Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

The NMH at St. Vincents

Options
1…3031333536…58

Comments

  • Options
    #962
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,495 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Yes?

    (I would have thought that was obvious)

    Just going to jump in here. So if down the line and Parliament, after the necessary referenda to change the constitution enacted law that was similar to the abortion act in the UK. You would agree with the National Maternity Hospital refusing to provide such services?

    SD


  • Options
    #963
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    StudentDad wrote: »
    Just going to jump in here. So if down the line and Parliament, after the necessary referenda to change the constitution enacted law that was similar to the abortion act in the UK. You would agree with the National Maternity Hospital refusing to provide such services?


    Jump back another post there SD, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt you missed it though -

    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.


  • Options
    #964
    Lau2976
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Lau2976


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.

    So you think that they should carry out abortions under current legislation? Which means that they will have to carry out abortions which are against the catholic ethos.


  • Options
    #965
    Lau2976
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Lau2976


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    England?

    What about abortions that are currently legal in Ireland already?


  • Options
    #966
    StudentDad
    Registered Users Posts: 1,495 ✭✭✭StudentDad


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    Jump back another post there SD, I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt you missed it though -

    Ah okay. Fair enough.

    SD


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #967
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,459 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Lau2976 wrote: »
    What about abortions that are currently legal in already?

    the response was sarcastic.


  • Options
    #968
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Lau2976 wrote: »
    So you think that they should carry out abortions under current legislation? Which means that they will have to carry out abortions which are against the catholic ethos.


    Not if they can help it. I mean, I wouldn't want anyone to have to undergo an abortion if there were any other way they didn't have to. It's hardly the default go-to option in a maternity unit, which is why placing the maternity unit adjacent to an acute unit is in line with international best practice, and would save the State a ball of cash, and would lead to better outcomes long-term for pregnant women and their unborn.


  • Options
    #969
    volchitsa
    Registered Users Posts: 7,668 ✭✭✭volchitsa


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.

    But abortion is not the only issue. And it would be shortsighted to satisfy ourself with whether the hospital carried out the law as it is today, the NMH is being built for the future, not for today.

    Now Prof Crowne has said that GPs have told him that their referrals of patients to SVHG for sterilization procedures were refused, because of the Catholic ethos. IVF, some forms of contraception, and who knows what future developments might be wanted and accepted by the general public decades before the Catholic church decides to fall in line?

    So is it acceptable that there should be any possible room for doubt about whether the National Maternity Hospital might ever find itself conflicted between its religious ethos and the law?


  • Options
    #970
    Beyondgone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,166 ✭✭✭Beyondgone


    Nuns running a maternity hospital is like saying you'd get Priests to run marriage guidance courses. It's a ridiculous proposition. They'd be coming at it from the wrong angle to start with..


    It'd never happen ffs.


    No...wait.


  • Options
    #971
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    volchitsa wrote: »
    So is it acceptable that there should be any possible room for doubt about whether the National Maternity Hospital might ever find itself conflicted between its religious ethos and the law?


    For what the public were getting, I would have to say that yes, it's an acceptable risk. That's based upon reassurances that were given by the current Master of the NMH, Dr. Rhona Mahony that -

    "This hospital is going to revolutionise healthcare for women and children. No misinformation or side show must get in the way of this focus"

    Source: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/rhona-mahony-new-hospital-will-revolutionise-healthcare-for-women-and-children-1.3061805?mode=amp

    I'd have to agree with her.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #972
    Beyondgone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,166 ✭✭✭Beyondgone


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    For what the public were getting, I would have to say that yes, it's an acceptable risk. That's based upon reassurances that were given by the current Master of the NMH, Dr. Rhona Mahony that -

    "This hospital is going to revolutionise healthcare for women and children. No misinformation or side show must get in the way of this focus"

    I'd have to agree with her.

    She must be new to the HSE. Still clinging to ideals and stuff. Give it time.


  • Options
    #973
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Beyondgone wrote: »
    She must be new to the HSE. Still clinging to ideals and stuff. Give it time.


    I'm not sure whether you're actually being serious or not?


  • Options
    #974
    Beyondgone
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,166 ✭✭✭Beyondgone


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I'm not sure whether you're actually being serious or not?

    Me either. It's that sort of a situation. Vaguely farcical.


  • Options
    #975
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,459 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    Assurances by anybody involved in this deal are worthless. All that matters is what is agreed on paper.


  • Options
    #976
    .........
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭.........


    Beyondgone wrote: »
    She must be new to the HSE. Still clinging to ideals and stuff. Give it time.

    she forgot to call it a "centre of excellence" as it's official title, she'll learn.


  • Options
    #977
    .........
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭.........


    pilly wrote: »
    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.

    I supposed when out of excuses you can attack the poster instead. No there is no posts here complaining about nuns, and instead there are loads of posts here holding the politicians to account for their own mess and own agreement instead. :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #978
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    Assurances by anybody involved in this deal are worthless. All that matters is what is agreed on paper.


    I'm willing to take Rhona Mahony at her word given that she presides over the current NMH of which the Archbishop of Dublin automatically becomes Chairman of the Board.

    When Diarmuid Martin wanted to quit the Board of the NMH back in 2009, he was told it would necessitate an act of the Oireachtas!



    (2) The executive committee shall consist of the following:—


    (a) The Catholic Archbishop of Dublin for the time being.


    (b) The Lord Mayor of Dublin for the time being.


    (c) The Administrator for the time being of the Catholic Parish of Saint Andrew, Westland Row, Dublin.


    (d) The master.


    (e) The honorary secretary.


    (f) The honorary treasurer.


    (g) The governors (if any) nominated pursuant to sub-section (1) of section 4 of this Act.


    (h) The governors (if any) nominated pursuant to sub-section (2) of section 4 of this Act.


    Source: http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1936/prv/2/enacted/en/print#sec11


  • Options
    #979
    .........
    Closed Accounts Posts: 624 ✭✭✭.........


    One eyed Jack wrote: »

    When Diarmuid Martin wanted to quit the Board of the NMH back in 2009, he was told it would necessitate an act of the Oireachtas!

    You can't blame politicians, if he gets off the board who are they going to be able to blame for their own messes then ?

    Must be a unpaid position,or not very politically profitable, or the usual political cronies would be falling over themselves to get appointed to it.


  • Options
    #980
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,459 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I'm willing to take Rhona Mahony at her word given that she presides over the current NMH of which the Archbishop of Dublin automatically becomes Chairman of the Board.

    When Diarmuid Martin wanted to quit the Board of the NMH back in 2009, he was told it would necessitate an act of the Oireachtas!



    (2) The executive committee shall consist of the following:—


    (a) The Catholic Archbishop of Dublin for the time being.


    (b) The Lord Mayor of Dublin for the time being.


    (c) The Administrator for the time being of the Catholic Parish of Saint Andrew, Westland Row, Dublin.


    (d) The master.


    (e) The honorary secretary.


    (f) The honorary treasurer.


    (g) The governors (if any) nominated pursuant to sub-section (1) of section 4 of this Act.


    (h) The governors (if any) nominated pursuant to sub-section (2) of section 4 of this Act.


    Source: http://www.statutebook.ie/eli/1936/prv/2/enacted/en/print#sec11

    no idea why any of this is relevant.


  • Options
    #981
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    no idea why any of this is relevant.


    I'll bet if you try really, really hard, you'll begin to see a connection between the Executive Board of the NMH, and the Executive Board of St. Vincents Healthcare Group.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #982
    Lau2976
    Registered Users Posts: 1,030 ✭✭✭Lau2976


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    the response was sarcastic.

    :pac: sorry I've become a total internet cynic and have started taking things at face value


  • Options
    #983
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,459 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I'll bet if you try really, really hard, you'll begin to see a connection between the Executive Board of the NMH, and the Executive Board of St. Vincents Healthcare Group.

    how is that relevant to any assurances that may be given by those involved? The only thing we can rely on is what has been written down and agreed to. Assurances have no substance.


  • Options
    #984
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    ohnonotgmail wrote: »
    how is that relevant to any assurances that may be given by those involved? The only thing we can rely on is what has been written down and agreed to. Assurances have no substance.


    I already stated that assurances given by Rhona Mahony, the current Master of the IMH, are good enough for me given her track record. Her assurances given her track record, her qualifications and her experience, carry far more weight IMO, than any arguments about any potential conflicts.


  • Options
    #985
    Donal55
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,023 ✭✭✭Donal55


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I already stated that assurances given by Rhona Mahony, the current Master of the IMH, are good enough for me given her track record. Her assurances given her track record, her qualifications and her experience, carry far more weight IMO, than any arguments about any potential conflicts.

    Aren't her two predecessors against it? Plus Dr. John Crowne, plus line Minister Simon Harris isn't exactly sure either.
    A lot of doubt for a €300 million gamble, but then, considering what was wasted on IW, shure its only a drop in the ocean!


  • Options
    #986
    ohnonotgmail
    Registered Users Posts: 40,459 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I already stated that assurances given by Rhona Mahony, the current Master of the IMH, are good enough for me given her track record. Her assurances given her track record, her qualifications and her experience, carry far more weight IMO, than any arguments about any potential conflicts.

    and what carries actual weight is a signed agreement.


  • Options
    #987
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,732 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    ......... wrote: »
    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.

    The reason has been stated several times by the medics (incl Dr Mahoney) from Holles St and others that having a (tertiary) hospital next door in case of emergencies or matters relating to a patients health-care would be a major plus. This doesn't apply at the moment for Holles St NMH but would if the NMH was located at the SVH campus. The plan wasn't concocted because the nuns own the land but because of the availability of the land and SVH being right across the road inside a campus, not across the city via city streets.

    The plan's iceberg was kept out of view by most of those involved to prevent it being sunk.


  • Options
    #988
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    Donal55 wrote: »
    Aren't her two predecessors against it? Plus Dr. John Crowne, plus line Minister Simon Harris isn't exactly sure either.
    A lot of doubt for a €300 million gamble, but then, considering what was wasted on IW, shure its only a drop in the ocean!


    Simon Harris is barely out of nappies, way out of his depth for the position in which he finds himself. As for those opposed to the proposals, I can think of no good reason why they would be opposed to the proposals. I'm baffled by that tbh.


  • Options
    #989
    aloyisious
    Registered Users Posts: 11,732 ✭✭✭✭aloyisious


    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.

    You are then ignoring the fact that abortions are carried out at Holles St and would be at the new NMH. They, and sterilizations, are part of the deal you seem, as a person worried about getting value for your tax money, to be pushing for completion at St Vincents campus.


    https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjb4rzlq8_TAhWGIcAKHeS_BAYQFgg1MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fflood-of-women-seeking-abortions-did-not-happen-conference-hears-1.2964243&usg=AFQjCNFo5Nl6uZqFw6x2qMFFOhDtXQkLmw


  • Options
    #990
    One eyed Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 23,931 ✭✭✭✭One eyed Jack


    aloyisious wrote: »
    You are then ignoring the fact that abortions are carried out at Holles St and would be at the new NMH. They, and sterilizations, are part of the deal you seem, as a person worried about getting value for your tax money, to be pushing for completion at St Vincents campus.


    https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjb4rzlq8_TAhWGIcAKHeS_BAYQFgg1MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irishtimes.com%2Fnews%2Fhealth%2Fflood-of-women-seeking-abortions-did-not-happen-conference-hears-1.2964243&usg=AFQjCNFo5Nl6uZqFw6x2qMFFOhDtXQkLmw


    I'm not at all ignoring anything, which is why I said earlier -
    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    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.


    And why I said I would take the current Master of the IMH at her word, given her track record, qualifications and experience.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #991
    Anita Blow
    Registered Users Posts: 1,933 ✭✭✭Anita Blow


    One eyed Jack wrote: »
    I can think of no good reason why they would be opposed to the proposals. I'm baffled by that tbh.

    Then you're being purposely obtuse because you're framing this as a religion VS secularism debate and due to your religion feel compelled to defend the former. In reality a fairly decent reason why most are opposed is handing over a 300 million euro piece of infrastructure to a private body.
    A second reason is that the management of that private body has explicitly stated the majority of the board must adhere to an ethos which most (as evidenced by the negative public reaction) find at odds with our own ethos.

    You can't cite the Master of the hospital as an appeal to authority and then ignore the fact that ex-Masters and other prominent medics have argued against it.

    Then if you want to look at the religious aspect, we have concrete examples of both current and previous interference with medical practice by these religious orders in the running of their own hospitals. The Mater can't prescribe contraception, SVUH can't perform medically necessary cases of tubal ligation. SVUH has also had the board cancel oncology trials because the patients receiving the drug being investigated had to be on contraception (because the drug itself was teratogenic).
    As a modern, western country it is just baffling that we have people defending this.


Advertisement