volchitsa

Widdershins wrote: »

It was just an aside really. For example, I feel sorry for the decent priests. If the church is pushed to the fringes of society I wouldn't like it to affect them too negatively.

The number of decent priests whose decency went as far as refusing to be complicit with child abusers is less than the fingers on one hand, that's the problem though.

And of those, every one of them was punished by the hierarchy by being sent to the equivalent of Craggy Island.

Compare that to the likes of Sean Brady and how he was rewarded for his role in the cover up, and it becomes sheer delusion to think the church wasn't actively covering up for the child abusers within its ranks.

volchitsa

murpho999 wrote: »

This is what the crux of the matter is.

Respecting the rights of the mother and baby is what killed Savita Halappanavar.

Zebra3

RobertKK wrote: »

The church is letting the state use church owned property to provide state education.
It was Bertie who said that the church saved the state billions by not having to buy property to provide state education.

Sure if Bertie said it.... :rolleyes:

RobertKK

Zebra3 wrote: »

Sure if Bertie said it.... :rolleyes:

Property doesn't come for free.

murpho999

RobertKK wrote: »

So is that the payoff for not buying the land?

Why wouldn't the christian organisation which Jesus urged to have no interest in wealth donate the land to people who need it?

pilly

RobertKK wrote: »

So is that the payoff for not buying the land?

I can't figure out if you're trying to be sarcastic or not?

osarusan

pilly wrote: »

I can't figure out if you're trying to be sarcastic or not?

Why would they be?

CC has the state over a barrel - they own land which the state wants to use. In return for allowing the state to use it, they negotiate rights/power over how it's used.

RobertKK

murpho999 wrote: »

Why wouldn't the christian organisation which Jesus urged to have no interest in wealth donate the land to people who need it?

Maybe they want it to be Christian in nature.

Mrs OBumble

volchitsa wrote: »

Respecting the rights of the mother and baby is what killed Savita Halappanavar.

No, not applying standard established procedures is what killed her. Why do you think they chose not to do so in her case?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

Respecting the rights of the mother and baby is what killed Savita Halappanavar.

And there's everyone else thinking it was sepsis......

One eyed Jack

murpho999 wrote: »

Why wouldn't the christian organisation which Jesus urged to have no interest in wealth donate the land to people who need it?

They did. The SOC aren't asking the State for a cent for the land.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Maybe they want it to be Christian in nature.

so they want to impose their ethos on patients?

murpho999

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They did. The SOC aren't asking the State for a cent for the land.

No: just ownership of a €300m building.

eviltwin

murpho999 wrote: »

This is what the crux of the matter is.

That's the problem, they see their patients as a mother and a baby, not a woman and an embryo/foetus.

I wonder how that philosophy will translate when a patient requires treatment that they see as going against their beliefs.

murpho999

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They did. The SOC aren't asking the State for a cent for the land.

I really don't think they are handing over ownership of the land, other wise they would not have ownership of the building.

They are allowing the hospital to be built on their land with controls.

If they donated the land then the state would own it and would not require SOC to own the hospital.