The NMH at St. Vincents

Call me Al

VinLieger wrote: »

Lets be clear one of the other board members accidentally admitted yesterday that she hadnt a clue what she was voting on by trying to claim the Vincents Hospital Trust is a separate entity and not under the control of the SOC.

Is it possible there are others who are equally ignorant of this fact? Is there a chance they were they purposely mislead?

I was just about to make this exact point.

As another poster pointed out, have the various members of this NMH board just looked at the colourful cover page, a few glossy pictures throughout of smiling nurses and mammies 2b, and then skipped to the back page and signed on the dotted line?
I fear that, if Claire Byrne is anything to go by, many of the board members have not drilled down into the details and have just felt pressurised into passively saying yes.

oppenheimer1

VinLieger wrote: »

Lets be clear one of the other board members accidentally admitted yesterday that she hadnt a clue what she was voting on by trying to claim the Vincents Hospital Trust is a separate entity and not under the control of the SOC.

Is it possible there are others who are equally ignorant of this fact? Is there a chance they were they purposely mislead?

Like any voter, it is up to the individual themselves to understand the issue they are voting on. To say someone was misled is an effort to deflect blame from the consequences of their decision.

I don't like the way this has panned out as much as anyone else here, but I do understand why this has happened. Too many are banging on about CPO (costly) or redress (unrelated) or simply the SoC gve the site away (would you give away an asset for less than its value?) and don't grasp the issue fully, nor do they propose a workable solution. They even want the minister to resign which would achieve zero in terms of coming to a politically acceptable solution.

ScumLord

VinLieger wrote: »

Lets be clear one of the other board members accidentally admitted yesterday that she hadnt a clue what she was voting on by trying to claim the Vincents Hospital Trust is a separate entity and not under the control of the SOC.

Is it possible there are others who are equally ignorant of this fact? Is there a chance they were they purposely mislead?

It would be a mistake for most of us to think we're informed on this. We are getting our information via the media and they corrupt the information. Unless someone here has been sitting in on meetings and has access to all the documentation they've got a lay opinion based on second hand information..

Newspapers don't inform, they try to start an argument.

VinLieger

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Like any voter, it is up to the individual themselves to understand the issue they are voting on. To say someone was misled is an effort to deflect blame from the consequences of their decision.

I didnt say they were misled i simply am suggesting its worth asking the question if one of the board members is so completely clueless about the basic facts surrounding like about who runs the Vincents Trust.

She could indeed simply be absolutely cluesless and useless at her job, that question should also be asked too.

ScumLord wrote: »

It would be a mistake for most of us to think we're informed on this. We are getting our information via the media and they corrupt the information. Unless someone here has been sitting in on meetings and has access to all the documentation they've got a lay opinion based on second hand information..

Newspapers don't inform, they try to start an argument.

Im informed enough to know they are asking us to believe this will be the only hospital in the world run by the catholic church that doesn't subscribe to a catholic ethos.

StudentDad

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Are you really saying you want Educate Together out of schools, as well as the Church of Ireland, Jews , Muslims and Catholics? Really?

I'm saying that if the church wants to run schools, universities etc., they can run private institutions of this nature without State funding. Publically funded institutions ought to be entirely secular and not influenced by groups who feel that the law does not apply to them.

SD

NuMarvel

aloyisious wrote: »

The bishop of Elphin??? I found it peculiar that he would voice such concerns, instead of the archbishop of Dublin. Thought maybe it was a "safe option" to get past NMH board personalities.

The Archbishop is automatically the chair of the NMH and wants nothing to do with it. I'd say he's more than happy to stay on the sidelines for this one.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I don't like the way this has panned out as much as anyone else here, but I do understand why this has happened. Too many are banging on about CPO (costly) or redress (unrelated) or simply the SoC gve the site away (would you give away an asset for less than its value?) and don't grasp the issue fully, nor do they propose a workable solution. They even want the minister to resign which would achieve zero in terms of coming to a politically acceptable solution.

This is the bit that's bugging the hell out of me; no one's proposing how to actually fix this. Loads of politicians and commentators are talking about how this is all a bad idea, but none of them are saying how this can be fixed without jeopardising or delaying the project.

Which leads to the question; can it be fixed to everyone's satisfaction without risking the project? Because if it can't, the sooner we accept that, the sooner we can start looking at alternatives.

VinLieger

Well the obvious solution to the whole thing is since the nuns are the sisters of CHARITY they should donate the land to that state and then the problem is solved.

ProfessorPlum

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Like any voter, it is up to the individual themselves to understand the issue they are voting on. To say someone was misled is an effort to deflect blame from the consequences of their decision.

I don't like the way this has panned out as much as anyone else here, but I do understand why this has happened. Too many are banging on about CPO (costly) or redress (unrelated) or simply the SoC gve the site away (would you give away an asset for less than its value?) and don't grasp the issue fully, nor do they propose a workable solution. They even want the minister to resign which would achieve zero in terms of coming to a politically acceptable solution.

Exactly. Why would the state give away a €300m facility?

Deleted User wrote: »

This.

Any and all monies owed from the redress schemes should be paid over.

After that, those who wish to have no church involvement in education or health should lobby their TDs to have the state fund all new schools and hospitals, or pay market value for existing ones.

Equally, those who wish their children to attend a school with a Catholic ethos should have that right, just as those who wish their children to attend schools with a different religious affiliation, or none, should have that right.

Level the playing field, grant everyone equal rights - and no cribbing about the extra taxation that will be required to pay for all the new buildings.

And that would be all very reasonable, except when you realise that the state has already, through our taxes already paid, funded the majority of the medical and educational buildings and facilities on religious lands. Should we have to pay for them again?

gaius c

Anita Blow wrote: »

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.

The Journal are forgetting that the zoning on the Vincents site is quite restrictive whereas the RTE site doesn't have that problem.

NuMarvel

VinLieger wrote: »

Well the obvious solution to the whole thing is since the nuns are the sisters of CHARITY they should donate the land to that state and then the problem is solved.

That would be great, but I think we all know it's not very likely.

gaius c

Call me Al wrote: »

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!?!

You only need to look back at the original deal that saw them move away from Stephens Green and then renege on the agreed land swap to see the calibre of people we are dealing with here.

gaius c

VinLieger wrote: »

Lets be clear one of the other board members accidentally admitted yesterday that she hadnt a clue what she was voting on by trying to claim the Vincents Hospital Trust is a separate entity and not under the control of the SOC.

Is it possible there are others who are equally ignorant of this fact? Is there a chance they were they purposely mislead?

Hanlon's razor is an aphorism expressed in various ways including "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"

astrofool

NuMarvel wrote: »

This is the bit that's bugging the hell out of me; no one's proposing how to actually fix this. Loads of politicians and commentators are talking about how this is all a bad idea, but none of them are saying how this can be fixed without jeopardising or delaying the project.

Which leads to the question; can it be fixed to everyone's satisfaction without risking the project? Because if it can't, the sooner we accept that, the sooner we can start looking at alternatives.

Listening to the FF spokesman on the radio yesterday gave the same response as above "It's not an ideal situation, but better than any of the alternatives".

The real fix is to take all the land off the church to the value of all the redress schemes they're responsible for, then going to the Vatican for the difference, if the church believes what it's preaching, then god will provide for them.

aloyisious

Donal55 wrote: »

Two dissenting voices have both resigned in the past two days. In my opinion they should have hung on and made their arguments from inside.

For whatever the position is worth influence-wise, Dr Boylan has not resigned from his Governors position at the NMH, just his seat on it's board. He can still keep the issue live there within the NMH policy decision centres.

Umm. There's a rep from a woman's group on RTE's Drive-Time news programme asking for the SOC order itself (not the board of SVH) to make a statement on whether it would agree with the new NMH performing abortions and other operations at the SVH campus that are at the centre of this new national debate.

If she's an agreed agent of this group, it seems they want to get to what they see is the crux of the matter, the reported position of the SOC on the issue, and not to be side-lined by what the board (who are not the SOC nuns) says is the position.

VinLieger

aloyisious wrote: »

For whatever the position is worth influence-wise, Dr Boylan has not resigned from his Governors position at the NMH, just his seat on it's board. He can still keep the issue live there within the NMH policy decision centres.

Apparently they still need the governors to pass it too, the issue is so far the governors have been given nothing to vote on

aloyisious

VinLieger wrote: »

Well the obvious solution to the whole thing is since the nuns are the sisters of CHARITY they should donate the land to that state and then the problem is solved.

David Quinn was of a similar opinion on RTE very early today, suggesting the nuns should hand over the (parcel of) land to allow the building. I was a bit surprised at that segment of his thoughts on the matter. I hope you put the cup down before you read that.

Donal55

aloyisious wrote: »

For whatever the position is worth influence-wise, Dr Boylan has not resigned from his Governors position at the NMH, just his seat on it's board. He can still keep the issue live there within the NMH policy decision centres.

Umm. There's a rep from a woman's group on RTE's Drive-Time news programme asking for the SOC order itself (not the board of SVH) to make a statement on whether it would agree with the new NMH performing abortions and other operations at the SVH campus that are at the centre of this new national debate.

If she's an agreed agent of this group, it seems they want to get to what they see is the crux of the matter, the reported position of the SOC on the issue, and not to be side-lined by what the board (who are not the SOC nuns) says is the position.

Shouldn't the govt have asked the nuns that very question on abortion when this hospital project was first mooted all those years ago.

Appears to me that they were acting like the distressed mortgage holder who buries the head and hopes the issue never arises.

Donal55

Donal55 wrote: »

Shouldn't the govt have asked the nuns that very question on abortion when this hospital project was first mooted all those years ago.

Governments (and politicians) come and go, these institutions survive on and on.

The nuns have been running rings around governments for years. Ironically the method by which they acquired the site at Elm Park in the first place is not unlike what's going on now.

In exchange for the site at Elm Park, the nuns were supposed to give the proceeds of the sale of the original Stephen's Green site of St Vincent's Hospital to the Hospital Trust Fund which funded the development of the hospital at Elm Park. The then government agreed to amend this agreement so that they could keep the proceeds of the sale.

Dr. Browne: Surely, this is an extraordinary principle to permit, that an organisation—I do not care who they are, whether they are religious orders or others—lay people do just as good work in hospital services—should be allowed to sell off property, keep the money, and then be given a 100 per cent grant to build a new hospital? Why was it adopted by the Minister?

Mr. Childers: I see no reason why we should not adopt it. The Sisters of Charity control and operate 1,000 beds in this city——

Dr. Browne: Do not talk about Sisters of Charity. Let us talk about hospital authorities.

Mr. Childers: ——in the interests of the poor, the sick, the disadvantaged, the children, the blind and the deaf, and I see no reason why they should not be given the responsibility for disposing of the funds arising from the St. Stephen's Green hospital, in the interests of hospital development.

Dr. Browne: Is it not a fact ... the Hospitals Sweep Fund, according to the Minister, is bankrupt to the extent of about £8 million which has to be paid from the taxpayers' pockets? In these circumstances, why should special conditions be made in respect of this hospital and not in respect of the many other hospitals that are in just as great need and, indeed, in much greater need, of money than this hospital, because this happens to be a very wealthy Order?

Mr. Childers: Taking into account the disposal of the Hospitals Trust Fund, it is true that the Hospitals Trust Fund, because of the very large deficits in the operation of the voluntary hospitals, became unable by itself to subsidise the capital development required for other hospitals but I am still satisfied that the funds available to the Sisters of Charity will be used to good effect. I have no reason to suppose the contrary.

Dr. Browne: If they were not the Sisters of Charity I wonder whether they would get so much charity from this Government.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1972031500006?opendocument

What has been "done for us" by the Sisters of Charity has been paid for by us, we owe them nothing.

Donal55

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Governments (and politicians) come and go, these institutions survive on and on.

The nuns have been running rings around governments for years. Ironically the method by which they acquired the site at Elm Park in the first place is not unlike what's going on now.

In exchange for the site at Elm Park, the nuns were supposed to give the proceeds of the sale of the original Stephen's Green site of St Vincent's Hospital to the Hospital Trust Fund which funded the development of the hospital at Elm Park. The then government agreed to amend this agreement so that they could keep the proceeds of the sale.

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/debates%20authoring/debateswebpack.nsf/takes/dail1972031500006?opendocument

Exactly the reason why everything should be ironed out first before one penny is handed over or before one sod of grass is turned.

As it stands we're expected to accept a deal which will cost at least €300 million & which is not standing up to much scrutiny.

Donal55

Colette Browne just tweeting now that in Colorado, the Sisters of Charity have stopped providing care which contravenes Catholic ethos in hospitals under their jurisdiction.

josip

My understanding was that the Sisters of Charity, aka the St. Vincents Healthcare Group, only reluctantly agreed to the Maternity Hospital on the Elm Park site.
They sought extra funding from the Dept of Health for new services and were told that if they wanted the extra funding then they had to agree to the new NMH being built on the site.
Whilst the SVHG were originally dealing with the NMH and the Department of Health, Simon Harris' tweet some days ago that the HSE would resolve any contractual issues was also unsettling for them; I believe that the SVHG and Tony O'Brien don't get along particularly well.
Considering all the negative publicity they have since received, for a deal they were supposedly reluctant to enter into in the first place, I would not be surprised if they decided to withdraw from the agreement.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

If they agree and then fail to honour a commitment, as god-fearing catholics, they'd find themselves in a personal faithful bind, the order V the Almighty. Plus the legal implications for them after their use of the bible as a guarantor of their good faith.

Really?

It's never bothered them or any other religious order so far. Truth, justice, along with everything else are very malleable concepts in their hands - basically they fully believe that whatever they decide to do is fully right, regardless of what the law or secular concepts of justice might say, and it's pretty damn obvious by now that they only believe in the authority of the law and the courts when they can work it in their favour.

My last, catch the nuns out by use of the bible. They can't "mental reservation" their way past it and all it denotes for mother church and their faith. A refusal to agree with it's use would speak volumes yet again.

You must be extracting the kidney juice here, surely. Representatives of the church have sworn falsehoods in court upon the bible hundreds of times already.

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Are you really saying you want Educate Together out of schools, as well as the Church of Ireland, Jews , Muslims and Catholics? Really?

Ideally, yes, because ET only exists in its present form to accommodate the Department of Education's insistence of religious woo being taught and respected in all schools.

Publicly funded schools should be entirely non-denominational and then there would be no need to put religion(s) on a pedestal and pretend the concept of religion in theory and practice is all fine and dandy, when it's obvious that throughout human history religion has been and remains a force for immense harm in the world.

Anyone who wants exclusively 'alternative facts' to be taught to their child can fund it privately.

NuMarvel wrote: »

That would be great, but I think we all know it's not very likely.

It's not likely that they'd donate the land, but the commercial value of it is very small because of its zoning, so entirely feasible to CPO it and it'd still be a fraction of the project cost.

It should be obvious when one party contributes a not very valuable parcel of land, and the other party contributes >300m euro of public funding to build the damn hospital, which one should have ownership...?

There's a very good article by Diarmaid Ferriter in this morning's Irish Times about the reality behind how the nuns got public ownership of Vincent's hospital in the first place. It really undermines a narrative that RCC fundraising built the hospital. It also raises enormous questions about the loyalty to the Irish state of the solicitors, senior civil servants and politicians who allowed, like Harris is allowing in 2017, a private religious order to continue to own this property. Given that a Fine Gael taoiseach (John A. Costello) once infamously said 'I am a Roman Catholic first and an Irishman second' this treachery to the state was at the highest level. I quote:

According to F.O.C Meenan, in his history of St Vincent’s Hospital, “Up to 1969, St Vincent’s, Stephen’s Green [the original site of the hospital] received a total of £2.1 million and St Vincent’s hospital, Elm Park, received £3.1 million” from the sweepstake funds. The nuns bought the 50-acre Elm Park site, where the hospital now is, in 1934 for £24,000. Contemporary newspapers reported that the plan was “to erect a huge new hospital on the site” with the nuns “negotiating with the hospitals commission for an allocation of the sweepstake proceeds”

Diarmaid Ferriter: St Vincent's was built with public money

LordSutch

mrsmags16 wrote: »

Nuns get to own new National Maternity Hospital

Looking at the Thread title this flashed through my mind ..

"Nuns get their own new National Maternity Hospital".

Totally different connotation :-)

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Really?

It's never bothered them or any other religious order so far. Truth, justice, along with everything else are very malleable concepts in their hands - basically they fully believe that whatever they decide to do is fully right, regardless of what the law or secular concepts of justice might say, and it's pretty damn obvious by now that they only believe in the authority of the law and the courts when they can work it in their favour.



You must be extracting the kidney juice here, surely. Representatives of the church have sworn falsehoods in court upon the bible hundreds of times already.

I like your polite way of referring to ****** *** ****. It's so good. With your permission, can I store it for future use elsewhere?

Re this (If they agree and then fail to honour a commitment, as god-fearing catholics, they'd find themselves in a personal faithful bind, the order V the Almighty. Plus the legal implications for them after their use of the bible as a guarantor of their good faith), and your first above, I meant the board members only who seem to have swallowed the nun's tale 100%. I have a tendency to believe no fool is beyond saving. :-)

Re the nuns. I reckon you are 100% right but I'd like to let them hang themselves on oath to the bible in a public way, hoist on their own petard. I have no use for liars.

LordSutch

I guess it remains to be seen what the 'ethos' of the new hospital will be.

Will it have an RC ethos in the same way many schools have, or will it be totally 100% free on any & all religious influence ???

Call me Al

LordSutch wrote: »

I guess it remains to be seen what the 'ethos' of the new hospital will be.

Will it have an RC ethos in the same way many schools have, or will it be totally 100% free on any & all religious influence ???

Due to the make-up of the proposed new board that will be formed for the maternity hospital this is the decision of order-controlled SVHG.

So what do you think they'll choose?

LordSutch

100% secular.

I presume.

aloyisious

Another thing that might sway any decision to invest in a NMH located at SVH campus might be what's on the books as to who has first dibs at the SOC property portfolio including SVH. The nuns seem to have used the land there for property loans purposes from banks which may affect their true or arguable ownership.

I think (but might be wrong) the deal worked out in Nov mentioned a lien on the property in favour of the NMH. It might have instead been part of the original 70's deal on the SOC's original hospital at Stephens Green, re funding from the sweepstakes for the present (then still only planned) SVH at Elm Park.

Zebra3

Deleted User wrote: »

There's a very good article by Diarmaid Ferriter

So much respect for him.