The NMH at St. Vincents

Parchment

The land should have been donated if they care so much - their wealth was amassed on donations.

If they are so pious and not a cut throat business surely it would be the right thing to do.

spakman

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

spakman wrote: »

Exactly. The state should have offered them a fair price for the land (preferably minus the sum outstanding to the redress scheme) and if that was refused, then CPO.
It would be more expensive but it would be 100% state owned, and we wouldn't be beholdened to a 3rd party for a vital piece of national healthcare infrastructure.

Tbh I don't know would that news story be less controversial. 'State pays nuns millions for land'. I agree with you that I would have preferred if the state acquired the land, but I think I would have been annoyed if we paid those women any money.

Well you have to be fair and legal. You can't just take the land off then and them to go fck themselves. They own the land.

spakman

Well you have to be fair and legal. You can't just take the land off them and tell them to go fck themselves. They own the land.

elperello

spakman wrote: »

Exactly. The state should have offered them a fair price for the land (preferably minus the sum outstanding to the redress scheme) and if that was refused, then CPO.
It would be more expensive but it would be 100% state owned, and we wouldn't be beholdened to a 3rd party for a vital piece of national healthcare infrastructure.

Looking at land prices and zoning in the area this might not cost as much as some think.
The proposed site is in the middle of a hospital campus which limits it's opportunity value.

volchitsa

spakman wrote: »

Well you have to be fair and legal. You can't just take the land off them and tell them to go fck themselves. They own the land.

I posted this on the wrong thread earlier :

Now there's a constitutional amendment that we really need to see through, instead of the Seanad and whatnot. At the very least the government needs to be able to confiscate land from any religious orders with outstanding debts for previous misconduct.

In fact they probably need to be able to confiscate land from all institutions not actually based in Ireland - the Sisters of Charity are a multinational conglomerate with many hospitals in America and probably elsewhere - so why are people being taken in by the notion that they're half a dozen aged Catholic Florence Nightingales?

Parchment

The petition in opposition to the move caught on like wildfire.

https://my.uplift.ie/petitions/block-sisters-of-chairty-as-sole-owners-of-national-maternity-hospital

I guess its a good indicator of the publics view.

pjohnson

Parchment wrote: »

So Irish women should suck it up and accept a less than ideal hospital? ok.

Of course not. The best hospital is.......no hospital? I guess? How great we are for the womens.

spakman

volchitsa wrote: »

spakman wrote: »

Well you have to be fair and legal. You can't just take the land off them and tell them to go fck themselves. They own the land.

I posted this on the wrong thread earlier :

Now there's a constitutional amendment that we really need to see through, instead of the Seanad and whatnot. At the very least the government needs to be able to confiscate land from any religious orders with outstanding debts for previous misconduct.

In fact they probably need to be able to confiscate land from all institutions not actually based in Ireland - the Sisters of Charity are a multinational conglomerate with many hospitals in America and probably elsewhere - so why are people being taken in by the notion that they're half a dozen aged Catholic Florence Nightingales?

I would support that 100%
But I understood the amount owed by the Sisters of Charity to be €3m - surely the site at St Vincent's would be worth much more than that?

Why would nuns even need their own maternity hospital? Surely pregnant nuns can use the same services as Josephine Soap?

Parchment

pjohnson wrote: »

Of course not. The best hospital is.......no hospital? I guess? How great we are for the womens.

where do you think babies are being born at the moment? Behind grottos?

volchitsa

Parchment wrote: »

The land should have been donated if they care so much - their wealth was amassed on donations.

If they are so pious and not a cut throat business surely it would be the right thing to do.

Didn't the Sisters of Mercy simply donate their land in a similar situation recently?

What's so different about the Sisters of Charity? Could it be their global healthcare business interests? I believe that as SCL, StVincents Healthcare and various other names they're possibly the biggest healthcare providers in several US states, Florida and Colorado for instance.

It's a handy earner, a hospital, and when you can get the state to pay the costs of building and running it, even better. No wonder the Minster for Health said he "battled" them for six months, before bringing in the mediator.

Those grasping hands must be hard to prise off.

Gyalist

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

Yeah, if only Christine Buckley was still alive, you could ask her how amazing the nuns were.

Thankfully, Rosemary Adaser (who was in the "care" of the Sisters of Charity in Kilkenny) is courageously telling her story.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC_CpnwZPYM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kXtovOl0OnY

pjohnson

Parchment wrote: »

where do you think babies are being born at the moment? Behind grottos?

Exactly so why waste money building any specialised Maternity Hospital. Its not needed.

Parchment

pjohnson wrote: »

Exactly so why waste money building any specialised Maternity Hospital. Its not needed.

It is needed but - do it right, do it once.

volchitsa

spakman wrote: »

I would support that 100%
But I understood the amount owed by the Sisters of Charity to be €3m - surely the site at St Vincent's would be worth much more than that?

That's the amount they have failed to pay out of what they actually agreed to pay - but do many people who've committed crimes choose how much they'll pay their victims?

It's also far less than the final amount - and they were in a position of knowing that at the time, unlike everyone else. Seeing as they were the ones responsible.

And that's before considerations like Christianity and what a religious order should do when caught out abusing vulnerable people are taken into account.

Hannibal_Smith

spakman wrote: »

Well you have to be fair and legal. You can't just take the land off then and them to go fck themselves. They own the land.

I know that and never suggested taking it from them. But is something could have been worked out that the transfer was done in part payment of debts owed for the redress settlements. My point is I don't know whether paying for the land would have sat any better with people.

Gunmonkey

Penn wrote: »

Again, if the nuns were to have no involvement in the running of the hospital, what reason would they have to not give the government the land regardless?

This is what I am wondering. Aren't the religious orders driven to help their fellow man, to not be swayed by materialistic needs and only the love of God as their main focus? Couldn't they have sold the site (which looks like a carpark right now) for cheap to the state, let them build the hospital and use the money for their good work?

How is them letting the state build the hospital and then giving it to this religious order who "won't interfere" with its operation rational, when the primary focus of this hospital (pregnancy and childbirth) is one of the prime areas the Catholic Church has done nothing but meddle in over the years!

And if you are whinging on here about how people got this deal torpedoed by actually looking into it and the mothers of Ireland go without for longer, why not turn around and ask the nuns why they wouldn't sell! And why it was so important the religious orders owned the hospital! They are not going to build the thing, pay for its operation or pay to staff it....but they NEED to own it in this deal?

Imagine you tried to buy a site for a house someone isn't using but they instead give it to you to build your house with the caveat "You can build the house, live in it and all that....but I....OWN....it....ok? Deeds are in my name, right!"

Ger Roe

This debacle is a classic example of a standard government tactic of absolving themselves of direct responsibility for the provision of vital services. The trend for some time now is to setup situations where an individual minister can turn around in the future and say that they have no involvement in a process that they actually should have direct control over. We then have a situation where an elected minister has little or no influence over critical aspects of their brief, the electorate are then denied the opportunity to hold them to account.

in this case, no one would dispute the urgent need for a new hospital, and no one would wish that the present conditions would continue for a moment longer. However, the solution was to get most of the stake holders together to work out an agreement under tense negotiations where conflicting specific ethical views and commercial interests were held by all parties. The problem is that one very important stakeholder group was not properly represented at the talks, or fully informed of the outcomes - the taxpayer that was going to fund the setup.

When 'they who pay the piper heard the tune,' they realised that despite paying for the facility to be built, the asset would not remain in their (public) ownership. Add to that the genuine public concerns over church influence and it would have been obvious that this compromise agreement, reached under intense pressure, was not going to sit well with the public. If the taxpayer had have had representation at the secret talks, this issue might have been more obvious to those where were at the discussion table. Agreements made between parties that are playing with other people's money may not ultimately go down well with those who end up paying for it.

The statement last night from St Vincent's further illustrates how uneasy this agreement is. They could have worded a statement to soothe fears and correct mis-information by clarifying their involvement, but instead it looks like a threat to withdraw from the process. If that is not the case, they have had plenty of time to put a better worded statement together.

This is a mess caused by a lack of government planning over many decades and the insistence on making do with unsatisfactory arrangements when the lid is about to blow and there is no choice but to cobble solutions together. We need stronger politicians who can see beyond their elected term and make real preparations for a for a longer term future.

PopePalpatine

Penn wrote: »

If it was true that the nuns would have had absolutely no power to influence anything about the running of the hospital or ensuring the hospital has their ethos stamped all over it, then they should have no issue with letting the government build the hospital on their land regardless. If they're truly getting nothing out of it, they could step aside and let the hospital go ahead.

But they won't. Because they were getting something out of it. And considering their history and what they owe the government, it's not the fault of people for pointing this out, it's the fault of the nuns and the government for making such a stupid decision.

Again, if the nuns were to have no involvement in the running of the hospital, what reason would they have to not give the government the land regardless?

Speaking of getting their ethos stamped all over a hospital, guess what the Mater doesn't have for their patients?

donegaLroad

If the nuns had been been put in charge of the country's finances back in the 00's, we wouldn't have had the spectacular banking collapse that we had. There would not have been as much as 1 pencil unaccounted for.... unfortunately we had a nest of rats in charge of the money.

Mr.Wemmick

PopePalpatine wrote: »

Speaking of getting their ethos stamped all over a hospital, guess what the Mater doesn't have for their patients?

Good grief! I am not in Ireland a lot these days, sometimes I don't know half of what goes on.. how bloody backwards can you get?!

infogiver

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

It wasn't for nothing. The price was our pride. You may have none, but I'm happy to see others had the backbone to stand up for theirs.

Ok you've got your pride.
Now you and your loved ones just go back to Holles st and have your babies, The Master of Holles st says it's bordering on dangerous now but as long as you have your "pride", that's the main thing.

Call me Al

There is no place for religion in women's gynecological/matetnity care and medicine.

I'm angry that the DOH have forced the Irish people to have to take a stand to point this out. And I'm angry at the arrogance of SVHG who are trying to call the shots.

elperello

infogiver wrote: »

Ok you've got your pride.
Now you and your loved ones just go back to Holles st and have your babies, The Master of Holles st says it's bordering on dangerous now but as long as you have your "pride", that's the main thing.

Holles Street Maternity Hospital of the Year 2014,2015 & 2017.

http://www.nmh.ie/

Anita Blow

Fairly interesting that SVUH board has put the decision on hold because they took issue with Harris' remarks that the government would ensure a catholic ethos couldn't be imposed on the hospital. Certainly shows that if the maternity hospital was handed to the order it would have involved imposition of religious values on board decisions

Absolam

I got the impression that they took issue with the fact that he was trying to change a deal that was already made?

Anita Blow

St Vincent’s is also thought to be irritated by the suggestion from Mr Harris in a statement on Thursday that HSE chief executive Tony O’Brien would ensure that St Vincent’s does not seek to impose a religious ethos on the new maternity hospital.

Responding to the criticism, Mr Harris said on Thursday he was instructing the HSE to seek protections against “religious interference” during detailed contractual arrangements in advance of construction.
St Vincent’s viewed this intervention as an attempt by the Minister to “unpick” an agreement he heartily approved of at the time it was announced, according to an informed source.

IT article suggests that the clinical independence of the maternity hospital which the minister is now asserting was not a part of the original plan.

pilly

infogiver wrote:

As a taxpayer I was getting the land for to build my hospital on for nothing. Now the bitches have said "f**k off and build your poxy hospital somewhere else" So now I have to buy land and build a hospital. All because of your bitching and moaning.

Jesus, great to know I've such power.

pilly

donegaLroad wrote:

If the nuns had been been put in charge of the country's finances back in the 00's, we wouldn't have had the spectacular banking collapse that we had. There would not have been as much as 1 pencil unaccounted for.... unfortunately we had a nest of rats in charge of the money.

What the **** has that to do with a maternity hospital?

Mr.Micro

The State has never been good at looking after its citizens. The same old attitude of politicians pervades since de Valera. It doles out the responsibility to other bodies and charities. What's new with the maternity hospital. The church still has a steel grip on the weasel politicians and civil servants.