The NMH at St. Vincents

VinLieger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

And how much do you think people should pay in increased taxes to fund your principles?

And there you have it folks the blind entitlement of the catholic right in this country, they simply are not able to comprehend that their principles have been state funded regardless of anyone elses wishes since the country got its freedom.

Its called the blindness of privilege

One eyed Jack

VinLieger wrote: »

And there you have it folks the blind entitlement of the catholic right in this country, they simply are not able to comprehend that their principles have been state funded regardless of anyone elses wishes since the country got its freedom.

Its called the blindness of privilege

Vin, I asked the question as a taxpayer. I'm perfectly entitled to ask how much something is going to cost if I'm going to be expected to pay more taxes to fund it.

recipio

This could all be solved by the nuns signing an agreement that they will not object to sterilization, IVF and abortion in the NMH. Of course, they are not going to do that. I think they see the NMH as a 'Trojan Horse' encroaching their territory and they are certainly not going to give the site for nothing.
The crucial weakness is the 'slight of hand' agreement that the NMH board and Simon Harris are trying to sell.

volchitsa

......... wrote: »

Then why didn't the state make that a condition ? Did you expect the nuns to volunteer to do abortions ?

Of course not, but that's exactly the sort of problem that may well come up in the near future, and that's why people are objecting to the fact that the government hasn't made it a condition that the nuns accept that all legal procedures (not just abortion) now and in the future can be carried out without their interference.

Though actually my own opinion is that it's probably a bad idea to outsource a National hospital to any private enterprise, religious or not. So even such a pre-condition wouldn't entirely satisfy me, I'd need to be completely sure there was really no other possible solution.

.........

volchitsa wrote: »

Though actually my own opinion is that it's probably a bad idea to outsource a National hospital to any private enterprise, religious or not.

That's exactly my feeling, it's high time the state started providing it own services instead of relying on cosy private set ups. - but the politicians do love using state funds to do cosy deals with private enterprises and organisations in Ireland and relying on them to do their work for them. - Seldom to the benefit of citizens.

Maybe someday the state and it's politicians will be held to account for the deals they do and enter into. Instead they get away every time with blaming everyone else.

Osgoodisgood

recipio wrote: »

This could all be solved by the nuns signing an agreement that they will not object to sterilization, IVF and abortion in the NMH.

The list of ways in which a catholic "ethos" is at odds with modern medicine isn't confined to those 3 issues. Their views on subjects as mundane as contraception or as complex as gender reassignment are equally troublesome. Allied to this is that new issues will arise as is always the case in an increasingly secular society and the RCC can be relied on to be as dogmatic as ever in the future.

In any case I'm not interested in their promises and I would have exactly zero faith that this will be the world's first RCC owned hospital that veered from the RCC position on sexual and reproductive health. Their bad reputation in these fields has been well earned.

aloyisious

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Vin, I asked the question as a taxpayer. I'm perfectly entitled to ask how much something is going to cost if I'm going to be expected to pay more taxes to fund it.

Of course you are, the same way every other irish taxpayer is. Us taxpayers will fund the building of the new NMH after which, according to the Nov plan, it will be handed over to the SOC as owners of the SVH Campus, via the new hospital group.

The thing here is that the SOC is an RC order of nuns obliged, as the Bishop of Elphin reminded them, to comply with the RC Church ethos and rules. Abortions and sterilization procedures are contrary to that ethos. He deliberately painted the nuns into an ethos corner.

At the moment, those procedures carried out at Holles St NMH are supposed to be part and parcel of the Nov deal and, according to Dr Mahoney, those procedures have been given a guarantee of non-interference with by religious ethos when it comes to them being carried out at the new NMH.

Given your position on abortion, will you follow the nuns if they follow their obligations to the RC ethos and, as owners of the new NMH, refuse to allow Holles St procedures there preventing the NMH staff headed by Dr Mahoney from carrying out procedures, costing you, I and all other Irish taxpayers €30 million funding for an unusable hospital or will you choose to follow your desire of value for tax money from the SOC nuns?

volchitsa

......... wrote: »

That's exactly my feeling, it's high time the state started providing it own services instead of relying on cosy private set ups. - but the politicians do love using state funds to do cosy deals with private enterprises and organisations in Ireland and relying on them to do their work for them. - Seldom to the benefit of citizens.

Maybe someday the state and it's politicians will be held to account for the deals they do and enter into. Instead they get away every time with blaming everyone else.

This is the bit I don't get about your argument. Surely objecting to letting the MoH do this deal under such ambiguous conditions is holding them to account?

What else are you expecting people to do, or are you suggesting we just continue complaining without ever doing anything - as though the government were as uncontrollable as the weather?

.........

volchitsa wrote: »

This is the bit I don't get about your argument. Surely objecting to letting the MoH do this deal under such ambiguous conditions is holding them to account?

What else are you expecting people to do, or are you suggesting we just continue complaining without ever doing anything - as though the government were as uncontrollable as the weather?

I don't expect you would.

Hypocritically as usual, the only reason there is an outcry is because they done a deal with some old nuns, and people and politicians are happy enough to blame it on them instead of the politicians and state that approached them, and made the deal. If they had tossed a billion extra to some of the usual private sector cronies instead to sweeten their tax free caymen island back accounts, there wouldn't be a word about it. The state is never held to account in this country.

volchitsa

......... wrote: »

Because, hypocritically, the only reason there is an outcry is because they done a deal with some old nuns. If they tossed a billion extra to some of the usual private sector cromies to sweeten their tax free caymen island back accounts, there wouldn't be a word about it. Other than that the state is never held to account in this country.

That doesn't answer my question.

Unless you're saying that you have no problem with this deal and think it should go ahead.

Are you?

.........

volchitsa wrote: »

That doesn't answer my question.

Unless you're saying that you have no problem with this deal and think it should go ahead.

Are you?

I answered it, the only reason there is any fuss it because it was some old nuns they done a deal with. No the state should stop entering any cosy deals with any private sector entities to our continual detriment , not just some old nuns, who the state and politicians chased after for whatever cosy financial reason benefited them, not the other way around.

volchitsa

......... wrote: »

What question ? No the state should stop entering any cosy deals with any private sector entities to our continual detriment , not just some old nuns, who the state and politicians chased after for whatever cosy financial reason, not the other way around.

Well my question was an attempt to clarify what you think should be done about this instance, and not all the other possible or past ones.

Maybe it's just me, but I'm still not entirely sure I know what you're saying.

Basically, are you saying that stopping this deal going ahead as it had been planned is a necessary but not sufficient action, or are you saying that you wouldn't bother too much with this one because there are so many others that you think should take priority?

.........

volchitsa wrote: »

Well my question was an attempt to clarify what you think should be done about this instance, and not all the other possible or past ones.

I'm still not entirely sure I know what you're saying.

Basically, are you saying that stopping this deal going ahead as it had been planned is a necessary but not sufficient action, or are you saying that you wouldn't bother too much with this one because there are so many others that you think should take priority?

I'm saying the state should stop doing any of these type of deal with anyone. Not this hypocritical shyte that any cosy deal Irish politicians do is ok, just as long as they don't do one with some old nuns, who the politicians get away with yet again with blaming for their own incompetence and the public swallow it hook line and sinker.

marienbad

......... wrote: »

I'm saying the state should stop doing any of these type of deal with anyone. Not this hypocritical shyte that any cosy deal Irish politicians do is ok, just as long as they don't do one with some old nuns, who the politicians get away with yet again with blaming for their own incompetence and the public swallow it hook line and sinker.

so all you are saying is the politicians are all a shower of crooks anyways , so why single out just the nuns .

What a great philosophy for the 21st century

marienbad

......... wrote: »

When are the state and Irish politicians ever going to be help to account for any of the deals they enter that aren't with some old nuns ? The 22nd Century ?
What a great philosophy

Well we have to start some here so why not make a start with the case before us right now ?

.........

marienbad wrote: »

Well we have to start some here so why not make a start with the case before us right now ?

Start now ?

Since when are the state and it's politicians being held to account in this deal instead of getting away with blaming some old nuns ?

volchitsa

......... wrote: »

I'm saying the state should stop doing any of these type of deal with anyone. Not this hypocritical shyte that any cosy deal Irish politicians do is ok, just as long as they don't do one with some old nuns, who the politicians get away with yet again with blaming for their own incompetence and the public swallow it hook line and sinker.

Nobody has said any other deal is ok, and I think you're being disingenuous in describing this one as being a deal "with some old nuns".

One of the queries I have about this deal is who will own the land and who will have the three places on the board when the last nun is dead.

I think that's a crucial question, don't you?

And whether the answer is "the Vatican" (or some subsidiary) or "some anonymous group of doctors, bankers and/or politicians" or indeed some other unaccountable private group, none of those answers would satisfy me.

So no, it's not just because it's "some aul nuns".

Although the "some aul' nuns" in question have a record of abuse that would also concern me, as an entirely separate issue. Just another reason for ensuring that they don't get anywhere near the control of the board, as well as the financial aspect that I would object to no matter what private group was involved.

.........

volchitsa wrote: »

Nobody has said any other deal is ok, and I think you're being disingenuous in describing this one as being a deal "with some old nuns".

One of the queries I have about this deal is who will own the land and who will have the three places on the board when the last nun is dead.

I think that's a crucial question, don't you?

And whether the answer is "the Vatican" (or some subsidiary) or "some anonymous group of doctors, bankers and/or politicians" or indeed some other unaccountable private group, none of those answers would satisfy me.

So no, it's not just because it's "some aul nuns".

Although the "some aul' nuns" in question have a record of abuse that would also concern me, as an entirely separate issue. Just another reason for ensuring that they don't get anywhere near the control of the board, as well as the financial aspect that I would object to no matter what private group was involved.

Why do the politicians want to build on the nuns land, instead of the state buying and owning their own ? Why does it have to be on private lands that the state won't own ? There is thousands of acres of other state and developers lands lying idle round Dublin that are just as good a location, but apparently none of them offer a sweet enough deal and opportunity for our politicians and no one smells a rat and is happy enough with its all the nuns fault excuse.

volchitsa

......... wrote: »

Start now ?

Since when are the state and it's politicians being held to account in this deal instead of getting away with blaming some old nuns ?

You do seem to have a worrying obsession about not blaming "some old nuns". Who's blaming them?
The question that matters is what do we do next.

You don't really imagine that the nuns themselves, average age 76 I believe, are really in charge, do you? These are multinational organizations, and as the religious themselves die off and are not replaced they are gradually being taken over by "trusts" whose make-up is entirely unaccountable to the people.

You really think that we should go ahead without knowing who exactly will own our national maternity hospital in 10 or 20 years?

.........

volchitsa wrote: »

You do seem to have a worrying obsession about not blaming "some old nuns". Who's blaming them?
The question that matters is what do we do next.

You don't really imagine that the nuns themselves, average age 76 I believe, are really in charge, do you? These are multinational organizations, and as the religious themselves die off and are not replaced they are gradually being taken over by "trusts" whose make-up is entirely unaccountable to the people.

You really think that we should go ahead without knowing who exactly will own our national maternity hospital in 10 or 20 years?

Actually the only reason you're obsessed with it is because the landowner is some nuns. No one would care what dodgy deal is done otherwise.
So when is the state and the politicians that done this deal going to be held to account ? No sign of it yet and the deal still seems to be going ahead.

volchitsa

......... wrote: »

So when is the state and the politicians that done this deal going to be held to account ? No sign of it yet and the deal still seems to be going ahead.

What do you think should happen exactly?

(Your post didn't answer my question by the way.)

.........

volchitsa wrote: »

What do you think should happen exactly?

The state should start providing citizens with state services on state owned lands instead of relying on cosy deals with private sector entities, but where would be the profit in that for Irish politicians ? Do politicians really expect us to believe the only place in Dublin this hospital can be built is on private land owned by nuns, that they are clearly desperate to enter any deal to get building on and then blame nuns for the deal ? Are the Irish public really seen as that gullible ?

One eyed Jack

aloyisious wrote: »

Given your position on abortion, will you follow the nuns if they follow their obligations to the RC ethos and, as owners of the new NMH, refuse to allow Holles St procedures there preventing the NMH staff headed by Dr Mahoney from carrying out procedures, costing you, I and all other Irish taxpayers €30 million funding for an unusable hospital or will you choose to follow your desire of value for tax money from the SOC nuns?

I believe that the State is getting value for money with the deal that was in place originally. It's a maternity unit, not an abortion clinic.

looksee

Brexit. The EU is not happy about Britain leaving the EU. It would suit the UK very well to not have to support NI. There is not likely to be a hard border across Ireland, much easier to make the coastline the border. EU offers Ireland and NI support to create a united Ireland. This is not going to happen while the RC church has a hold on what should be secular state services. Throw enough money at the situation and amazingly solutions will be found, a secular state will emerge, and everyone (well, most people) will be happy.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I believe that the State is getting value for money with the deal that was in place originally. It's a maternity unit, not an abortion clinic.

So a Catholic ethos then ?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

So a Catholic ethos then ?

Yes?

(I would have thought that was obvious)

pilly

......... wrote:

The state should start providing citizens with state services on state owned lands instead of relying on cosy deals with private sector entities, but where would be the profit in that for Irish politicians ? Do politicians really expect us to believe the only place in Dublin this hospital can be built is on private land owned by nuns, that they are clearly desperate to enter any deal to get building on and then blame nuns for the deal ? Are the Irish public really seen as that gullible ?

You really are just ranting rubbish now. There is a very good reason for the fact that the hospital has to go there which has been explained a ton of times.

But continue on with the blah blah blah. I don't see anyone here saying nuns are bad and government good. If you can point me towards someone who is I might understand your ravings.

Lau2976

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I believe that the State is getting value for money with the deal that was in place originally. It's a maternity unit, not an abortion clinic.

Where else do you propose those procedures be carried out?

ohnonotgmail

Lau2976 wrote: »

Where else do you propose those procedures be carried out?

England?

One eyed Jack

Lau2976 wrote: »

Where else do you propose those procedures be carried out?

I would expect that the hospital would adhere to current legislation in place. I wouldn't be willing to speculate upon a potential future in which legislation may or may not change depending upon an issue which hasn't even been put to the people in a referendum yet.