The NMH at St. Vincents

looksee

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0427/870662-national-maternity-hospital/

Enda has shown which side of the fence he is sitting. The level of arrogance from the board is about equal to that of Consultants about 30 years ago, when they genuinely (mostly) thought they were god and answerable to nobody.

Hotblack Desiato

Letter posted today to Simon Harris.
Don't waste your time emailing him, post a letter on real paper and write to your local TDs too especially FG.



Simon Harris T.D.
Minister for Health
Department of Health
Hawkins House
Hawkins Street
Dublin 2

Mr X
Ms Y
Our Address


27/04/2017


Dear Minister,

We are writing to you with deep concern in relation to the plans for the relocation of the National Maternity Hospital to the St. Vincent's campus of the Sisters of Charity.

While a new NMH is urgently needed, we must not again repeat the mistakes of the past and hand over taxpayers' assets into the ownership of unaccountable religious orders.

Recent and past history teach us that no reassurance about governance from a religious order can be trusted. They observe no law, morality or master other than their own. The only reason for the Sisters of Charity to desire ownership of this new hospital is to have influence, or even control, over it and to impose Catholic teaching upon its clinicians. They will have their appointees in 4 out of 9 board positions and the chairperson is to be appointed by a body where they will have 2 out of the 3 appointees. This is control. This is the quid pro quo for the "free" site. In other words, it is far from free, but an extremely expensive mistake.

I should not have to remind you, as a Minister, that the Constitution prohibits the State from endowing a religion - what is handing over ownership of a public asset worth hundreds of millions of euro if not an endowment?

If the Sisters of Charity genuinely do not desire to influence or control the new NMH then they should either gift, or sell, the site to the State and have the hospital project proceed under complete and permanent public ownership. There should be no religious appointees to any governance or ethics committee. This is entirely a publicly funded hospital - the sisters will pay for not a single brick.

To allow the public interest to be endangered in such a way by any private concern, let alone one with a long and shameful history of abuse of women and children within institutions controlled by it, is at best grossly negligent and at worst indicates that an agenda we had hoped was a thing of the past is still very much at work within the corridors of government.

The Irish public are no longer willing to allow our education and health systems to be hijacked by religious vested interests for their own ends. This is especially important in the area of maternity care and reproductive health, where the interests of the Catholic Church conflict directly with the public interest and the privacy of the doctor/patient relationship.

A line in the sand must now be drawn. Any publicly funded hospital being built from now on must be in full public ownership. It must be governed entirely in the best interests of patients and must have no control or influence by religious bodies. In particular, in the field of maternity and reproductive medicine it must offer the full range of legally available treatments including contraception, sterilisation, fertility treatments, gender reassignment, and abortion especially in view of likely future changes to abortion legislation.

Any Minister who allows anything less is quite simply failing in his or her public duty and must resign.

We are appalled that this situation has been allowed to arise, whether through malice or incompetence it is an utter disgrace. There will be only one chance to get the NMH right and if it proceeds on the current path it will be a grave mistake with serious adverse consequences for many decades to come.

We urge you to immediately ensure that full public ownership and control will be maintained over the NMH and any other hospital which will be built in future with public funds.



Yours sincerely,

Signed
Mr X
Signed
Ms Y

oppenheimer1

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Letter posted today to Simon Harris...

To be honest all that letter is empty rhetoric and it fails to address the complex legal and technical issues that have led to the situation where we are. What will Harris resigning do? The problem will still exist for the next minister.

The choice is the proposal or no co-located maternity hospital.

The_Valeyard

I think I'll write a letter with congrats to the minister for sorting out the hospital, rather than wait another 10 years. Will use the same template as above, just change a few things around.

lawred2

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

To be honest all that letter is empty rhetoric and it fails to address the complex legal and technical issues that have led to the situation where we are. What will Harris resigning do? The problem will still exist for the next minister.

The choice is the proposal or no co-located maternity hospital.

The land could be gifted

The planned board construction could be changed

The ownership could be handed over to the state

There is plenty that could be done before locating this hospital elsewhere

222233

I think it's a no brainer, clearly just don't let the nuns have any ownership, we may have abortion here some time in the future, hows that going to work in a hospital run with a Catholic ethos.. Also if they have been sitting on this valuable land.. how were the survivors/state shorted out of 3million?

Donal55

ScumLord wrote: »

I'd be thinking more of catholics that would normally go to mass. My local church still gets a surprising attendance each week. I'd say it's mostly full by the amount of terrible parking where they park 3 deep at the side of the road rather than park more than a 30 second walk away.

A protest outside the cathedrals by everyone else should be arranged.

In my opinion the Govt are far more culpapable than the Nuns. It is their property and land after all.
Its the role of govt to provide the hospital, we shouldn't be depending on religious orders.

lawred2

Donal55 wrote: »

In my opinion the Govt are far more culpapable than the Nuns. It is there property and land after all.
Its the role of govt to provide the hospital, we shouldn't be depending on religious orders.

The state is providing this hospital.

oppenheimer1

lawred2 wrote: »

The land could be gifted

The planned board construction could be changed

The ownership could be handed over to the state

There is plenty that could be done before locating this hospital elsewhere

All of those options are out of the control of the minister, the current land owners cannot be forced to gift their asset away.

Donal55

lawred2 wrote: »

The state is providing this hospital.

Yes. On someone elses property.

lawred2

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

All of those options are out of the control of the minister, the current land owners cannot be forced to gift their asset away.

God forbid. Just like God forbade them from fulfilling their redress obligations to the state.

oppenheimer1

lawred2 wrote: »

God forbid. Just like God forbade them from fulfilling their redress obligations to the state.

The way the deal was structures meant that it wasn't actually an obligation.

Another terrible deal, but there was no alternative.

Anita Blow

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

This rhetoric is cheap though, the reality would be ferociously expensive.

For good or ill, the majority of schools and a substantial number of hospitals are built on land owned by RCC affiliated organisations. If it were even legally possible for the state to acquire so these lands it would bankrupt it - it would cost billions. There is no feasible alternative to the current system (or mess depending on your perspective).

The land has been valued at 37.5 million. RTE recently purchased a plot of land near it double in size for ~75 million so it wouldn't really be prohibitively expensive to CPO it.

Call me Al

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

The way the deal was structures meant that it wasn't actually an obligation.

Another terrible deal, but there was no alternative.

Their obligations under the redress scheme have been addressed in this deal. Their legal fees have been offset against them.
They now owe the State nothing.

Donal55

Call me Al wrote: »

Their obligations under the redress scheme have been addressed in this deal. Their legal fees have been offset against them.
They now owe the State nothing.

Heard that myself today. They hold the better hand in this game of poker.

Hotblack Desiato

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

All of those options are out of the control of the minister, the current land owners cannot be forced to gift their asset away.

Compulsory purchase order.

You can either work for the change that is necessary, or continue to make excuses for why things remain crap.

tigger123

Surely purchasing the land by CPO opens a can of worms in relation to every other Church owned school and hospital throughout the country? Can't imagine the RCC playing ball after that.

Wonder how practical a solution it really is.

aloyisious

looksee wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0427/870662-national-maternity-hospital/

Enda has shown which side of the fence he is sitting. The level of arrogance from the board is about equal to that of Consultants about 30 years ago, when they genuinely (mostly) thought they were god and answerable to nobody.

I can only suppose that Claire has not heard or read the Bishop of Elphins homily to the Sisters of Charity on their obligations, as RC Nuns, to the RC ethos on/in property they own.

Donal55

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Compulsory purchase order.

You can either work for the change that is necessary, or continue to make excuses for why things remain crap.

And sit in the courts for the next 4 or 5 years.
This is going to be a long thread.

Call me Al

Donal55 wrote: »

Heard that myself today. They hold the better hand in this game of poker.

Hmmm. Funny that isn't it...SVHG were apparently such reluctant participants in this whole process they got practically everything they asked for.

If I wasn't such a trusting person I'd almost have thought they were extremely shrewd and cunning in the manner they approached the whole process.
But a charitable institution like this wouldn't behave like that surely!?!

Hotblack Desiato

tigger123 wrote: »

Surely purchasing the land by CPO opens a can of worms in relation to every other Church owned school and hospital throughout the country?

No because this is a car park not an existing hospital or school, there is no development on it, it cannot be developed for commercial or housing, the value of this site is small

There is a clear Constitutional right to seize property from religious bodies for the public interest on payment of compensation

Constitution of Ireland wrote:

Article 44

6° The property of any religious denomination or any educational institution shall not be diverted save for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation.

NuMarvel

pilly wrote: »

It is in the women of Irelands best interest.

How is it in the best interest's of the women of Ireland to force a co-located hospital? If you've gotten to the point of a CPO (i.e. forcing them to sell the land) then I'd love to know how you think we'll get them to voluntarily sign up to the necessary agreements around patient transfers and liability etc. Because those are things we can't CPO.

Call me Al wrote: »

Their obligations under the redress scheme have been addressed in this deal. Their legal fees have been offset against them.
They now owe the State nothing.

I saw one article saying that earlier in the week, with a comment from the Dept of Education. Then I saw a journalist on Twitter quoting the DoE who said that while this is what is intended to happen, it hasn't happened yet, so their debt remains.

I haven't a clue which one is right.

JRant

If the government can pass emergency legislation (USC) to stick their hands further into my salary, what's stopping them doing the same to the religious?

Tax the shïte out of them till revenue can come along and sieze all the land that schools and hospitals are built on.

It's beyond time we just take back what has been "gifted" to them over the guts of the last century.

Anita Blow

NuMarvel wrote: »

How is it in the best interest's of the women of Ireland to force a co-located hospital? If you've gotten to the point of a CPO (i.e. forcing them to sell the land) then I'd love to know how you think we'll get them to voluntarily sign up to the necessary agreements around patient transfers and liability etc. Because those are things we can't CPO.

SVHG (nor any of the voluntary hospitals) don't have a choice. It's accountable to the HSE with which it has a formal agreement on the services it must provide in return for funding, which would include transfer from the NMH for necessary procedures.

Infini

They should just simply CPO the land and be done with it. The church has noone to blame for themselves for all the damage they caused back then and should have no role however remote in anything related to children after everything thats happened. The guy who resigned was right to be honest theres people on that board there that completely miss the point entirely, many of the public want the order to have absolutely NO connection at all no matter what deal is done because noone wants any chances taken after what happened.

NuMarvel

Anita Blow wrote: »

SVHG (nor any of the voluntary hospitals) don't have a choice. It's accountable to the HSE with which it has a formal agreement on the services it must provide in return for funding, which would include transfer from the NMH for necessary procedures.

If those agreements were as robust as you suggest, then there wouldn't be so much concern about what could or couldn't be carried out in the maternity hospital if it were owned by Vincent's.

And in any case, it doesn't address the issue of liability should something go wrong, which would be more likely in cases requiring transfer. How do you propose we get Vincent's to sign up voluntarily to that?

Anita Blow

NuMarvel wrote: »

If those agreements were as robust as you suggest, then there wouldn't be so much concern about what could or couldn't be carried out in the maternity hospital if it were owned by Vincent's.

And in any case, it doesn't address the issue of liability should something go wrong, which would be more likely in cases requiring transfer. How do you propose we get Vincent's to sign up voluntarily to that?

Liability is handled by the HSE rather than the individual hospitals.

The agreements don't cover specific procedures that must be carried out but instead outline broad obligations the hospital has. As the sole tertiary hospital in the Ireland East Health Group it would have a service obligation to accept any medically necessary transfers from other hospitals in the IEHG (of which the NMH is one).

tigger123

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

No because this is a car park not an existing hospital or school, there is no development on it, it cannot be developed for commercial or housing, the value of this site is small

There is a clear Constitutional right to seize property from religious bodies for the public interest on payment of compensation

I appreciate the point you're making, but it's not really what I'm getting at. Just because it's written into the constitution, doesn't mean it has a practical application.

If the RCC owns a majority of schools and Hospitals around the country, surely they have to work hand in glove with the State in a variety of set ups in the delivery of education and health services.

If the State do this by CPO, is that not going to sour the relationship int he future? How do you think will the negotiations go the next time a set up like this has to be figured out?

NuMarvel

Anita Blow wrote: »

Liability is handled by the HSE rather than the individual hospitals.

The agreements don't cover specific procedures that must be carried out but instead outline broad obligations the hospital has. As the sole tertiary hospital in the Ireland East Health Group it would have a service obligation to accept any medically necessary transfers from other hospitals in the IEHG (of which the NMH is one).

The agreement drafted between the NMH and Vincent's addresses liabilities so it isn't just a matter for the HSE, there are issues for the hospitals themselves as well. And it's not the only tertiary hospital in the IE group, there's also the Mater.

We really need to be cogniscant of the fact that this project is meant to be a collaboration and partnership. If it's gotten to the point of CPOs and contract enforcement, then that trust is out the window. We may as well start looking elsewhere at that point.

aloyisious

According to Enda, Simon H has been given time to look at the proposed deal (presumably by both hospital boards) and try and sort the mess out. The SVH board issued a statement this evening to the effect that if the deal was the one sorted by Kevin last Nov, they would stand by it. That leaves Simon in a bit of a quandary, reducing his odds of success.

I wish Simon the best on succeeding in squaring the circle and keep Enda, Michael and Pascal happy into the bargain. I don't think he will have the will or capability to do so. Personally I hope he gets the SVH board to swear and sign on the dotted line that if the sisters renege in any way at any time or date whatsoever that it will resign en masse in protest on a live broadcast, Ditto for the NMH board and the new proposed joint board for the new NMH.

He should also get the sisters to swear on the bible that they will not interfere at all into any and all medical procedures performed at the new NMH, regardless of any patient's religious status. No leaving any back doors for impertinent interference. Given the orders history of not following or heeding any agreement they agreed to, I do not trust the order's word.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/board-of-st-vincents-totally-supportive-of-plans-to-build-new-national-maternity-hospital-its-dublin-4-campus-35661240.html