The NMH at St. Vincents

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

I like your polite way of referring to ****** *** ****.

What?

aloyisious

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

What?

Extracting kidney juice.

No matter what the eventual outcome will be for the proposed new NMH, it'll get no support from me as long as there is any intent to fund its construction from taxation or any other source of exchequer monies. The SOC must not be given any further assistance through any means by the state, especially to the orders property portfolio, even if the plan comes from neutral persons.

elperello

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/mulvey-its-not-possible-for-nuns-to-hand-over-maternity-hospital-land-as-it-is-tied-up-with-loans-35665144.html

Another sorry footnote to this latest chapter in the saga of how we have been played by Politicians, Civil Servants, The Church, Medical Profession, Lawyers and others almost since the foundation of the State.

gctest50

[Deleted User] wrote: »

......................... allocation of the sweepstake proceeds............”

Ah the Sweepstakes

The Irish Sweeps, touted around the world as a charity launched to help a nascent health care system, has long been exposed as one of the country's greatest scandals.

Of the millions that poured in, it has been estimated that less than one tenth went to hospitals





http://m.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/irish-sweepstake-scandal-remains-a-lesson-to-us-all-26237690.html

aloyisious

elperello wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/health/mulvey-its-not-possible-for-nuns-to-hand-over-maternity-hospital-land-as-it-is-tied-up-with-loans-35665144.html

Another sorry footnote to this latest chapter in the saga of how we have been played by Politicians, Civil Servants, The Church, Medical Profession, Lawyers and others almost since the foundation of the State.

Dear Keiran, that's the nuns problem, not yours, not mine, not the taxpayers again. No bail-out, period.............

Hannibal_Smith

How did the St Vincent's Healthcare Group (who ever they are)get a loan over land 'as a whole' that they don't own?

Sorry, just Googled. Apparently the SVHG are the nuns who currently own the land seemingly. I wonder whether it's a state owned bank that are the mortgage holders.

Call me Al

Hannibal_Smith wrote: »

How did the St Vincent's Healthcare Group (who ever they are)get a loan over land 'as a whole' that they don't own?

Sorry, just Googled. Apparently the SVHG are the nuns who currently own the land seemingly. I wonder whether it's a state owned bank that are the mortgage holders.

BOI and Ulster Bank afaik.

Mrs OBumble

[quote="StudentDad;103356001" not influenced by groups who feel that the law does not apply to them.

SD[/quote]

I totally agree with that point.

StudentDad wrote: »

Publically funded institutions ought to be entirely secular

SD

But disagree with this one.

Three quarters of people in ireland still claim to be catholic. Small proportions belong to other churches which also get state funding for the schools they run. They should not have to sacrifice their children's right to a wholistic education which is congruent with their beliefs. Neither should they have to pay for athiests kids education thru general taxation and and also fund their own kids education separately.

One eyed Jack

Meanwhile, in the UK:

Exclusive: Grandmother awarded compensation for suffering PTSD after watching her daughter give birth

The High Court found the midwives at Calderdale Birthing Unit did not properly anticipate the risk of delivering a 10lbs baby.

The girl suffered an acute profound hypoxic ischaemic insult as a result of an unnecessary 11-minute delay in delivery in April 2011.

Mr Justice Goss also found the midwives had deliberately prevented a specialist obstetrician from entering the room during a crucial stage in the emergency, and that the hospital subsequently destroyed medical records after the legal action had begun.

The mother had raised concerns about the size of her baby during antenatal appointments, but the “offhand” midwives had told her “big babies just slip out”.

In the event, the girl’s shoulder became jammed behind her mother’s pelvic bone.

And not a nun in sight.

gctest50

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Meanwhile, in the UK:

Exclusive: Grandmother awarded compensation for suffering PTSD after watching her daughter give birth





And not a nun in sight.

Here's one


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/novice-nun-jailed-four-years-killing-newborn-son-1449874

neonsofa

We just posting random unrelated birthing stories now?

volchitsa

neonsofa wrote: »

We just posting random unrelated birthing stories now?

The thinking seems to be that it's a good idea to gift a fully funded national maternity hospital to a group with an appalling record of abuse of vulnerable people (including recent HIQA reports) because other countries aren't perfect either.

pjohnson

volchitsa wrote: »

The thinking seems to be that it's a good idea to gift a fully funded national maternity hospital to a group with an appalling record of abuse of vulnerable people (including recent HIQA reports) because other countries aren't perfect either.

Its hard to beat that logic. Its all that lot have.

One eyed Jack

gctest50 wrote: »

Here's one


http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/novice-nun-jailed-four-years-killing-newborn-son-1449874

You're missing the point.

volchitsa wrote: »

The thinking seems to be that it's a good idea to gift a fully funded national maternity hospital to a group with an appalling record of abuse of vulnerable people (including recent HIQA reports) because other countries aren't perfect either.

Not quite volchista. The point is that these things will happen regardless of whoever owns or runs any hospital, regardless of who is responsible for the care of pregnant women. Because IMO it's not because they were nuns that they carried out these attrocities, that was simply the justification they used for their actions.

My point is that people, regardless of their medical training, will carry out heinous acts, such as the grotesque act of attempting to keep a foetus alive when the woman is dead, not because of the 8th amendment, but because of their own ego, their own wish to push the boundaries. I don't know that Savita's life could have been saved had the doctors performed an abortion, but what I do believe is that they used being restricted the 8th amendment as an excuse not to perform an abortion.

There is nothing in the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly which could have led to a different outcome, given that Savita presented at the hospital 17 weeks pregnant, five weeks outside the 12 week term that most people appear to find morally acceptable according to their own standards.

Medical staff, as well trained, and as educated and informed as they are, are still people at the end of the day, and they can be just as incompetent, as motivated by their own ideology, as ignorant and careless and egotistical as they want to be, regardless of whatever standards, procedures and laws are in place.

gctest50

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Meanwhile, in the UK:

Exclusive: Grandmother awarded compensation for suffering PTSD after watching her daughter give birth





And not a nun in sight.

Where does it say that ?

Have you the names and details of all the people present in the room ?

Can you prove none of them was a nun ?

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're missing the point.

Not quite volchista. The point is that these things will happen regardless of whoever owns or runs any hospital, regardless of who is responsible for the care of pregnant women. Because IMO it's not because they were nuns that they carried out these attrocities, that was simply the justification they used for their actions.

Except I'm not discussing their past crimes, I'm saying there is no good reason for putting them in a position to have even the slightest influence over the publicly funded national maternity hospital now. Their past behavour is just another reason why we shouldn't, but it's not the only one.

And "these things will happen" is not a reason.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My point is that people, regardless of their medical training, will carry out heinous acts, such as the grotesque act of attempting to keep a foetus alive when the woman is dead, not because of the 8th amendment, but because of their own ego, their own wish to push the boundaries. I don't know that Savita's life could have been saved had the doctors performed an abortion, but what I do believe is that they used being restricted the 8th amendment as an excuse not to perform an abortion.

There is nothing in the recommendations of the Citizens Assembly which could have led to a different outcome, given that Savita presented at the hospital 17 weeks pregnant, five weeks outside the 12 week term that most people appear to find morally acceptable according to their own standards.

Medical staff, as well trained, and as educated and informed as they are, are still people at the end of the day, and they can be just as incompetent, as motivated by their own ideology, as ignorant and careless and egotistical as they want to be, regardless of whatever standards, procedures and laws are in place.

None of that is a point all the same, just whataboutery.

Why exactly should we build an expensive new maternity hospital entirely at the taxpayers' expense and then hand ownership over to a private concern, please?

And specifically, why this private concern?

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Medical staff, as well trained, and as educated and informed as they are, are still people at the end of the day, and they can be just as incompetent, as motivated by their own ideology, as ignorant and careless and egotistical as they want to be, regardless of whatever standards, procedures and laws are in place.

While this is quite true, can we then not limit the damage somewhat by not giving the job to groups of people who have a very strong over-riding ideology to follow that is not always consistent with proper medical care and who have repeatedly failed to put other peoples safety over said ideologies? (And repeatedly failed to take any sort of accounting for it or pay off the full compensation.)

I mean, accepting your point exactly as you wrote it, it is still an argument for not increasing the risk of arrogant ideologues taking other peoples lives in their hands.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

While this is quite true, can we then not limit the damage somewhat by not giving the job to groups of people who have a very strong over-riding ideology to follow that is not always consistent with proper medical care and who have repeatedly failed to put other peoples safety over said ideologies? (And repeatedly failed to take any sort of accounting for it or pay off the full compensation.)

I mean, accepting your point exactly as you wrote it, it is still an argument for not increasing the risk of arrogant ideologues taking other peoples lives in their hands.

We can of course, which is why I would be just as reluctant to allow the State to run hospitals as I would anyone else you can think of. In my opinion, they're all as bad as each other and I don't think one would be any more qualified in an administrative capacity than another.

volchista to answer your question, this goes back to a plan by the State to co-locate maternity hospitals with acute hospitals. The SVHG didn't ask for it. The State (or rather politicians representing the interests of the State), decided they should have it.

Genuinely, if you're looking to point fingers and apportion responsibility for the current mess of an inadequate healthcare system, you need to look at who continues to use public funds to fund such an inadequate healthcare system. It sure as hell isn't the religious orders. They're only complying with conditions set down by successive Governments in order to receive funding to provide the services they do provide.

lawred2

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I totally agree with that point.




But disagree with this one.

Three quarters of people in ireland still claim to be catholic. Small proportions belong to other churches which also get state funding for the schools they run. They should not have to sacrifice their children's right to a wholistic education which is congruent with their beliefs. Neither should they have to pay for athiests kids education thru general taxation and and also fund their own kids education separately.

Well that's off topic but as you brought it up.

Who said they should have to sacrifice anything? Let religious teachings be the preserve of the respective religious orders or that of the parents who so wish to pass on such teachings. Although I'd imagine that's too much like hard work, best pass it off to someone else.

Why it should be in a classroom is beyond me. Is Ireland much different from the likes of Saudi Arabia in this regard? Not too different you'd have to say..

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We can of course, which is why I would be just as reluctant to allow the State to run hospitals as I would anyone else you can think of. In my opinion, they're all as bad as each other and I don't think one would be any more qualified in an administrative capacity than another.

volchista to answer your question, this goes back to a plan by the State to co-locate maternity hospitals with acute hospitals. The SVHG didn't ask for it. The State (or rather politicians representing the interests of the State), decided they should have it.

Genuinely, if you're looking to point fingers and apportion responsibility for the current mess of an inadequate healthcare system, you need to look at who continues to use public funds to fund such an inadequate healthcare system. It sure as hell isn't the religious orders. They're only complying with conditions set down by successive Governments in order to receive funding to provide the services they do provide.

You seem to want to fight old battles over and over, I'm not interested in pointing fingers, I'm interested in making a decision about this hospital.

And the old Kerry joke about "I wouldn't have started from here" doesn't seem like an adequate response to the question of "what do we do now".

Should we now continue to gift maternities to religious orders just because we did in the past, or do we call a halt at some point?

If we do, and I think we need to, I'd suggest that a fully-funded brand new national maternity hospital on a site where there was no previous maternity is a damn good place to do so.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

You seem to want to fight old battles over and over, I'm not interested in pointing fingers, I'm interested in making a decision about this hospital.

And the old Kerry joke about "I wouldn't have started from here" doesn't seem like an adequate response to the question of "what do we do now".

Should we now continue to gift maternities to religious orders just because we did in the past, or do we call a halt at some point?

If we do, and I think we need to, I'd suggest that a fully-funded brand new national maternity hospital on a site where there was no previous maternity is a damn good place to do so.

I'm not interested in fighting old battles over and over, and the point at which we should never have gifted anything to religious orders in the first place was with the founding of the State. Unfortunately the State has gone so far down this road now due to the politics of successive Governments, that there's still no guarantee that the maternity hospital won't be given to the religious orders.

It's more a question of money and politics, than principles or religion, IMO.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not interested in fighting old battles over and over, and the point at which we should never have gifted anything to religious orders in the first place was with the founding of the State. Unfortunately the State has gone so far down this road now due to the politics of successive Governments, that there's still no guarantee that the maternity hospital won't be given to the religious orders.

It's more a question of money and politics, than principles or religion, IMO.

Oh I have no doubt that the doctors and politicians involved are agreeing in their own self interest, not out of any depth of religious feeling.

But I think that some point a line has to be drawn, whatever about the past, and this is one.

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We can of course, which is why I would be just as reluctant to allow the State to run hospitals as I would anyone else you can think of. In my opinion, they're all as bad as each other and I don't think one would be any more qualified in an administrative capacity than another.

I cannot agree that the State, for all its faults (particularly faults of incompetence) is either worse or as bad than/as the religious orders for running healthcare. At least the State has some level of accountability. It is very difficult to pin Church representatives to account for anything, and they have significant backing from the Vatican City (hopefully less than under the previous Pope, but what happens when Pope Francis is replaced, perhaps with a hard-liner or one that protects the Church over innocent people? I've seen three Popes so far and I quite expect to see another four or five at least, even if one of them pulls a JPII and seems to live forever).

No, the State has made grave errors, has participated in abuses, has returned victims to their abusers and at the very least was complicit in covering abuse over, I'll totally agree with that. But the State also has provisions for oversight and the will of the people is forcing them to use them (as we have seen with investigations into nursing homes since - secular and religious ones). We have seen no indications, afaik, that the Church has installed anything similar, and even if it did, we have also seen that the loyalty of those making the decisions is to the Church, not to the Irish people.

It is the ease with which the Church can get away with things along with the dangerous ideologies that we know are part and parcel of Catholicism that in my view makes them -less- fitting. We cannot prevent all abuses of power. But we can damn well not encourage them by making it as easy as possible to get away with them and give the signal that sure, there might be a bit of fuss, but lie low, don't admit anything, hold off on paying the money and it'll all blow over.

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

I cannot agree that the State, for all its faults (particularly faults of incompetence) is either worse or as bad than/as the religious orders for running healthcare. At least the State has some level of accountability. It is very difficult to pin Church representatives to account for anything, and they have significant backing from the Vatican City (hopefully less than under the previous Pope, but what happens when Pope Francis is replaced, perhaps with a hard-liner or one that protects the Church over innocent people? I've seen three Popes so far and I quite expect to see another four or five at least, even if one of them pulls a JPII and seems to live forever).

I don't know whether it's short memory, or it just hadn't occurred to you, but there was very little accountability or investigation by the State into the Hep C and Symphysiotomy scandals, to the point where I wonder how was our current Minister for Finance ever elected again after his part in the Hep C scandals anyway.

No, the State has made grave errors, has participated in abuses, has returned victims to their abusers and at the very least was complicit in covering abuse over, I'll totally agree with that. But the State also has provisions for oversight and the will of the people is forcing them to use them (as we have seen with investigations into nursing homes since - secular and religious ones). We have seen no indications, afaik, that the Church has installed anything similar, and even if it did, we have also seen that the loyalty of those making the decisions is to the Church, not to the Irish people.

Marie Collins couldn't have resigned from a body that didn't exist:

Marie Collins resigns from Vatican child protection body


The State may well have provisions for oversight, but it still continues to thumb it's nose at any UN oversight committees demands to get their house in order, because of provisions Ireland was granted upon signing the Maastricht treaty (autonomy over their laws relating to abortion).

It is the ease with which the Church can get away with things along with the dangerous ideologies that we know are part and parcel of Catholicism that in my view makes them -less- fitting. We cannot prevent all abuses of power. But we can damn well not encourage them by making it as easy as possible to get away with them and give the signal that sure, there might be a bit of fuss, but lie low, don't admit anything, hold off on paying the money and it'll all blow over.

Well that's an interesting take on it that's probably better suited to fleshing out in another thread, but I personally wouldn't see any ideology as particularly more dangerous than another. I've seen the same criticisms levelled at feminism for example, but I would suggest that it's the individuals interpretation of an ideology is the determining factor in whether or not their interpretation is harmful or beneficial to those whom they claim to be supporting and representing.

Samaris

Well, yes, but some ideologies are undoubtedly more harmful than others. An ideology that specifically leads to a prevention in administering healthcare options is more dangerous in the context of running a hospital than an ideology that venerates cats! The context is pretty important here. Sure, it is down to the individual how far they want to take their ideology, but again, when they are in an order that represents said ideology and backs up that it must be upheld, the risks of the ideology being followed is much higher. People at an individual level, confronted with suffering, are much more likely to step in and help than an organisation that feels it against their rules and morality. It is far easier to follow rules than make them.

You are correct that I don't know much about either of the scandals you mentioned and I will read up on them, but as it stands, I would prefer to have the State running healthcare as a State institution at least conceptually answerable to the Irish people than the Catholic Church which is so much more difficult to hold to account for anything.

.........

Samaris wrote: »

Well, yes, but some ideologies are undoubtedly more harmful than others. An ideology that specifically leads to a prevention in administering healthcare options is more dangerous in the context of running a hospital than an ideology that venerates cats! The context is pretty important here. Sure, it is down to the individual how far they want to take their ideology, but again, when they are in an order that represents said ideology and backs up that it must be upheld, the risks of the ideology being followed is much higher. People at an individual level, confronted with suffering, are much more likely to step in and help than an organisation that feels it against their rules and morality. It is far easier to follow rules than make them.

You are correct that I don't know much about either of the scandals you mentioned and I will read up on them, but as it stands, I would prefer to have the State running healthcare as a State institution at least conceptually answerable to the Irish people than the Catholic Church which is so much more difficult to hold to account for anything.

If only the wonderful 'state' were accountable, or was ever held to account for anything, but in reality it's not. 26 Children that were supposed to be in state 'care' died in 2016 (a record number, and three times more boys died than girls), and barely a word about them.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/record-26-children-died-while-in-state-care-34238804.html

volchitsa

......... wrote: »

If only the wonderful 'state' were accountable, or was ever held to account for anything, but in reality it's not. 26 Children that were supposed to be in state 'care' died in 2016 (a record number, and three times more boys died than girls), and barely a word about them.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/record-26-children-died-while-in-state-care-34238804.html

Of course that is not a reason for further reducing the possibility of accountability. It might be a good point if the private institution in question had a better record than the state, but it doesn't, so it really isn't.

In fact I wonder if it's our very habit of accepting the lack of accountability of the church-run institutions that we were all brought up (up to my generation at least) to take as natural and unimportant, that also allowed us to accept such a shocking lack of accountability from our government institutions. "Don't question those in charge, they know better than you".

StudentDad

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

I totally agree with that point.




But disagree with this one.

Three quarters of people in ireland still claim to be catholic. Small proportions belong to other churches which also get state funding for the schools they run. They should not have to sacrifice their children's right to a wholistic education which is congruent with their beliefs. Neither should they have to pay for athiests kids education thru general taxation and and also fund their own kids education separately.

Fair enough you disagree. As far as I am concerned though that does a disservice to every citizen in this country. It basically endorses a view that the law of the land is to be ignored where it conflicts with the views of an unelected grouping. Especially so, given the statements by the church in relation to the operation of church run facilities. Removing religion from our publically funded institutions removes this conflict. It is not for a church to decide what medical procedures are acceptable to them in a publically funded hospital if our parliament has deemed those procedures to be legal. As I've said if a church (or any unaccountable body) publically states that they are effectively above the law, this cannot remain unchallenged when they are running a facility on behalf of the State and funded by the State.

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

Fair enough you disagree. As far as I am concerned though that does a disservice to every citizen in this country. It basically endorses a view that the law of the land is to be ignored where it conflicts with the views of an unelected grouping. Especially so, given the statements by the church in relation to the operation of church run facilities. Removing religion from our publically funded institutions removes this conflict. It is not for a church to decide what medical procedures are acceptable to them in a publically funded hospital if our parliament has deemed those procedures to be legal. As I've said if a church (or any unelected body) publically states that they are effectively above the law, this cannot remain unchallenged when they are running a facility on behalf of the State and funded by the State.

SD

The owners of any hospital are free not to carry out any procedures they don't wish to, and you go to another hospital. That's not against the law. If the state decide to get into bed with any private institution and agree to their terms, that's the states failing, and the state should be held to account, but they never are. It's about time the Irish state started running their own hospitals instead of doing cosy financial deals with private organisations.

Hotblack Desiato

......... wrote: »

If only the wonderful 'state' were accountable, or was ever held to account for anything, but in reality it's not. 26 Children that were supposed to be in state 'care' died in 2016 (a record number, and three times more boys died than girls), and barely a word about them.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/record-26-children-died-while-in-state-care-34238804.html

Why does this happen? Because intervention happens far too late. The family is put on a pedestal in this country which is fine normally but when the family is a dysfunctional one it's disastrous.

Catholic conservatives have been campaigning for years to prevent intervention by state authorities even when the family concerned is a seriously abusive one

Tusla etc. face a very difficult task when by the time a child enters care they're already a severely emotionally damaged teenager with addiction issues.

Some will engage in self-destructive behaviour and some will tragically die as a result. The authorities can try to prevent this but they will never succeed 100%.

Using these tragedies as an attempt to argue that things were better when the RCC was allowed have free reign over the most vulnerable people in society is a transparent and reprehensible falsehood.