The NMH at St. Vincents

Anita Blow

eviltwin wrote: »

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.

To be honest I think it does a disservice to the doctors and nurses who do an incredible job in our maternity system. Regardless of whatever else they may want, women who bring their pregnancy to term would like a happy and healthy baby first and foremost, which Ireland does extremely well.

You can disapprove religious interference in ownership & termination, but no need to **** on the hard work our maternity staff have put in to make Ireland an extremely safe place for women to have children.

One eyed Jack

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.

Well that whole paragraph is just daft. Why would I give a sh*t about who Leo Vradkar is knocking boots with? I'm more concerned with the fact that while he was the minister for health, he did sweet FA to implement any kind of reform, but the national media were more interested in coverage of his personal life and trying to paint him as the Messiah.

Still baffles the fcuk out of me how Michael Noonan got back into Government with his history as the Minister for Health. I guess people's principles aren't as important to them as their pockets. That much doesn't surprise me.

SirLaurencelot

So strange

infogiver

SirLaurencelot wrote: »

So strange

People are strange, when you're a stranger
-Jim Morrison

eviltwin

Anita Blow wrote: »

To be honest I think it does a disservice to the doctors and nurses who do an incredible job in our maternity system. Regardless of whatever else they may want, women who bring their pregnancy to term would like a happy and healthy baby first and foremost, which Ireland does extremely well.

You can disapprove religious interference in ownership & termination, but no need to **** on the hard work our maternity staff have put in to make Ireland an extremely safe place for women to have children.

At no stage in my post was I critical of medical personnel. The problems in our health system are entirely down to government failings through the years.

One eyed Jack

eviltwin wrote: »

At no stage in my post was I critical of medical personnel. The problems in our health system are entirely down to government failings through the years.

I'd be critical of medical personnel who are utterly useless, and have absolutely no compassion for patients in their care. There are plenty of those types on the ground, and no changing of any laws is going to change that. There's also the fact that not only are many hospitals top heavy with admin staff, but they also have medical personnel doing admin work instead of being able to get on with the work they are being poorly paid to do.

Having said that, and having spent time in hospitals up and down the country, and a couple in Dublin, there are some outstanding and exceptional staff, and they stand out because they are the exception, in Crumlin, Vincents and the Mater. I only passed through St. James and Temple St. and haven't been to St. Lukes in a long time so I couldn't comment on those.

Stars and Stripes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Well that whole paragraph is just daft. Why would I give a sh*t about who Leo Vradkar is knocking boots with?

There's more than just you who live in the country that might.

One eyed Jack

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

There's more than just you who live in the country that might.

Yeah the national media mostly based in Dublin thinks that too (hence bombarding us with articles and pictures about 'Leo and his boyfriend on a day out', 'Leo and his boyfriend's birthday party', and 'Leo does a stint as a radio DJ'), but I can say fairly confidently that less people outside Dublin were concerned with Leo Vradkars personal life as they were about hospital closures, waiting times on trolleys in corridors, waiting lists to access mental health services, and a health system that generally sh*t.

Now imagine if the State actually bought the properties the hospitals are on, and put their own relatives people on the Board of Management. It'd just be yet another colossal waste of money and resources, and you'd still have all the same problems you do now, only ten times worse.

sorry if this has been answered, I did my best to read as much of the thread as was bearable, but if it doesn't make a difference who owns the hospital (in light of the golden shareholding), why does it make a difference to the nuns either? surely it doesnt make a difference, in this case, if they *don't* own it?

There must some benefit to the religious institution, or to the State, otherwise it wouldn't make a difference if it was owned by the State.

ohnonotgmail

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

sorry if this has been answered, I did my best to read as much of the thread as was bearable, but if it doesn't make a difference who owns the hospital (in light of the golden shareholding), why does it make a difference to the nuns either? surely it doesnt make a difference, in this case, if they *don't* own it?

There must some benefit to the religious institution, or to the State, otherwise it wouldn't make a difference if it was owned by the State.

they get a say in how the hospital is run.

pilly

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

sorry if this has been answered, I did my best to read as much of the thread as was bearable, but if it doesn't make a difference who owns the hospital (in light of the golden shareholding), why does it make a difference to the nuns either? surely it doesnt make a difference, in this case, if they *don't* own it?

There must some benefit to the religious institution, or to the State, otherwise it wouldn't make a difference if it was owned by the State.

Very good question. The state gets the land, the religious institution gets power presumably.

Panrich

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

they get a say in how the hospital is run.

Surely not. That would be the biggest betrayal of all those who have suffered at the hands of these religious institutions and a direct kick in the bollocks for all those still alive and still looking for answers and justice.

ohnonotgmail

Panrich wrote: »

Surely not. That would be the biggest betrayal of all those who have suffered at the hands of these religious institutions and a direct kick in the bollocks for all those still alive and still looking for answers and justice.

that is the point of the thread.

Panrich

Optimists Hat on. Well surely there are more benign reasons why the government have made this deal that might become clearer as we go along.

pilly

Panrich wrote: »

Optimists Hat on. Well surely there are more benign reasons why the government have made this deal that might become clearer as we go along.

If there was they'd have announced them by now given the pressure they're now coming under.

moneymad

Sign the petition.
65000, signatures so far, they need another 10000.

murpho999

Simon Harris is being interviewed by Six One News in the studio about this in one minute.

artemis268

Dealing with these arbitrary decision making is why doctors and other working professionals are leaving this country in droves.

Stars and Stripes

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yeah the national media mostly based in Dublin thinks that too (hence bombarding us with articles and pictures about 'Leo and his boyfriend on a day out', 'Leo and his boyfriend's birthday party', and 'Leo does a stint as a radio DJ'), but I can say fairly confidently that less people outside Dublin were concerned with Leo Vradkars personal life as they were about hospital closures, waiting times on trolleys in corridors, waiting lists to access mental health services, and a health system that generally sh*t.

Now imagine if the State actually bought the properties the hospitals are on, and put their own relatives people on the Board of Management. It'd just be yet another colossal waste of money and resources, and you'd still have all the same problems you do now, only ten times worse.

Yes the health service is of major importance to people as is taxation, housing, water charges etc. Doesn't mean that there isn't a right conservative catholic streak running through a huge percentage of the country's population who wouldn't be too keen on voting for a party headed by a gay.

evolving_doors

Would a compulsory purchase order have secured the site?

One eyed Jack

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Yes the health service is of major importance to people as is taxation, housing, water charges etc. Doesn't mean that there isn't a right conservative catholic streak running through a huge percentage of the country's population who wouldn't be too keen on voting for a party headed by a gay.

Headed by a what?

There isn't any conservative catholic streak running through a percentage of the population, let alone a huge one, outside of the walls of the Iona Institute... and remind me, where are they based again?

Woodville56

So the end line in this fiasco as I see it is that the protesters and the petitioners would prefer the state i.e. the taxpayer to cough up the cost of an alternative "secular" site for the new maternity hospital rather than have a site gifted by a religious order, although both state and the Sisters of Charity have strenuously argued that the hospital will be run independent of religious influence ?
I really wish the Sisters of Charity would withdraw their offer of the St Vincent's site now and let those who object to the offer go rant at the developer or vulture fund who will probably extract twice the price from the taxpayer for an alternative suitably secularist site

Beasty

NIMAN wrote: »

What exactly do they get by 'owning' it?

Discounts?


:pac:

Anita Blow

Woodville56 wrote: »

So the end line in this fiasco as I see it is that the protesters and the petitioners would prefer the state i.e. the taxpayer to cough up the cost of an alternative "secular" site for the new maternity hospital rather than have a site gifted by a religious order, although both state and the Sisters of Charity have strenuously argued that the hospital will be run independent of religious influence ?
I really wish the Sisters of Charity would withdraw their offer of the St Vincent's site now and let those who object to the offer go rant at the developer or vulture fund who will probably extract twice the price from the taxpayer for an alternative suitably secularist site

It's not "gifted". They're getting a 300 million euro hospital.

gctest50

Woodville56 wrote: »

So the end line in this fiasco as I see it is that the protesters and the petitioners would prefer the state i.e. the taxpayer to cough up the cost of ..........

They still owe the state i.e. the taxpayer 100 million and more


http://independent.ie/irish-news/courts/orders-paid-sixth-of-bill-for-childrens-home-abuse-34410142.html



The Sisters of Mercy have contributed €24.94m of the €127m in additional cash and property contributions that it pledged in 2009


The State has paid close to €1bn in compensation

One eyed Jack

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Mork calling Orson ...... Mork calling Orson ...... Mork calling Orson ......

Nano Nagle?

oppenheimer1

Anita Blow wrote: »

It's not "gifted". They're getting a 300 million euro hospital.

For the sole use of nuns?

The government cannot simply take land off people so the choice was: continue in the same location, buy a new plot, or negotiate with the SoC to use their land at St. Vincent's.

Some people might find the solution distasteful, but the alternative costs an awful lot more.

Woodville56

Woodville56 wrote: »

both state and the Sisters of Charity have strenuously argued that the hospital will be run independent of religious influence ?

Great. So this makes no difference?

Then it won't make any difference if the Nuns don't own it, right?

Ger Roe

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Some people might find the solution distasteful, but the alternative costs an awful lot more.

Previous arrangements down the years between church and state have already cost us an awful lot more - and not just in terms of money. Surely justice and principles must be held in higher regard by the state, than money?

teddybundy

you cant make it up sometimes