The NMH at St. Vincents

murpho999

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

Will be issues to with transgenders, foetal abnormalities that must be carried full term. Fertility matters as well.

It's just all wrong.

murpho999

Absolam wrote: »

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

Do you genuinely think that our abortion laws are not responsible for that lady's death?

One eyed Jack

murpho999 wrote: »

No: just ownership of a €300m building.

They didn't ask for that either. The SVHG owns the current building, and it will own the new block too which will be part of the existing hospital which will mean providing a far better service than two separate hospitals.

RobertKK

Dr Rhona Mahoney supports the project.

She said
"If this does not go ahead, and if we’re going to mix this really important critical development for women with redress scheme, are we going to punish women further in this country by actually interfering and getting in the way of building a hospital that is so urgently needed for women."

murpho999

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They didn't ask for that either. The SVHG owns the current building, and it will own the new block too which will be part of the existing hospital which will mean providing a far better service than two separate hospitals.

This is the whole issue!


So the state just give it to them without SVHG asking for it?

Parchment

RobertKK wrote: »

Dr Rhona Mahoney supports the project.

She said
"If this does not go ahead, and if we’re going to mix this really important critical development for women with redress scheme, are we going to punish women further in this country by actually interfering and getting in the way of building a hospital that is so urgently needed for women."

So what? Its not going to be fit for purpose if its run with the RCC involved.

eviltwin

RobertKK wrote: »

Dr Rhona Mahoney supports the project.

She said
"If this does not go ahead, and if we’re going to mix this really important critical development for women with redress scheme, are we going to punish women further in this country by actually interfering and getting in the way of building a hospital that is so urgently needed for women."

Dr Mahoney is desperate to get a state of the art hospital building and she's right, its needed urgently. I'm sure her comments are not in connection with the nuns and their management of the hospital.

One eyed Jack

murpho999 wrote: »

This is the whole issue!

So the state just give it to them without SVHG asking for it?

No, the SVHG asked for it alright, but due to some people's deliberately misleading statements and others complete misunderstanding, they believe that it's the SOC will own and run the hospital. The SOC are only shareholders in the SVHG, even though it was originally the SOC who founded St. Vincents hospital.

Some people appear to be under the illusion that the SVHG should be obliged to provide abortion services too, not sure where anyone gets that idea from.

RobertKK

Parchment wrote: »

So what? Its not going to be fit for purpose if its run with the RCC involved.

Well Simon Harris says the state will have a golden share in the hospital.

eviltwin

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Some people appear to be under the illusion that the SVHG should be obliged to provide abortion services too, not sure where anyone gets that idea from.

If and when the laws change to allow abortions in more liberal circumstances why shouldn't they? Do you not think a medical facility should be run according to the best practice or should a religious order be allowed to limit what care is given based on their beliefs?

infogiver

murpho999 wrote: »

Do you genuinely think that our abortion laws are not responsible for that lady's death?

She died of neglect at the hands of the midwives and doctors who failed to look after her.
If that offends you then it's tough but that's what happened.
You seem to prefer to ignore the fact that 9 of the 21 staff who were looking after Mrs Halapanaveer were sanctioned for their neglect of her.
The infection that killed her was missed because they failed to observe even the basics of obs of her blood pressure temperature etc to the point were she went into irreversible organ failure.
In this country at the moment maternal care is so excellent that there are on 5 countries in the world with better care.
What do you want to dispute here?

RobertKK

eviltwin wrote: »

Dr Mahoney is desperate to get a state of the art hospital building and she's right, its needed urgently. I'm sure her comments are not in connection with the nuns and their management of the hospital.

Yes, as I said earlier in this thread to a person who said the state should seize the property as part of the redress scheme, that a Pandora's box would be opened and there would be court cases, delays and rising costs for all.
So I think she too is coming from that position as you say.

Absolam

murpho999 wrote: »

Do you genuinely think that our abortion laws are not responsible for that lady's death?

I genuinely think that the investigations and reports were correct and it was medical mismanagement that was responsible for her death.

eviltwin

murpho999 wrote: »

Do you genuinely think that our abortion laws are not responsible for that lady's death?

We'll never know. Chances are with an abortion she might have died anyway but its all a guessing game. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that a woman who was in the midst of a miscarriage was given substandard care because of the laws governing our maternity system. She should have been given the abortion when needed.

volchitsa

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

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

What standard established procedures are you referring to please?
Professor Arulkumaran said she needed a termination of her pregnancy.
And that uncertainty about whether the law allowed that in her case or not delayed her treatment.

The lack of minimum care on top of the refusal to terminate meant her death became inevitable - but the law put her life at risk in the first place.

volchitsa

infogiver wrote: »

She died of neglect at the hands of the midwives and doctors who failed to look after her.
If that offends you then it's tough but that's what happened.
You seem to prefer to ignore the fact that 9 of the 21 staff who were looking after Mrs Halapanaveer were sanctioned for their neglect of her.
The infection that killed her was missed because they failed to observe even the basics of obs of her blood pressure temperature etc to the point were she went into irreversible organ failure.
In this country at the moment maternal care is so excellent that there are on 5 countries in the world with better care.
What do you want to dispute here?

You don't see a contradiction there?

How were they sanctioned, by the way?
If their level of professionalism was so much lower than the rest of the medical personnel in Ireland, presumably they were at least suspended and possibly removed from the register altogether? No?

eviltwin

I think the fact we rate our maternity care on the basis of how many people we killed today says a lot about the attitude towards pregnancy in this country.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

We'll never know. Chances are with an abortion she might have died anyway but its all a guessing game. However, that doesn't take away from the fact that a woman who was in the midst of a miscarriage was given substandard care because of the laws governing our maternity system. She should have been given the abortion when needed.

That's not true. She didn't receive substandard care because of the law, she received it because of the staffs inattention and the lack of proper procedures in place. Had her sepsis been caught in time it could have been treated, she could have survived. Had she had an abortion, she might never have had sepsis, or it might have caused it. By the time the staff knew she had sepsis, it was already too late for an abortion to play any part in saving her life; that time had passed. There's no value in this tired old hobby horse; it was a tragic case but it wasn't the law that killed her.

infogiver

volchitsa wrote: »

You don't see a contradiction there?

There's no contradiction.
Mrs Halapanaveers tragic death was so unusual for Ireland it attracted international media attention, and a lot of that was as a result of the pro abortion community's highjacking of a family tragedy as a means to further their agenda, which then backfired when the report into her death revealed that it was neglect in that particular hospital on those particular dates that hastened her untimely death.
9 of the 21 staff involved in her care(or lack ofvit)were sanctioned.
It remains, that despite hysterical hyperbole from the pro choice proponents about how no abortion on demand in this country puts women at risk every day, that this country is 6th in WHO table of safe countries to be pregnant and have a baby in.
The US , where planned parenthood, oversaw 300,000 abortions last year(92% of the patients ticked "inconvenience" as the reason for the abortion) is in the same block as Yemen and the Congo.

infogiver

eviltwin wrote: »

I think the fact we rate our maternity care on the basis of how many people we killed today says a lot about the attitude towards pregnancy in this country.

The WHO are the organisation tasked with rating maternity care throughout the world.
It's not we ourselves that say how it's rated, it's they.
I can't think of any other way to rate it, can you?

Absolam

volchitsa wrote: »

What standard established procedures are you referring to please? Professor Arulkumaran said she needed a termination of her pregnancy. And that uncertainty about whether the law allowed that in her case or not delayed her treatment. The lack of minimum care on top of the refusal to terminate meant her death became inevitable - but the law put her life at risk in the first place.

Actually, what he said was "Different management options needed to be considered - including termination of the pregnancy". Which is rather a different thing. And of course we know that termination was considered by her doctor who did actually set in motion a termination procedure once she was aware of the sepsis progression; had she known earlier a termination might not have been necessary, or might have been carried out. But it wasn't the law that kept her from knowing a termination might help save her patients life; it was the lack of attention which meant no one knew her life was in danger until it was too late to save her.

Absolam

eviltwin wrote: »

I think the fact we rate our maternity care on the basis of how many people we killed today says a lot about the attitude towards pregnancy in this country.

To be fair, pretty much every maternity care system in the world is rated on its mortality rates. It's a rather standard measurement everywhere. Does that say something about the attitude towards pregnancy in the world?

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

If and when the laws change to allow abortions in more liberal circumstances why shouldn't they? Do you not think a medical facility should be run according to the best practice or should a religious order be allowed to limit what care is given based on their beliefs?

Because the laws haven't changed, and there's no guarantee that they will. There's just as much a chance that they may become even more restrictive! Do I think a medical facility should be run according to best practice? Of course I do, but I also think that the Board of a medical facility should be able to decide what services they do and don't offer to the public.

For example my wife has scoliosis and when her back was splitting, she has the choice of being left on a public hospital trolley in a corridor for ten hours (that's happened), being carted around to another public hospital only to be told they don't deal with backs (that's happened too), a last ditch attempt to try the private hospitals hoping that my private health insurance would cover it, only to be told they don't do backs either! I switched private health insurance providers after that, and haven't had any problems since.

If a pregnant woman has any complications in her pregnancy, it doesn't make any sense that she would have to be carted from one hospital to another to be seen by a completely different team because of the principles of a tiny minority of people. I don't believe that any hospital should be obliged to provide services to the public that they don't. I do believe what public hospitals exist already should be completely overhauled, as their standards are sh*t.

I genuinely do understand where you're coming from, but anything else under the current circumstances would be completely impractical and would cost the State far more than E300m or even the risks of transporting patients from one hospital to another.

cbreeze

suicide_circus wrote: »

I heard theyre gonna have The Magdalene Sisters playing on a loop in the delivery rooms

... and if your health insurance comes up with a shortfall you can help out in the laundry to make up the balance ...

Anita Blow

eviltwin wrote: »

I think the fact we rate our maternity care on the basis of how many people we killed today says a lot about the attitude towards pregnancy in this country.

Well now this is a bit silly. Infant mortality is the standard health metric used by the OECD and every single country to measure quality of maternity care. The same way the OECD measures the quality of acute care based on the number of deaths from heart attack.

jjbrien

RobertKK wrote: »

Yes, as I said earlier in this thread to a person who said the state should seize the property as part of the redress scheme, that a Pandora's box would be opened and there would be court cases, delays and rising costs for all.
So I think she too is coming from that position as you say.

Doubt it would hold up the redress scheme was in 2009. Was the redress scheme court ordered? If not the statue of limitations will apply. Without a court order after 6 years it couldn't be legally enforced.

I for one dont like the RCC getting this my own mother grew up in one of those mother and baby homes she suffered bad health as a result of it most of her life and died when I was 2 so to me its a disgrace they get this hospital.

gctest50

Absolam wrote: »

...................... it was the lack of attention which meant no one knew her life was in danger until it was too late to save her.

And why didn't they pay much attention to a very unwell patient ?

Cos they well knew it'd have to be a surgical termination of pregnancy if it didn't abort naturally

Stars and Stripes

Looks like FG are fearful of the Catholics down the country if gay Leo becomes leader and hence doing this apparently nonsensical appointment in fear of a vote drop with the culchies in the next general election.

eviltwin

Anita Blow wrote: »

Well now this is a bit silly. Infant mortality is the standard health metric used by the OECD and every single country to measure quality of maternity care. The same way the OECD measures the quality of acute care based on the number of deaths from heart attack.

You can use official rating mechanisms without the hyperbole that Ireland is a great little country to have a baby. The mortality rate is just one aspect of it. Many women who safely left hospital with a healthy child are unhappy with their care, with their options, with their lack of consent thanks to legislation and the general state of the Irish hospital system. We should aspire to do better than just limit mortality. Hopefully this new hospital will help.

pilly

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Looks like FG are fearful of the Catholics down the country if gay Leo becomes leader and hence doing this apparently nonsensical appointment in fear of a vote drop with the culchies in the next general election.

I'd say you were a long time waiting to use that picture were you?