The NMH at St. Vincents

.........

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

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.

yep, the last thing we'd want to do is ever hold the state accountable for it's own failings in it's deals with the private sector. That's going to end well . . .

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

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".

Apathy and self-serving traits present amongst individuals in a society has less to do with their upbringing, and more to do with whom they are as a person, than anything it has at all to do with religion. It has been demonstrated time and time again that the Irish electorate can act in defiance of authority when and if it suits them.

Not so much "Don't question those in charge" as "Don't rock the boat!"

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

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.

No it isn't against the law per se. However, it is hardly acceptable for a hospital not to provide a medical procedure, when they are publically funded and parliament undoubtedly expects it's publically funded hospitals to provide the medical care that they have legislated for. If these hospitals were privately funded there wouldn't be an issue.

So, the sooner this conflict is resolved, the better.

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

No it isn't against the law per se. However, it is hardly acceptable for a hospital not to provide a medical procedure, when they are publically funded and parliament undoubtedly expects it's publically funded hospitals to provide the medical care that they have legislated for. If these hospitals were privately funded there wouldn't be an issue.

So, the sooner this conflict is resolved, the better.

SD

Many private hospitals in Ireland receive some public funding or subsidiaries or other types of state support. No publicly or privately funded hospital carries out all medical procedures, hence the reason people have to travel to other hospitals. The state got themselves into their own mess and should be the ones getting themselves out of it.

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

Many private hospitals in Ireland receive some public funding or subsidiaries or other types of state support. No publicly or privately funded hospital carries out all medical procedures, hence the reason people have to travel to other hospitals. The state got themselves into their own mess and should be the ones getting themselves out of it.

All well and good. However, we do not need a possible conflict between the State and a private organisation receiving public funds who refuse to provide a legal medical procedure on spurious grounds. This undermines the will of parliament and is a disservice to those dependent on that facility.

We are talking about what will be the National Maternity Hospital. Not a little clinic in the middle of nowhere.

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

All well and good. However, we do not need a possible conflict between the State and a private organisation receiving public funds who refuse to provide a legal medical procedure on spurious grounds. This undermines the will of parliament and is a disservice to those dependent on that facility.

We are talking about what will be the National Maternity Hospital. Not a little clinic in the middle of nowhere.

SD

There are no hospitals in the middle of nowhere.
And who got the state into the state's mess ?

When is the state ever going to be held accountable ?

When is the state going to stand up to it's responsibilities to provide it's citizens with proper healthcare facilities instead of relying on cosy deals between politicians and the private sector, while paying off billions of private debt for private bondholders for generations to come ?

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

There are no hospitals in the middle of nowhere.
And who got the state into the state's mess ?

You said that not all hospitals provide everything (to paraphrase). This is true. However, we are talking about the proposed National Maternity Hospital. It will be expected to provide the services that our parliament legislates for. It ought not be the preserve of an unelected, unaccountable body, such as the church to undermine the will of parliament by not providing certain services because they disagree. They are a publically funded organisation and as I said, parliament undoubtedly expects it's publically funded hospitals to provide the care that it has legislated for.

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

You said that not all hospitals provide everything (to paraphrase). This is true. However, we are talking about the proposed National Maternity Hospital. It will be expected to provide the services that our parliament legislates for. It ought not be the preserve of an unelected, unaccountable body, such as the church to undermine the will of parliament by not providing certain services because they disagree. They are a publically funded organisation and as I said, parliament undoubtedly expects it's publically funded hospitals to provide the care that it has legislated for.

SD

who got the state into the state's mess ?

why is the state not being held accountable for doing their deal ?

and when are they going to start providing hospital services instead of relying on cosy private sector deals between politicians and private institutions ?

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

who got the state into the state's mess ?

and when are they going to start providing hospital services instead of relying on cosy private sector deals between politicians and private institutions ?

That's an argument for yourself and your local TD I can see where you're coming from though.

SD

Hotblack Desiato

......... wrote: »

And who got the state into the state's mess ?

Subservience to the Roman Catholic Church got the state into this mess.

It needs to end, starting now, with full state ownership and control of all new facilities funded by the state.

Donal55

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Subservience to the Roman Catholic Church got the state into this mess.

It needs to end, starting now, with full state ownership and control of all new facilities funded by the state.

Can't see that happening soon.

One eyed Jack

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Subservience to the Roman Catholic Church got the state into this mess.

Subservience, or collusion?

It needs to end, starting now, with full state ownership and control of all new facilities funded by the state.

Ehh, you're grand thanks. But no thanks.

StudentDad

.... misquote

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

I don't mean to be tongue in cheek but the, 'they're worse than out lot,' argument doesn't wash with me.

Yes, the State has dropped the ball on occasion. However, that does not remove the fact that bodies such as the church ought not have an unaccountable say in the running of things.

SD

Since when was the state not responsible for the deals it enters into ?

The state is responsible for its own actions, and should be providing it's own healthcare to citizens instead of relying on cosy deals with the private sector.

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

Since when was the state not responsible for the deals it enters into ?

The state is responsible for its own actions, and should be providing it's own healthcare to citizens instead of relying on cosy deals with the private sector.

You'll note I deleted my post above I misquoted you I was distracted here by something else.

SD

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

Since when was the state not responsible for the deals it enters into ?

The state is responsible for its own actions, and should be providing it's own healthcare to citizens instead of relying on cosy deals with the private sector.

Although, I do have to agree with you on the above point. Following on from that our hospitals, schools and universities should be brought into State ownership and control.

If various private bodies want to run schools and hospitals without resorting to public funding that's great. So long as they adhere to all laws and not just the ones they find convenient.

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

Although, I do have to agree with you on the above point. Following on from that our hospitals, schools and universities should be brought into State ownership.

If various private bodies want to run schools and hospitals without resorting to public funding that's great. So long as they adhere to all laws and not just the ones they find convenient.

SD

But the thing is they don't, the private sector are given free reign in deals with the state, so either all of them should, not just the ones of a certain religion, or none of them should.

Again, the state needs to stop farming out the services it should be providing to the private sector, or at the very least be held accountable, for once, for the deals it enters with them.

Donal55

StudentDad wrote: »

Although, I do have to agree with you on the above point. Following on from that our hospitals, schools and universities should be brought into State ownership.

If various private bodies want to run schools and hospitals without resorting to public funding that's great. So long as they adhere to all laws and not just the ones they find convenient.

SD

The state conveniently turned a blind eye and let the RC & C of I run things here.
Its a bit late in the day to start wanting state take overs now of those institutions.

StudentDad

Donal55 wrote: »

The state conveniently turned a blind eye and let the RC & C of I run things here.
Its a bit late in the day to start wanting state take overs now of those institutions.

Again I have to disagree. It's never too late to remove unaccountable, unelected bodies from our publically funded institutions

SD

Donal55

StudentDad wrote: »

Again I have to disagree. It's never too late to remove unaccountable, unelected bodies from our publically funded institutions

SD

Thats all very well, however do you REALLY think the churches are going to say OK.?
Furthermore, do you really think Enda Kenny is going to do it?

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

Again I have to disagree. It's never too late to remove unaccountable, unelected bodies from our publically funded institutions

SD

Given how many fat private sector fingers are in state pies, don't hold your breath.

And yet again, who is responsible for this, or is the state still never going to be responsible for its own actions and the deals it enters ?

StudentDad

Donal55 wrote: »

Thats all very well, however do you REALLY think the churches are going to say OK.?
Furthermore, do you really think Enda Kenny is going to do it?

I don't really care if the church says ok or not. If Parliament decides to do it great. Do I think the govt. has the bottle to do it? Probably not. Although, we have to start somewhere and that somewhere is the National Maternity Hospital. Farming it out to a private company, run by a religious order, isn't the way to go.

SD

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

Given how many fat private sector fingers are in state pies, don't hold your breath.

And yet again, who is responsible for this, or is the state still never going to be responsible for its own actions and the deals it enters ?

Believe me I'm not holding my breath Again though, we have to start somewhere.

SD

Donal55

StudentDad wrote: »

I don't really care if the church says ok or not. If Parliament decides to do it great. Do I think the govt. has the bottle to do it? Probably not. Although, we have to start somewhere and that somewhere is the National Maternity Hospital. Farming it out to a private company, run by a religious order, isn't the way to go.

SD

Or why doesn't the state just build its own infrastructure on public ground?

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

Believe me I'm not holding my breath Again though, we have to start somewhere.

SD

Yeah funny where it 'has to' start.
The fact is, if it was private sector firm who screwed the state and taxpayers for an extra billion for their tax free caymen island accounts , there wouldn't be a word about it. The real crime is that a bunch of elderly nuns had to cheek to ask that a hospital built on their land respect their catholic ethos. :rolleyes:

.........

Donal55 wrote: »

Or why doesn't the state just build its own infrastructure on public ground?

Why indeed. Irish politicians love their private sector deals.

StudentDad

Donal55 wrote: »

Or why doesn't the state just build its own infrastructure on public ground?

It did! You could argue that all the monies pumped into facilities run/owned by the church have become public property by default. Unless the church want's to refund those monies. They're a bit slow with handing over cash so I can't see that happening.

SD

.........

StudentDad wrote: »

It did! You could argue that all the monies pumped into facilities run/owned by the church have become public property by default.

Why does that not apply to all the other private institutions that have received state funding ?

StudentDad

......... wrote: »

Yeah funny where it 'has to' start.
The fact is, if it was private sector firm who screwed the state and taxpayers for an extra billion for their tax free caymen island accounts , there wouldn't be a word about it. The real crime is that a bunch of elderly nuns had to cheek to ask that a hospital built on their land respect their catholic ethos. :rolleyes:

By that you mean give them an exemption from law?

SD

Donal55

StudentDad wrote: »

It did! You could argue that all the monies pumped into facilities run/owned by the church have become public property by default. Unless the church want's to refund those monies. They're a bit slow with handing over cash so I can't see that happening.

SD

Nope. Our local GAA club got a couple of hundred grand of public money. Is that public property?