The NMH at St. Vincents

pjohnson

Penn wrote: »

No, he was comparing two similar situations using an analogy.

If I said I hated someone like the Joker hates Batman... I'm not comparing the person I hate to Batman.

I was gunna say I hope you hate me until you said you weren't calling me batman.....

Stars and Stripes

Harris the slimy shytebag's agenda is to hand it free over to the Sisters of Magdalene laundries who will run as a private company to then sell it on at a knock down price to the usual corrupt crony's such as Penis O'Brien, Dermot Desmond or whatever gang of chancers and spoofers.

VinLieger

Stars and Stripes wrote: »

Harris the slimy shytebag's agenda is to hand it free over to the Sisters of Magdalene laundries who will run as a private company to then sell it on at a knock down price to the usual corrupt crony's such as Penis O'Brien, Dermot Desmond or whatever gang of chancers and spoofers.

LOL that made me laugh alright, as much as you might want to believe it not everything is a conspiracy to hand over stuff to dobby.

If you think the church would hand over control of the national maternity hospital even at a profit your absolutely clueless about the entire situation and why they want control of it in the first place

aloyisious

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL that made me laugh alright, as much as you might want to believe it not everything is a conspiracy to hand over stuff to dobby.

If you think the church would hand over control of the national maternity hospital even at a profit your absolutely clueless about the entire situation and why they want control of it in the first place

Which aim do you think is No 1, no unnecessary operations or an increase in christenings?

aloyisious

It seems, according to Mr Halligan (jnr Minister) that the resignation request was sent by text. One board member says the resignation request was sent before the board heard about it. Reading over the w/end that the Drs are in-laws might make it harder for a settlement.

VinLieger

aloyisious wrote: »

Which aim do you think is No 1, no unnecessary operations or an increase in christenings?

Going off the bishops comments of maintaining a catholic ethos I would say they will be focusing on operations, I don't see how they can effect christenings without being accused of discrimination

seamus

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems, according to Mr Halligan (jnr Minister) that the resignation request was sent by text. One board member says the resignation request was sent before the board heard about it. Reading over the w/end that the Drs are in-laws might make it harder for a settlement.

Modern communication, eh?

Apparently Dr. Boylan initiated the communications by text, asking to sit down and talk about the Bishop's comments and whether the board had been misled by the church on the matter of independence.

And it was in the course of that conversation it was suggested that he should stand down.

Like they say, follow the money. Demanding that someone resign for daring to ask some questions stinks of money and/or religious influence.

lawred2

VinLieger wrote: »

LOL that made me laugh alright, as much as you might want to believe it not everything is a conspiracy to hand over stuff to dobby.

If you think the church would hand over control of the national maternity hospital even at a profit your absolutely clueless about the entire situation and why they want control of it in the first place

firstly - they currently do not have control of the NMH. A deal has been done to hand them ownership (sic control) of the new NMH.

Dr Boylan himself said that the SOM were not willing partners here and did not seek out this Maternity Hospital. However the desire to co-locate with St Vincent's above all else has led us to a right clusterf**k..

The state could have sought a CPO but then would likely have found the SOM (St Vincent's Hospital group) even less a willing partner.

VinLieger

lawred2 wrote: »

firstly - they currently do not have control of the NMH. A deal has been done to hand them ownership (sic control) of the new NMH.

Dr Boylan himself said that the SOM were not willing partners here and did not seek out this Maternity Hospital. However the desire to co-locate with St Vincent's above all else has led us to a right clusterf**k..

The state could have sought a CPO but then would likely have found the SOM (St Vincent's Hospital group) even less a willing partner.

Im well aware of all that, not sure what point your trying to make..... i was pointing out once they had control they were unlikely to give it up and the conspiracy theory of it being handed over to denis o brien was absurd

PopePalpatine

TheQuietFella wrote: »

The angst against a religious order is what I meant!

Yep, first they came for the nuns, then they came for the Catholics. :rolleyes:

lawred2

VinLieger wrote: »

Im well aware of all that, not sure what point your trying to make..... i was pointing out once they had control they were unlikely to give it up and the conspiracy theory of it being handed over to denis o brien was absurd

It sure was absurd

But they haven't been given control of anything yet. Nor did they seek anything to be in control of which is what you claimed. It's being handed to them.

Hotblack Desiato

lawred2 wrote: »

firstly - they currently do not have control of the NMH. A deal has been done to hand them ownership (sic control) of the new NMH.

Dr Boylan himself said that the SOM were not willing partners here and did not seek out this Maternity Hospital. However the desire to co-locate with St Vincent's above all else has led us to a right clusterf**k..

The state could have sought a CPO but then would likely have found the SOM (St Vincent's Hospital group) even less a willing partner.

You're getting your nuns mixed up.

Mercy nominally control NMH currently

Charity will own the new NMH under the proposed deal.

aloyisious

Umm, it seems the two boards have agreed that the current NMH procedures (I use that term in both its meanings) will be carried out at the new hospital. That might be the original agreement of several months ago. Dr Mahoney seems clear that operations will be carried out in line with Irish law. It seems the deal has a way of being read to mean whichever one chooses, when it come to application (or not) of a religious ethos by the new hospital's proposed owners affecting medical procedures. With an Irish RC church bishop weighing into the nuns reminding them of their obligations to the ethos of the church, I honestly can't see them ignoring his words, regardless of what independent authority the head of their order has, except for an obligation to obey the pope.


Mention was made on RTE radio earlier today of a new hospital board and I don't know what that is; it might that be of the proposed new hospital.

Going back to the request for Dr Boylans resignation, following on from his statements on RTE on his doubts about the new hospital agreement, I see that the board meeting about the deal had 28 members present, the vote was 25 yeas, 2 nays and 1 abstention (Dr Boylan). As far as I know the NMH board has 100 members, so while there may have been the needed legal quorum, the full board does not seem to have been on board, as it were, for approval of the deal. Ditto for the sending of the resignation request.

lawred2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You're getting your nuns mixed up.

Mercy nominally control NMH currently

Charity will own the new NMH under the proposed deal.

Yes.

JRant

I had the utmost respect for Dr Boylan before this fiasco and that has only been reinforced by his statement.

What did Harris et al think was going to happen? That the RCC was going to suddenly grow a conscious.

Do me a favour. This was the only possible outcome from such a fudged proposal.

Firblog

One question is nagging away at me, given the huge rows there has been about the siting of the National Children's Hospital and now the National Maternity Hospital.. Just how fecking bad is Blanchardstown/Connolly Hospital? Are there bloody mass murders running it? Is there some epidemic running out of control there that we don't know about? Why doesn't any other hospital want to locate there? A nice large greenfield site, easy access, loads of parking, possibility of gardens, nice walks surrounding all buildings... just what the fcuk is the problem?

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You're getting your nuns mixed up.

Mercy nominally control NMH currently

Charity will own the new NMH under the proposed deal.

As in the present NMH building at Holles St? Just thinking that if that is the current situation, then the Mercy sisters really have only nominal control, given the procedures the medics are performing there, which must be against RC ethos.

If that same actual control level can be assured for her and the new NMH at St Vincent's, then maybe Dr Mahoney might be right in her estimate of what the deal provides for total surgical procedure independence there, regardless of the Charity Sisters owning the new hospital.

Anita Blow

Firblog wrote: »

One question is nagging away at me, given the huge rows there has been about the siting of the National Children's Hospital and now the National Maternity Hospital.. Just how fecking bad is Blanchardstown/Connolly Hospital? Are there bloody mass murders running it? Is there some epidemic running out of control there that we don't know about? Why doesn't any other hospital want to locate there? A nice large greenfield site, easy access, loads of parking, possibility of gardens, nice walks surrounding all buildings... just what the fcuk is the problem?

There's more to a hospital then space and access. Connolly is only a general hospital, not a specialist hospital (the only specialist centres in the east are Beaumont, Mater, Vincent's, James' and Tallaght). For quality of care and access to necessary facilities and appropriately skilled medical staff, the NCH needs to be co-located with one of these hospitals.

It would probably cost >1 billion to bring Connolly up the same standard but realistically we don't have the population to support a 6th major hospital in the region.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

If that same actual control level can be assured for her and the new NMH at St Vincent's, then maybe Dr Mahoney might be right in her estimate of what the deal provides for total surgical procedure independence there, regardless of the Charity Sisters owning the new hospital.

With Sisters of Charity getting 4 out of the 9 seats on the new NMH board, that seems very unlikely.

Whereas the current NMH board is far larger and appears to be dominated by medics (that chairman guy sounds like a right Opus Dei / Knights of Columbanus type though.)

BalcombeSt4

mrsmags16 wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/religion-and-beliefs/sisters-of-charity-to-be-given-new-national-maternity-hospital-1.3052079

Is this a joke?!

If its not the place should be burnt to the ground (with all the women taken out first, but leave the nuns in)

aloyisious

BalcombeSt4 wrote: »

If its not the place should be burnt to the ground (with all the women taken out first, but leave the nuns in)

I think that paper report might be slightly inaccurate now.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/maternity-move-back-on-track-as-hospital-boards-soften-stance-1.3061296

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

With Sisters of Charity getting 4 out of the 9 seats on the new NMH board, that seems very unlikely.

Whereas the current NMH board is far larger and appears to be dominated by medics (that chairman guy sounds like a right Opus Dei / Knights of Columbanus type though.)

Discounting the Dublin Archbishop & Westland Row PP from the old board, that's almost like UDI, interesting development.

aloyisious

I'd oppose the construction of a NMH at St Vincent's if the Nuns and St Vincent's board do not clear the air on what they find now and MIGHT in the future find objectionable about the current medical operations at Holles St planned for at the proposed new NMH. I'd need to find out what those presently performed NMH operations are and what branch of medical care they fall in, gynaecology or what, seeing as Dr Mahoney mentioned specific branches and operations as being guaranteed independence of religious oversight at the new NMH.

Looking at the rules of the RC church when it comes to sterilization of women for instance: Humanae Vitae... Lawful Therapeutic Means [contraception]... 15. On the other hand, the Church does not consider at all illicit the use of those therapeutic means necessary to cure bodily diseases, even if a foreseeable impediment to procreation should result there from—provided such impediment is not directly intended for any motive whatsoever..... EDIT My understanding of that - It seems the church sees some uses of sterilization as contraceptive and against God's instruction to men and women: be fruitful and multiply

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/paul_vi/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-vi_enc_25071968_humanae-vitae_en.html

I see no good reason for the nuns or the board of St Vincent's to have any control or input whatsoever on what women's medical healthcare operations would be carried out at the proposed new NMH. I'm listening to Dr Mahoney live on RTE now saying that abortions and sterilizations will continue at the new NMH as done at Holles St and that contraceptives will be provided as well.

I'm listening to her saying Dr Boylan was not asked to resign because of his opinion but because his opinion was against the decision of the NMH board.

lawred2

aloyisious wrote: »

I'm listening to her saying Dr Boylan was not asked to resign because of his opinion but because his opinion was against the decision of the NMH board.

wut

gaius c

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

With Sisters of Charity getting 4 out of the 9 seats on the new NMH board, that seems very unlikely.

Whereas the current NMH board is far larger and appears to be dominated by medics (that chairman guy sounds like a right Opus Dei / Knights of Columbanus type though.)

They get 4 out of 9 direct appointees but they have a veto over the independent appointee and they also get the chairman seat after 3 years.

Call me Al

gaius c wrote: »

They get 4 out of 9 direct appointees but they have a veto over the independent appointee and they also get the chairman seat after 3 years.

I suppose it's better than what the order were looking for last April when the mediator was called in... the board of NMH to be dissolved and for the control of the new hospital to be absorbed by SVHG's current board of Vincent's hospital. In other words, full control.
Going by that, it's obvious they want to have control. They fought hard enough for it. And it's naive of people to not be suspicious of their intentions. The nun that was asked about their input wouldn't comment. Why couldn't/didn't she just say what Dr Mahony said if it was all so straightforward?

jmayo

Firblog wrote: »

One question is nagging away at me, given the huge rows there has been about the siting of the National Children's Hospital and now the National Maternity Hospital.. Just how fecking bad is Blanchardstown/Connolly Hospital? Are there bloody mass murders running it? Is there some epidemic running out of control there that we don't know about? Why doesn't any other hospital want to locate there? A nice large greenfield site, easy access, loads of parking, possibility of gardens, nice walks surrounding all buildings... just what the fcuk is the problem?

You see the bigger the hospital, the more consultants, the more clout.

Of course some will dress it up as the better the hospital and the more specialisations.

Just remember The Mater was first choice for NCH, of course the taoiseach was an ex accountant (:D) there and it was in his constituency.

But we had lots of imminent medical professionals telling us how great a site it was until AN BORD PLEAN?LA pulled the rug out and did the parents and children of this country one almighty favour.

Funny how we now have more imminent medical professionals telling us how the James site is now the best and how the fact it is going to be probably the most expensive over budget children's hospital in the world is quiet alright.

And we have more imminent medical professionals now telling us that it is ok that 300 million (at the very least as we know that projects in Ireland mushroom in costs) of taxpayers money will be used to build a new maternity hospital, in an other constricted site, with the ultimate kick in nads being it will be handed over to the church (yeah yeah we know they are nuns but lets not beat around the bush they are part of the RC church).

WTF.!!!!

Can someone remind me again how much the Roman catholic church, through it's various institutions and bodies, cost the state in restitution to it's victims.

And I just know someone is going to tell me that it is an independent order and not really the Church and besides they are a trust of some sort like all those ex christian brother schools.
They might have gotten away with that shyte here, but in Canada when the christian brothers tried hiding their assets that way they were bankrupted to pay off their victims.
Now that is justice.

pilly

Does anyone on here genuinely think that when abortion is passed in Ireland that the members of the order who will have a majority on the board are going to be okay with that?

I listened to Rhona Mahoney on RTE this morning and she came across as very arrogant and someone who just wants this hospital built at any cost, in fact she as much as said that it HAS to be built.

I actually don't agree that celibate people (women or men), have any role to play in a maternity/gynaecology hospital, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

There was a lot to be said for the nuns back in the day running general hospitals as they certainly knew how to run a tight ship but there has never and will never be a case for them having any hand, act or part in maternity/gynaecology hospitals. NEVER.

osarusan

pilly wrote: »

I actually don't agree that celibate people (women or men), have any role to play in a maternity/gynaecology hospital, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

Celibate people?

Surely it's the religious bent behind the celibacy that is the issue?

Plenty of involuntary celibates around the place!

I couldn't care less if they are celibate or not. I couldn't even care less if they are religious or not. All I care is that there is no religious influence on the running of the hospital.

lawred2

pilly wrote: »

Does anyone on here genuinely think that when abortion is passed in Ireland that the members of the order who will have a majority on the board are going to be okay with that?

I listened to Rhona Mahoney on RTE this morning and she came across as very arrogant and someone who just wants this hospital built at any cost, in fact she as much as said that it HAS to be built.

I actually don't agree that celibate people (women or men), have any role to play in a maternity/gynaecology hospital, makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

There was a lot to be said for the nuns back in the day running general hospitals as they certainly knew how to run a tight ship but there has never and will never be a case for them having any hand, act or part in maternity/gynaecology hospitals. NEVER.

Rhona is in love with her position. She wants a shiny new hospital for herself.