The NMH at St. Vincents

Choochtown

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Why do you keep talking about CPO's when the State didn't have to pay a cent for the site in the first place? If you're talking about the State purchasing the whole of SVHG sites and the properties on them lock, stock and barrel, you'd still have to deal with Article 44, and it would cost quite a bit more than the E500m the Government of the day agreed with the religious orders in the redress scheme. Now multiply that figure by the number of sites and properties the State would have to compensate the religious orders for if they were to take them all, and very quickly you begin to see why the State knows which side it's bread is buttered - they simply couldn't afford a principled stance like that without bankrupting the State for future generations to come. People still complain about the USC and having to pay for water, and how much do you think they'd have to raise taxes by in order to cover the cost of compensation to the religious orders?

Like I said, I personally would have no problem paying a Church tax, if it meant that I didn't have to pay tax for the education, healthcare and welfare of other people and their children either. That would mean I would then have more money to give voluntarily to support the healthcare, education and welfare of other people and their children as I saw fit, rather than being forced to pay to provide services for people and their children which I didn't agree to. It'd also mean I wouldn't have the State dipping into my private pension fund. You might have an initial increase in people ticking no religion on the census, but if they declare to the State that they aren't religious, then the various religious communities can also deny them services as they aren't members of that religious community. That means no baptisms, marriage ceremonies or burials. I'm not sure Ireland is really all that serious about getting religion out of education and healthcare and standing by their principles, if it means they get hit in the pockets for it.

No I think you underestimate the disgust felt by a lot of the population over this proposal. I would gladly take a financial hit to get this hospital well out of the control of religious orders.
On another of your points: Don't we all pay tax for health, education and welfare of others? Are you suggesting that you only want to pay tax for health, education and welfare of your fellow Catholics??!! ... or have I misinterpreted your point?
You mention no baptisms, marriage ceremonies or burials. Every church in the country makes money on these occasions so again I don't see the point that you're making here.

whisky_galore

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

If that's the case why have successive govts for decades been foot dragging on changing the 8th Amendment on abortion ?

Because the older generations would shoot it down, the ones that still go to Mass and say Novenas, the ones that will actually get out and vote or who are perceived in that light.
There's still a heck of a lot of them around.

Not only that I would wager a lot of Repeal flag wavers don't actually know what Repeal means.

One eyed Jack

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

If that's the case why have successive govts for decades been foot dragging on changing the 8th Amendment on abortion ?

They haven't? It's only brought up as an issue the odd time. More people are far more concerned with issues such as employment, job security and their pay packets being squeezed so tight they have to make a decision between either being able to feed themselves or warm themselves for the week, than to be taking time off lectures to go on field trips in Dublin.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

A helpful tip to some people in this thread:

Every time you have a wedding, baptism, christening, communion, confirmation, buy mass cards etc, you are giving business to the Catholic church and helping them to stay in power. So don't whine about it here.

pilly

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

A helpful tip to some people in this thread:

Every time you have a wedding, baptism, christening, communion, confirmation, buy mass cards etc, you are giving business to the Catholic church and helping them to stay in power. So don't whine about it here.

Okay so, seen as you typed in big letter and bold we'll all stop complaining.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

pilly wrote: »

Okay so, seen as you typed in big letter and bold we'll all stop complaining.

Good. And for the last time, get rid of those blasted sideburns too!

pilly

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Good. And for the last time, get rid of those blasted sideburns too!

What are you on about?

One eyed Jack

Choochtown wrote: »

No I think you underestimate the disgust felt by a lot of the population over this proposal. I would gladly take a financial hit to get this hospital well out of the control of religious orders.

Far from underestimating, I think some people here are way, way over-estimating the number of people who actually care one way or the other. You're one of only a small handful, as would I be, but let's not forget the many more people who aren't as economically fortunate as ourselves who would also be hit by an increase in taxes to compensate the religious orders for what the State takes from them. They'd have plenty of money again then to set up hospitals and schools and they'd be a far better standard than the State could provide.

On another of your points: Don't we all pay tax for health, education and welfare of others? Are you suggesting that you only want to pay tax for health, education and welfare of your fellow Catholics??!! ... or have I misinterpreted your point?

You haven't, but if were going to adopt the Church tax model, then adopt it wholesale, rather than cherry-picking the bits that those who would want it implemented would like. In countries that have the Church tax model, they pay taxes individually, and they pay a whole plethora of other taxes too, depending upon their circumstances. If some people don't want to pay taxes for education, healthcare and welfare because religion is involved, then why should they expect people who are religious would want to pay taxes for education, healthcare and welfare services that they don't support?

You mention no baptisms, marriage ceremonies or burials. Every church in the country makes money on these occasions so again I don't see the point that you're making here.

The point I was making is that I reckon people would get a bit angsty at the thoughts of being denied these services, than standing on their principles.

Yellow pack crisps

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Zillah wrote: »

lol, you're like the guys still playing the violin while the Titanic sinks.

The Titanic, or the RCC in this case at least, isn't sinking, it's bobbing along just fine, and it will continue to outlast the number of challenges it has faced throughout it's existence because as I said - it evolves a hell of a lot faster than the ideologies who would wish it would just die out already.

Of course it wil, also it is thriving in many continents and countries. As long as you have people who are vulnerable you will have a strong religious presence.

Biggest lickspittle on boardz

pilly wrote: »

What are you on about?

Simpsons reference, albeit a far out one.

pilly

Biggest lickspittle on boardz wrote: »

Simpsons reference, albeit a far out one.

Oh right, on mid-term are we?

elperello

Just trying to catch up with the figures on this.
Does anyone know how much the current NMH site is worth and who will get the money when it is sold?

oppenheimer1

elperello wrote: »

Just trying to catch up with the figures on this.
Does anyone know how much the current NMH site is worth and who will get the money when it is sold?

It's worth about 150m and the hospital trust/govt will get the money.

The money from the sale had been earmarked to fund 50% of the cost of the new build at Vincent's

infogiver

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

If that's the case why have successive govts for decades been foot dragging on changing the 8th Amendment on abortion ?

Plenty of non religious people don't want the 8th amendment repealed.
There's a gay lobby and an atheist lobby.
I find it amusing when people assume that only holy people think that killing babies is wrong.

Hannibal_Smith

Sorry if this has been asked already, but don't the nuns owe the State money for the redress board settlements? Can the land not be transferred to the state as payment of that debt?

Also, on a very ignorant note, but the nuns are run by the church, yes? So if the nuns are run by the church, surely the church owes a hell of a lot to the state too? Or are nun and priests different financially? Do priests get paid by the church and nuns have to earn money through teaching or whatever?

I don't care what level of input the sisters will or will not have, the fact that they are involved turns my stomach. The fact that after everything, including the latest tuam findings, that the State would think the people would be happy with the church or nuns having any connection to a new hospital is just jaw droppingly out of touch.

oppenheimer1

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Sorry if this has been asked already, but don't the nuns owe the State money for the redress board settlements? Can the land not be transferred to the state as payment of that debt?

It could be, but crucially the nuns are not legally obliged to.

Also, on a very ignorant note, but the nuns are run by the church, yes? So if the nuns are run by the church, surely the church owes a hell of a lot to the state too? Or are nun and priests different financially? Do priests get paid by the church and nuns have to earn money through teaching or whatever?

I don't care what level of input the sisters will or will not have, the fact that they are involved turns my stomach. The fact that after everything, including the latest tuam findings, that the State would think the people would be happy with the church or nuns having any connection to a new hospital is just jaw droppingly out of touch.

There are not very many happy with the solution and the parties couldn't come to an agreement until a mediator got on board to sort out the dispute.

Essentially​ the dispute boils down to the state wanting to build a hospital on the grounds of Vincent's because that is medical best practice. It also didn't want to pay for that land.

The nuns also want the hospital built as their green field is of little use to them however they want something in return and that is a say in how the hospital is run. It is fair to say that non emergency procedures contrary to a Catholic ethos are unlikely to happen at this hospital, although the nuns won't have a majority on the board.

This is the price the govt have determined worth paying for a free site.

Hannibal_Smith

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

It could be, but crucially the nuns are not legally obliged to.


There are not very many happy with the solution and the parties couldn't come to an agreement until a mediator got on board to sort out the dispute.

Essentially​ the dispute boils down to the state wanting to build a hospital on the grounds of Vincent's because that is medical best practice. It also didn't want to pay for that land.

The nuns also want the hospital built as their green field is of little use to them however they want something in return and that is a say in how the hospital is run. It is fair to say that non emergency procedures contrary to a Catholic ethos are unlikely to happen at this hospital, although the nuns won't have a majority on the board.

This is the price the govt have determined worth paying for a free site.

I think I read yesterday that Rhona Mahony has said the nuns will have no input and can't have any input. But like you say, there will be a Catholic ethos surely?

I would have thought the state could have negotiated a deal with the nuns. You owe us money and in order to get out of that debt we propose a land transfer. If the values don't add up, ie if the land value exceeds what's owed then I could imagine difficulties. But I would have thought the clever minds in government could come up with something.

I wonder is the state a licensee on the land and are they paying a fee to the nuns or is just them owning the hospital enough?

I suppose if they had purchased the land from the nuns (if they could afford it) and it hit the headlines, that would cause a massive backlash also. 'State pays millions to nuns to buy land even though the nuns haven't paid a penny in redress settlements' wouldn't be pretty reading!

There has to be a better way than this though. Mahony coming out saying the facilities in Holles St aren't sufficient is just confirming what we've all known for years. However, this is no answer.

pilly

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

I think I read yesterday that Rhona Mahony has said the nuns will have no input and can't have any input. But like you say, there will be a Catholic ethos surely?

I would have thought the state could have negotiated a deal with the nuns. You owe us money and in order to get out of that debt we propose a land transfer. If the values don't add up, ie if the land value exceeds what's owed then I could imagine difficulties. But I would have thought the clever minds in government could come up with something.

I wonder is the state a licensee on the land and are they paying a fee to the nuns or is just them owning the hospital enough?

I suppose if they had purchased the land from the nuns (if they could afford it) and it hit the headlines, that would cause a massive backlash also. 'State pays millions to nuns to buy land even though the nuns haven't paid a penny in redress settlements' wouldn't be pretty reading!

There has to be a better way than this though. Mahony coming out saying the facilities in Holles St aren't sufficient is just confirming what we've all known for years. However, this is no answer.

There is a nun on the board so it's not true to say they won't have an input.

oppenheimer1

pilly wrote: »

There is a nun on the board so it's not true to say they won't have an input.

They won't have an input in the day to day running off the hospital and I'm not surprised at the attempts to take the heat out of this issue as it could potential stall the hospital build. For clinicians, I imagine the need for new facilities trump any reservations about governance they may have.

I don't think it's fair to say the nuns won't have a role in setting policy since they will have 4/9 board members.

Call me Al

It was reported in the media last year that the board of St Vincents wanted the board of the national maternity hospital to be dissolved and for the new maternity unit to be absorbed by them (SVHG).
Hence mediation was required.
In light of this i'd say they very much want to have input into the ethos and policies of the new maternity hospital.
I remember reading an article by Prof Crown regarding this hospital group's policy on contraception being used by cancer patients involved in a clinical trial (they didn't support it and wouldn't permit the trial to go ahead afaik). He said at the time that they no longer approached this hospital group to participate. I wonder is that still the case?

pilly

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They won't have an input in the day to day running off the hospital and I'm not surprised at the attempts to take the heat out of this issue as it could potential stall the hospital build. For clinicians, I imagine the need for new facilities trump any reservations about governance they may have.

I don't think it's fair to say the nuns won't have a role in setting policy since they will have 4/9 board members.

I'm confused by your post. I simply said they would have an input, never mentioned the day to day although if the current St Vincents is anything to go by you can be bloody sure they'll be wandering the corridors.

One of them insisted on visiting my dying granny daily despite her telling her to **** off.

Absolam

pilly wrote: »

There is a nun on the board so it's not true to say they won't have an input.

Has the Board been appointed? I didn't think it had yet. I know the Master of Holles St is guaranteed a place on the Board, and she has said;

“Let me be very clear, the nuns will not be running this hospital, it will not be under Catholic ethos. It will be completely independent. The ethos will be excellence in clinical care, it will not be a Catholic ethos.”

That seems pretty clear....

Neyite

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

They won't have an input in the day to day running off the hospital and I'm not surprised at the attempts to take the heat out of this issue as it could potential stall the hospital build. For clinicians, I imagine the need for new facilities trump any reservations about governance they may have.

I don't think it's fair to say the nuns won't have a role in setting policy since they will have 4/9 board members.

It's entirely possible that even the lay board members have strong pro-life and religious convictions - does anyone know who they are and what their political/ religious views are?

The day to day running of the hospital is perhaps not the issue though. It's the extraordinary issues, the ethical conflicts that are the worry. Day to day, women come out of their 20 weeks scan on a high clutching a fist full of blurry scan photos that she cant wait to share. Its the rare occasions where it's a sadder outcome is the problem and it remains to be seen what policies a Board that is top heavy in devout Catholics will implement.

groovyg

In the interview on Sean O Rourke yesterday Rhona said
"We will continue to practice contraception, we will continue to terminate pregnancy in order to save womens lives, we will continue to deliver excellence in health care. And the ethos of the new National Maternity Hospital will be excellence in clinical care. It will not be any religious ethos"
Meanwhile in the Irish Times interview Sr Agnes Reynolds

declined to comment on concerns about the congregation's ownership of the hospital influencing the medical care provided.
She said she can't make a judgment on that

So Rhona is saying one thing and the nun is not making any comment. Fair enough Rhona sees the clinical need for the new hospital but her inability to understand people's anger at the proposed ownership is pretty shocking. The fact she is willing to plough on regardless and be so dismissive of peoples concerns doesn't inspire confidence.

ohnonotgmail

Absolam wrote: »

Has the Board been appointed? I didn't think it had yet. I know the Master of Holles St is guaranteed a place on the Board, and she has said;

“Let me be very clear, the nuns will not be running this hospital, it will not be under Catholic ethos. It will be completely independent. The ethos will be excellence in clinical care, it will not be a Catholic ethos.”

That seems pretty clear....

from what i have read they are guaranteed 4 seats on the board.

Absolam

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

from what i have read they are guaranteed 4 seats on the board.

Perhaps what you've read is actually that SVHG will nominate four of the nine Board members?

ohnonotgmail

Absolam wrote: »

Perhaps what you've read is actually that SVHG will nominate four of the nine Board members?

No it definitely said appoint. 4 of the 9 board member for the NMH will be SVHG appointees.

groovyg

In the press release from the DoH in November and on Tuesday it said 4 will be nominated by SVHG,

Notes for Editors

A new company will be established The National Maternity Hospital at Elm Park DAC (limited by shares) which will be a subsidiary of St Vincent?s Healthcare Group.

The new company will have clinical and operational independence in the provision of maternity, gynaecology and neonatal services, as well as financial and budgetary independence.

The agreement secured will harness the strengths of both hospitals for the betterment of womens healthcare.

The agreement protects and the identity and branding of the NMH at Elm Park and the right to the use of the new maternity hospital facility.

The board of the new company will comprise 9 directors; 4 nominated by SVHG, 4 by NMH, including the Master, and 1 will be an international expert in obstetrics and gynaecology.

The Chair will rotate every three years; the first Chair will be one of the NMH nominated Directors.

Two of the NMH Directors will also sit on the SVHG Board.

The autonomy of the NMH Board will be underpinned by reserved powers to ensure clinical and operational independence.

Those reserved powers can only be amended with the unanimous written approval of the Directors and with the approval of the Minister for Health.

While recognising the reserved powers for the new maternity hospital, the SVHG will retain overall responsibility for the effective and efficient operation of the totality of the hospital campus.

The Mastership model for the maternity hospital will be retained. Additionally, the Master will act in the position of Clinical Director of Obstetrics and Gynaecology across the campus.

Absolam

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

No it definitely said appoint. 4 of the 9 board member for the NMH will be SVHG appointees.

So not the Sisters of Charity then... SVHG. There are two nuns on the (minimum seventeen person) SVGH board. That doesn't make it seem in any way likely that the new hospitals Board is going to be stacked with nuns. Does it?

ohnonotgmail

Absolam wrote: »

So not the Sisters of Charity then... SVHG. There are two nuns on the (minimum seventeen person) SVGH board. That doesn't make it seem in any way likely that the new hospitals Board is going to be stacked with nuns. Does it?

The nuns control SVHG. They are its shareholders. And i dont think i ever said that there would be nuns on the board of the NMH. but it will be the nuns pulling the strings of the members appointed by SVHG. To think otherwise is naive.