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
Comments
-
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.
The assurances given in good faith by Dr Mahoney all rest on the assurances given TO HER in the deal worked out in Nov. To date and as of now there is nothing signed, sealed and delivered from the SOC order to Dr Mahoney, Holles St NMH, or anyone else changing that prior assurance by the SOC into an immutable legal fact. It's an unavoidable fact that that assurance is solely in the unsigned deal worked out by Keiran Mulvey, and like a cloud of smoke, can be blown away at will.
This covers your last response to me as well. The nuns have a prior commitment to RCC ethos and rules over and above any deal worked out in Mov by Keiran Mulvey. That prior commitment is the hidden iceberg which is sinking the deal and it's revelation now may, peculiarly enough, be the saving of many an irish woman's life in the new NMH, if that deal had gone ahead, and they had been admitted to it under the impression they were as safe there as at Holles St with it's permitted procedures, only to find out they had been given the wrong facts.
The issue of current and/or future legislation and obligations to them (IMO) carries no weight with the nuns when it comes to their prior commitment, no matter what weight it carries with you. Those fine legalities are but secularities to them.0 -
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.
Well lots of procedures that are currently legal are not allowed under a Catholic ethos , so we don't have to do any speculating .
If it is against the Catholic ethos it is not done - end of . Forget the nuclear option that is abortion , what about all the other procedures that are just normal medical practice everywhere else - are you ok with them being banned also ?0 -
I really can't see why Simon Harris or a rep from the HSE doesn't ask the SOC directly on their views on the new hospital carrying out abortions, contraception, tubal ligation and transgender procedures.
Perhaps they wouldn't like the answer.0 -
I really can't see why Simon Harris or a rep from the HSE doesn't ask the SOC directly on their views on the new hospital carrying out abortions, contraception, tubal ligation and transgender procedures.
Perhaps they wouldn't like the answer.
Perhaps they didn't like the idea of knowing they were being sold a pup.0 -
Well lots of procedures that are currently legal are not allowed under a Catholic ethos , so we don't have to do any speculating .
If it is against the Catholic ethos it is not done - end of . Forget the nuclear option that is abortion , what about all the other procedures that are just normal medical practice everywhere else - are you ok with them being banned also ?
I'm ok with whatever way Rhona Mahony would run the new hospital. She is in the best position to make any determinations regarding procedures and services carried out in the new hospital.0 -
Advertisement
-
aloyisious wrote: »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.
I'm not buying the yarn the only place and way a NMH could be built was on land that remained in the ownership of nuns. Nor the yarn that nuns or anyone else should be forced to allow state abortions to be carried on their property, nor that those representing the state could not have foreseen any of this would be an issue until after they signed up to their own deal.0 -
I'd imagine there's a level of cognitive dissonance here in that you'll listen to Mahony because it suits your argument in this instance but you'll ignore her advice on repealing the 8th (which is informed by the wealth of experience and professional credentials you're lauding).One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm ok with whatever way Rhona Mahony would run the new hospital. She is in the best position to make any determinations regarding procedures and services carried out in the new hospital.
The fact is that appealing to authority to support your argument while blind to the facts in front of you is flawed. Coincidentally the same argument was used in support of Michael Neary by the nurses/doctors under his duty when he was carrying out all his peripartum hysterectomies.0 -
Anita Blow wrote: »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.
I'm not doing any such thing. If anyone has been framing this as a religion vs secularism debate, it's posters who object to the funding of the new maternity unit on the grounds that there are religious orders involved. You're reaching there to assume I would defend the proposals on the basis of my religion as I have never made any argument on that basis. That's probably why you might think I'm being obtuse, because you're expecting I should make an argument based upon my religion. You're ignoring the fact that I already stated I was asking a question as a taxpayer (a question which still remains unanswered btw!).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.
Sure, I can understand why that would be a valid concern for people, but I personally don't feel it should negate the proposed agreement which offers far more benefits to the taxpayer than any suggested alternatives so far.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.
I can if she is the current Master of the IMH.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.
Perhaps because it's as simple as the benefits of the proposed agreement, by far and above outweigh the negatives.0 -
I'm not buying the yarn the only place and way a NMH could be built was on land that remained in the ownership of nuns. Nor the yarn that nuns or anyone else should be forced to allow state abortions to be carried on their property.
A selling point for the Holles St NMH people in its relocation was that it'd be to a site with an existing hospital (SVH). Read what Dr Mahoney herself stated to that regard. If you know of another similar or larger plot of land with a hospital already on site in Dublin with space for the new NMH as thought good enough by her and outside the ownership of nuns, please let us know about it.
As for your second point, that makes your position on the issue of the proposed new NMH at SVH clear and the reason now perfectly clear (abortion)0 -
Since one example you were given concerned the refusal to let cancer patients participate in a drug trial because they would have to take contraception, would you care to explain why you think the benefits of putting maternity patients in this sort of environment "by far and above" outweigh negatives like that?One eyed Jack wrote: »Perhaps because it's as simple as the benefits of the proposed agreement, by far and above outweigh the negatives.
Are you saying that so many women and babies are dying now that a few more possibly dying of lung cancer is a price worth paying?
Or are you assuming that whatever you're told by Rhona Mahony about pregnancy care is true?
And in that case, is she also right that the 8th amendment harms women's pregnancy care?0 -
Advertisement
-
Since one example you were given concerned the refusal to let cancer patients participate in a drug trial because they would have to take contraception, would you care to explain why you think the benefits of putting maternity patients in this sort of environment "by far and above" outweigh negatives like that?
Because the care that is provided would outweigh this issue (or the other examples you can think of).Are you saying that so many women and babies are dying now that a few more possibly dying of lung cancer is a price worth paying?
Are you asking a question, or trying to put words in my mouth?Or are you assuming that whatever you're told by Rhona Mahony about pregnancy care is true?
No.And in that case, is she also right that the 8th amendment harms women's pregnancy care?
The existence of the 8th amendment doesn't, in and of itself, harm women's pregnancy care. I would suggest it's the interpretation of it by some people could lead to harmful consequences for pregnant women and the unborn. I would also suggest though, that these cases would happen regardless of the existence of the 8th amendment or the influence of the religious orders on how hospitals are run. This has more to do I would suggest with the potential for litigation and bad publicity, than it has anything to do with complying with a religious ethos.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm not doing any such thing. If anyone has been framing this as a religion vs secularism debate, it's posters who object to the funding of the new maternity unit on the grounds that there are religious orders involved. You're reaching there to assume I would defend the proposals on the basis of my religion as I have never made any argument on that basis. That's probably why you might think I'm being obtuse, because you're expecting I should make an argument based upon my religion. You're ignoring the fact that I already stated I was asking a question as a taxpayer (a question which still remains unanswered btw!).
And you cannot see why people are opposed to a piece of infrastructure the taxpayer is funding being handed over to a private religious entity? Would you be defending it if it was being handed over to Denis O'Brien? I imagine you'd be as outraged as the rest of us.
As a taxpayer, the site has been valued at around 37.5 million. That represents about a 10% increase in the cost of the build, which saves us money down the line should we later need to acquire the hospital back or any other unforeseen circumstance pops up. As a taxpayer you should also be worried that it is being handed over to an organisation which, as has been rightly pointed out above, we do not know who or what will be running it in 10-20 years down the line when the order dies out.
What innumerable benefits does it offer? You've only offered some vague argument about saving some money, but the cost of the site is paltry compared with the overall build and many including myself have pointed out the many ways in which religious-ownership of hospitals has been detrimental to care.One eyed Jack wrote: »Sure, I can understand why that would be a valid concern for people, but I personally don't feel it should negate the proposed agreement which offers far more benefits to the taxpayer than any suggested alternatives so far.One eyed Jack wrote: »
I can if she is the current Master of the IMH.
Donald Trump is the current president of the US. Doesn't mean I'm going to take his opinion at the expense of his predecessors.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Because the care that is provided would outweigh this issue (or the other examples you can think of).
Well that's a silly argument. The hospital doesn't provide all the care it could or should, but it's good at the limited stuff it does offer? This is a National maternity hospital. It has to offer the most comprehensive services that no other centre can't.
"This emergency department can't treat burns or stabwounds or heart attacks or broken bones. But hey it fixes chest infections really good so therefore we shouldn't do anything to try treat those other things"0 -
aloyisious wrote: »A selling point for the Holles St NMH people in its relocation was that it'd be to a site with an existing hospital (SVH). Read what Dr Mahoney herself stated to that regard. If you know of another similar or larger plot of land with a hospital already on site in Dublin with space for the new NMH as thought good enough by her and outside the ownership of nuns, please let us know about it.
I'm still not buying the yarn that the state had no other option open to them, or that they are not responsible for the deal they made.aloyisious wrote: »As for your second point, that makes your position on the issue of the proposed new NMH at SVH clear and the reason now perfectly clear (abortion)
No my position is that the state should be providing its own services on its own land instead of politicians doing lucrative deals for themselves with anyone in the private sector regardless of their religion or none.
I also think that no landowner, regardless of who they are, should be forced to allow state abortions to be carried out in their property against their will, if you think they should, that actually makes your real agenda in all this pretty clear.0 -
Anita Blow wrote: »Well that's a silly argument. The hospital doesn't provide all the care it could or should, but it's good at the limited stuff it does offer? This is a National maternity hospital. It has to offer the most comprehensive services that no other centre can't.
"This emergency department can't treat burns or stabwounds or heart attacks or broken bones. But hey it fixes chest infections really good so therefore we shouldn't do anything to try treat those other things"
How is it a silly argument that a hospital excel at the services it does provide, rather than attempt to provide services it doesn't? At the moment Holles St. is deemed unfit as a maternity hospital, and the new maternity unit adjacent to an acute unit is in line with international best practice to provide a better service to pregnant women and their unborn. Why would that not be of benefit to the hundreds of women who give birth every year?0 -
This seems to be an argument you are having with yourself. Nobody has said that the state are not responsible. Though the deal is not actually made yet, which is why it's being queried at this stage while its hopefully not yet too lat to change it.I'm still not buying the yarn that the state had no other option open to them, or that they are not responsible for the deal they made.
So would that be only abortions? What about IVF or indeed contraception?No my position is that the state should be providing its own services on its own land instead of politicians doing lucrative deals for themselves with anyone in the private sector regardless of their religion or none.
I also think that no landowner, regardless of who they are, should be forced to allow state abortions to be carried out in their property against their will, if you think they should, that actually makes your real agenda in all this pretty clear.
If you're going to allow full freedom of conscience to the landowner, it makes it pretty much impossible for any religious hospital ever to provide maternity care except as a small department where emergencies will be passed on to a bigger hospital.
I'd have no problem with that, but current practices are heading the other way, with fewer hospitals built but more complex maternity services provided within those big centres of excellence.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »I'm not doing any such thing. If anyone has been framing this as a religion vs secularism debate, it's posters who object to the funding of the new maternity unit on the grounds that there are religious orders involved. You're reaching there to assume I would defend the proposals on the basis of my religion as I have never made any argument on that basis. That's probably why you might think I'm being obtuse, because you're expecting I should make an argument based upon my religion. You're ignoring the fact that I already stated I was asking a question as a taxpayer (a question which still remains unanswered btw!).
Sure, I can understand why that would be a valid concern for people, but I personally don't feel it should negate the proposed agreement which offers far more benefits to the taxpayer than any suggested alternatives so far.
I can if she is the current Master of the IMH.
Perhaps because it's as simple as the benefits of the proposed agreement, by far and above outweigh the negatives.
Answer to taxpayers question.. If the new NMH was unable to operate to the extent that the old NMH was in regard to independence in surgical operations, then the taxpayer would not be getting a fair return on the monies invested. Pregnant women are taxpayers too. It's the ethos, not the religious, that's the snag; as you worded it below.
Answer to your (I see why the ethos of the owners would be a valid concern for people but believe that the insistence of the hospital owners that their ethos must be complied with by the board yet personally don't feel it should negate the proposed agreement which offers far more benefits to the taxpayer than any suggested alternatives so far)... I notice that you use the word "should" not "would" when you mention benefits to the taxpayer. So, what about the benefits in practical turns to pregnant taxpaying women patients in regard to their choices in the new NMH?
Answer to your (I can if she is the current Master of the IMH).... That citation rests solely on what's in the Nov deal her (and your) response to the ethos snag rely on. Her authority is undermined by the deal proposal that the new SVHG owners on its board can undercut her operational freedom any time they choose. Without that freedom, her authority is equal to that of former masters, zilch.
Answer to your (Perhaps because it's as simple as the benefits of the proposed agreement, by far and above outweigh the negatives)..... Run that one past the pregnant taxpaying women who WILL be patients in the new NMH ir it sees the light of day. They'll probably see any negatives in a different light to you.0 -
This seems to be an argument you are having with yourself. Nobody has said that the state are not responsible. Though the deal is not actually made yet, which is why it's being queried at this stage while its hopefully not yet too lat to change it.
So would that be only abortions? What about IVF or indeed contraception?
If you're going to allow full freedom of conscience to the landowner, it makes it pretty much impossible for any religious hospital ever to provide maternity care except as a small department where emergencies will be passed on to a bigger hospital.
I'd have no problem with that, but current practices are heading the other way, with fewer hospitals built but more complex maternity services provided within those big centres of excellence.
In realty the vast majority of the posts are devoted to complaining that the nuns won't allow certain procedures against their beliefs to be carried out on their property, and very little about the states total incompetence in their own deal. What did the state expect, that they could force and threaten them, or any other landowner for that matter, after the deal was signed up ? Is that the game ?0 -
Anita Blow wrote: »And you cannot see why people are opposed to a piece of infrastructure the taxpayer is funding being handed over to a private religious entity? Would you be defending it if it was being handed over to Denis O'Brien? I imagine you'd be as outraged as the rest of us.
If a private entity could provide a better service to more people than the current situation, I wouldn't care who it was provided by as long as I as a taxpayer was getting what I considered to be value for money and a good return on investment. Of course I can see why some people would object to the unit being built on site donated by a private religious entity, but I don't think those concerns are enough to warrant it not being built there. I think that's an easy to understand position?As a taxpayer, the site has been valued at around 37.5 million. That represents about a 10% increase in the cost of the build, which saves us money down the line should we later need to acquire the hospital back or any other unforeseen circumstance pops up. As a taxpayer you should also be worried that it is being handed over to an organisation which, as has been rightly pointed out above, we do not know who or what will be running it in 10-20 years down the line when the order dies out.
As a taxpayer, I'm more concerned that international best practice is being snubbed because some people are getting their knickers in a twist over minutae and delaying the project by another 10-20 years, driving up costs exponentially (it's already cost the State 4.5m to get to this point, and the sale of Holles St. could net the State €150m which would be offset against the cost of the new maternity unit).What innumerable benefits does it offer? You've only offered some vague argument about saving some money, but the cost of the site is paltry compared with the overall build and many including myself have pointed out the many ways in which religious-ownership of hospitals has been detrimental to care.
A far better service to the citizens of the State (including the unborn), than the services and conditions currently available in Holles St.Donald Trump is the current president of the US. Doesn't mean I'm going to take his opinion at the expense of his predecessors.
Dennis O' Brien, Donald Trump, this is like the post that has it all (and I think I made a fairly good attempt at trying to keep my reply on topic rather than go off on all sorts of strawman tangents).0 -
I'm still not buying the yarn that the state had no other option open to them, or that they are not responsible for the deal they made.
No my position is that the state should be providing its own services on its own land instead of politicians doing lucrative deals for themselves with anyone in the private sector regardless of their religion or none.
I also think that no landowner, regardless of who they are, should be forced to allow state abortions to be carried out in their property against their will, if you think they should, that actually makes your real agenda in all this pretty clear.
You appear to be ignoring the reason the SVH campus was chosen; the pre-existing hospital on site being seen as the draw for the Holles St NMH. There is no other existing location that fulfils those Holles St NMH requirements. The deal rests on that premise, regardless of the Govt.
As to the issue of abortion, when it comes to the health of pregnant women patients I elect to let them, their doctors and consultants decide on the matter, not the ethos of an outside agency, Ta for the "real agenda" comment.
BTW, no threat or use of force has been issued or used by the Govt against the SOC and NO DEAL has been signed by the Govt. As you seem to be ahead of the posse here, can you show us the details of Govt force and threats to the SOC you know of?
I've edited the above to delete "other land-owners" references in replying to the O/P, as the SOC are the only land-owners pertinent to the thread.0 -
Advertisement
-
Nuns0
-
In realty the vast majority of the posts are devoted to complaining that the nuns won't allow certain procedures against their beliefs to be carried out on their property, and very little about the states total incompetence in their own deal. What did the state expect, that they could force and threaten them, or any other landowner for that matter, after the deal was signed up ? Is that the game ?
I've no idea what you're on about, you appear to be making up your own arguments again.
The original deal was allegedly that the SOc nuns would not prevent any legal procedures including legal abortion, IVF, sterilizations etc taking place in the new NMH, same as the old NMH.
People are suggesting that this seems a lot less sure than Simon Harris said of implied, and than Rhona Mahony said.
Only you, afaics, are saying that the new NMH in SVHG should actually be allowed not carry out legal procedures that are not in line with church teaching. So I don't know why you're complaining that the state was going to bully the order into this afterwards - the state, in the shape of the Master and the Chair of the Board, and also the Min for Health, all believe/believed that this was done and dusted, and no bullying would be needed.
Why, what was your understanding of the original deal?0 -
I'm still not buying the yarn that the state had no other option open to them, or that they are not responsible for the deal they made.
I missed the claims that the State isn't responsible for the deals it makes. It tried to make a deal, we all noticed what the terms were, we complain at the State about it until the State reconsiders. This is democracy in action.No my position is that the state should be providing its own services on its own land instead of politicians doing lucrative deals for themselves with anyone in the private sector regardless of their religion or none.
I also think that no landowner, regardless of who they are, should be forced to allow state abortions to be carried out in their property against their will, if you think they should, that actually makes your real agenda in all this pretty clear.
Then if landowners don't want abortions carried out on their premises, or say, medical waste burned on their premises (as I am sure many landowners would prefer it wasn't)...then don't offer your land to build a state hospital on. They abide by the law of the land or they gtfo of tendering for State deals (or say a polite "no" when asked if they'd like to lease their land for a hospital).
I think most people would indeed prefer that this hospital was being built on State land (although I do see the issue of linked hospitals so eh) and none of this fannying around with Catholic orders for it.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »If a private entity could provide a better service to more people than the current situation, I wouldn't care who it was provided by as long as I as a taxpayer was getting what I considered to be value for money and a good return on investment. Of course I can see why some people would object to the unit being built on site donated by a private religious entity, but I don't think those concerns are enough to warrant it not being built there. I think that's an easy to understand position?
What return on investment is there from handing publicly-funded infrastructure to a private entity? There is literally zero return of financial investment. Even profits from the private element of the hospital, like Vincent's Private, will go to a private entity despite being built from public money.
Also you're being completely disingenuous with this "site donated by a private religious entity" line and your previous suggestion that a religious order is merely "involved" in the process. You sidestep the reality that the private entity is getting the hospital out of this. If I offer a friend my land to build their house on, but make them give me the house when it's built, I haven't donated anything.
You're describing handing over full ownership of a publicly-funded national hospital with a lifespan of 100 years as "minutae". Also you're conflating people's objection to handing ownership to a private entity with people's objection to the new hospital being built. At no point has anybody argued the hospital shouldn't be built so your argument with regard to a better service for the citizens is null, because that isn't a unique benefit of a religiously-owned hospital that warrants us transferring ownership over.One eyed Jack wrote: »As a taxpayer, I'm more concerned that international best practice is being snubbed because some people are getting their knickers in a twist over minutae and delaying the project by another 10-20 years, driving up costs exponentially (it's already cost the State 4.5m to get to this point, and the sale of Holles St. could net the State €150m which would be offset against the cost of the new maternity unit).
A far better service to the citizens of the State (including the unborn), than the services and conditions currently available in Holles St.0 -
Anita Blow wrote: »What return on investment is there from handing publicly-funded infrastructure to a private entity? There is literally zero return of financial investment. Even profits from the private element of the hospital, like Vincent's Private, will go to a private entity despite being built from public money.
Better standards of provision of maternity care for women and children is a considerable return on investment and the current proposals offer far better value for money in that respect than the idea of building a whole new secular hospital with an acute unit and an adjacent maternity unit while Holles St. remains unfit for purpose while negotiations are still ongoing. This deal should have been done and dusted by now IMO.Also you're being completely disingenuous with this "site donated by a private religious entity" line and your previous suggestion that a religious order is merely "involved" in the process. You sidestep the reality that the private entity is getting the hospital out of this. If I offer a friend my land to build their house on, but make them give me the house when it's built, I haven't donated anything.
The private entity already has the hospital. What they'd be getting is a maternity unit. What the State would be getting is a bargain. What the people of Ireland would be getting is a far better standard of maternity care than that which is currently being delivered at Holles St.You're describing handing over full ownership of a publicly-funded national hospital with a lifespan of 100 years as "minutae". Also you're conflating people's objection to handing ownership to a private entity with people's objection to the new hospital being built. At no point has anybody argued the hospital shouldn't be built so your argument with regard to a better service for the citizens is null, because that isn't a unique benefit of a religiously-owned hospital that warrants us transferring ownership over.
As I said earlier - I couldn't care less if it was religiously owned or it wasn't. You're correct in saying that nobody has suggested that a new hospital shouldn't be built, but the question I'm asking of those people is how much would I have to pay for their proposals?
Nobody appears to want to offer an answer to that question! It shouldn't be that difficult to answer, though I suspect that the same people who object to the current proposals would also be opposed to funding the cost of buying a site, building a best in class hospital that provided every service they wanted, and funding said hospital in perpetuity, governed by an Executive Committee appointed by politicians like Simon Harris who takes a month to make up his mind.
Ball park figure even, just for shìts 'n' giggles?0 -
I missed the claims that the State isn't responsible for the deals it makes. It tried to make a deal, we all noticed what the terms were, we complain at the State about it until the State reconsiders. This is democracy in action.
It didn't try to make a deal, it made the deal, and it hasn't changed anything about it yet.
I don't recall the state putting anything about the deal to a vote. More like Democracy not in action.Then if landowners don't want abortions carried out on their premises, or say, medical waste burned on their premises (as I am sure many landowners would prefer it wasn't)...then don't offer your land to build a state hospital on. They abide by the law of the land or they gtfo of tendering for State deals (or say a polite "no" when asked if they'd like to lease their land for a hospital).
I think most people would indeed prefer that this hospital was being built on State land (although I do see the issue of linked hospitals so eh) and none of this fannying around with Catholic orders for it.
The nuns didn't ask for a hospital on their land, the state came knocking on their door looking to locate one on their property. Are we really supposed to believe this is the only land in Ireland suitable for a NMH ?0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Better standards of provision of maternity care for women and children is a considerable return on investment and the current proposals offer far better value for money in that respect than the idea of building a whole new secular hospital with an acute unit and an adjacent maternity unit while Holles St. remains unfit for purpose while negotiations are still ongoing. This deal should have been done and dusted by now IMO.
Except it doesn't. Several instances have been pointed out to you where standard of care and medical services is limited by Catholic ethos. SVUH can't perform tubal ligation, Mater can't offer contraception and prescription of teratogenic drugs has been limited in some in SVUH because of the inability to prescribe contraception. If I had said to any of my professors in obs/gynae that they may not be able to prescribe contraception, they would laugh in my face. It is a core part of modern obs/gynae management, but the catholic leadership has made it clear that the SOC would not be allowed to condone it with relation to the NMH and their most recent 2010 guidelines expressly forbid it still in their hospitals.
Again it has also been pointed out to you that nobody is opposing building the hospital so your argument that people are suggesting we build a new secular hospital and an entirely new acute hospital is irrelevant. The DoH is literally investigating new options of ownership on the back of this backlash so there clearly is other options available such as purchasing or leasing the land for a nominal sum, which has been mooted.
Again you're being purposely disingenuous.One eyed Jack wrote: »
The private entity already has the hospital. What they'd be getting is a maternity unit. What the State would be getting is a bargain. What the people of Ireland would be getting is a far better standard of maternity care than that which is currently being delivered at Holles St.
First of all they do not have the hospital. Holles St is owned by a different order. Secondly they are not getting a maternity unit. They are getting the national tertiary centre for obstetrics and gynaecology. That is not a maternity unit- it compromises obstetrics, gynae, neonatology, oncology and women's health. The NMH does a lot more than just deliver babies.
The improved standard of care arising from the hospital is self is by virtue of the fact that it is new, not that it is owned by an order of nuns. Therefore it's irrelevant because the same would apply if it was state-owned.
The answer has been offered by myself 3 times in this thread and several others. The site has been nominally valued at 37.5 million. What you have seen in the backlash to this is people who are perfectly happy to pay a relatively small sum in comparison to the overall build to ensure we retain ownership of key infrastructure that we are paying for ourselves.One eyed Jack wrote: »
Nobody appears to want to offer an answer to that question! It shouldn't be that difficult to answer, though I suspect that the same people who object to the current proposals would also be opposed to funding the cost of buying a site, building a best in class hospital that provided every service they wanted, and funding said hospital in perpetuity, governed by an Executive Committee appointed by politicians like Simon Harris who takes a month to make up his mind.
Ball park figure even, just for shìts 'n' giggles?
In fact it's not that large of a sum when you consider the taxpayer has had to fund, for example, a 30-40 million euro redress scheme for those who received peripartum hysterectomies in OLOL due to the catholic ethos of the hospital at the time. So much for the higher quality, money-saving religious-based care.0 -
It didn't try to make a deal, it made the deal, and it hasn't changed anything about it yet.
I don't recall the state putting anything about the deal to a vote. More like Democracy not in action.
The nuns didn't ask for a hospital on their land, the state came knocking on their door looking to locate one on their property. Are we really supposed to believe this is the only land in Ireland suitable for a NMH ?
Re your mention of the state and a vote, I was under the impression that both SVH and Holles St boards did put the proposed property deal to a vote and both agreed to it on a majority basis.
Re the deal, the facts are that Kieran Mulvey acted as an independent mediator between the SOC and the Dept of Health with the knowledge of the existing NMH and that a deal was provisionally brokered and agreed last Nov.
As for this of your's (Are we really supposed to believe this is the only land in Ireland suitable for a NMH) given that a requirement for the new NMH would be somewhere reasonably close to its present location (in this case approx 3 Kilometers away) for the reason stated by Dr Mahoney (the Master of Holles St NMH) the presence of an existing hospital close to the new NMH, in this case on the same campus just across the campus internal ambulance access road.
This is the third time I have pointed out to you the proximity of the existing SVH to the new NMH at the SVH campus in the deal Dr Mahoney supports and how important that is to Dr Mahoney NMH plans.0 -
One eyed Jack wrote: »Better standards of provision of maternity care for women and children is a considerable return on investment and the current proposals offer far better value for money in that respect than the idea of building a whole new secular hospital with an acute unit and an adjacent maternity unit while Holles St. remains unfit for purpose while negotiations are still ongoing. This deal should have been done and dusted by now IMO.
The private entity already has the hospital. What they'd be getting is a maternity unit. What the State would be getting is a bargain. What the people of Ireland would be getting is a far better standard of maternity care than that which is currently being delivered at Holles St.
As I said earlier - I couldn't care less if it was religiously owned or it wasn't. You're correct in saying that nobody has suggested that a new hospital shouldn't be built, but the question I'm asking of those people is how much would I have to pay for their proposals?
Nobody appears to want to offer an answer to that question! It shouldn't be that difficult to answer, though I suspect that the same people who object to the current proposals would also be opposed to funding the cost of buying a site, building a best in class hospital that provided every service they wanted, and funding said hospital in perpetuity, governed by an Executive Committee appointed by politicians like Simon Harris who takes a month to make up his mind.
Ball park figure even, just for shìts 'n' giggles?
Maybe you should approach the people at SVH and ask them how little they'd accept in a deal, you might be able to strike a better deal for us.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's kind of funny - well no actually it's not funny at all really, more sickening, when you think of it - that a "charitable" organization which has special tax-exempted status is hanging on like a fking bloodsucker to land that it mostly got free from Irish people because they imagined that it would be used to help ordinary people. And nobody is even surprised at their behaviour.aloyisious wrote: »Maybe you should approach the people at SVH and ask them how little they'd accept in a deal, you might be able to strike a better deal for us.
They seem to have got very rich out of their "charitable works". Odd, that.0
Advertisement