The NMH at St. Vincents

aloyisious

The Irish Times is running this article in today's edition on the rules safeguarding the religious ethos of church's health service assets. It is about (4) four religious orders here with health service assets, incl the SOC, In the event of any of the orders leaving the health service provision industry here, the properties are to be handed over to groups or bodies with a similar religious ethos. It seems there will be no turning over of any of the assets at any time to non religious groups or bodies providing the health service needs of the nation.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/rules-safeguard-ethos-of-church-s-health-service-assets-1.3067871

One eyed Jack

Anita Blow wrote: »

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.

I'm not going to keep going over the same thing given that you think telling me the nominal value of the site is all it would actually cost. Repeating it as many times as you like won't change the fact that the site is being donated free of charge, and any maternity unit built on it will likely offer the same services as are currently available at Holles St.

It's pie in the sky idealism IMO to think the SVHG would roll over and take it on being served with a CPO. Politicians know this, which is why Alan Kelly can look great suggesting it, while knowing full well it won't happen. Alan Kelly is well known for his blow-hard commentaries -


The role of Nenagh Hospital in Tipperary is to ‘change drastically’ and this will have an adverse effect on the thousands of people it serves, the Labour Party has claimed.

According to Senator Alan Kelly, he has been given access to a memo from the Director of Nursing, which points to major changes for the hospital.

He said the memo followed a meeting of regional managers in the mid west with the head of the HSE, Prof Brendan Drumm. At this meeting, it was confirmed that:
-Acute surgery and overnight work will be moved to Mid West Regional Hospital in Dooradoyle (Limerick Regional Hospital).
-A&E services in the hospital will be reviewed and will become nurse-led.
-Critical care services will be reviewed. The elderly care unit in the hospital is already closed for the summer.

Senator Kelly said that effectively, Nenagh Hospital will be transferring many of its functions to Limerick Regional. This, he said, will have ‘a drastic impact’ on north Tipperary.

“The memo puts the future of Nenagh Hospital firmly in the category of a day hospital with day surgery, nurse led outpatient clinics and diagnostics to the fore and yet this is a hospital that has a CT scanner lying idle for some sixteen months now. This will mean that any overnight surgery will have to now take place in Limerick, thereby creating hardship for the people in the area,” he insisted.

He pointed out that Nenagh Hospital has been taking on a greater workload since the closure of the hospital in Cashel, with more people now being directed to it from the Thurles area.

“I am sick and tired of the management of our health service by an organisation that refuses to divulge their real plans and when forced to do so ‘spins’ the message incredibly. Why hasn’t Prof Drumm come out and explained his plans for acute services in the mid west Hospitals? Why are we reliant on a drip of information from friendly leaks?” Senator Kelly added.


Source: http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=13838

If Alan Kelly doesn't trust the HSE to manage regional hospitals (in his own constituency), then what the hell is he talking about suggesting that the land could be CPO'd and according to the article you linked to, the NMH managed by the HSE?

I don't think there's much point in us continuing to go round and round in this thread until there's a significant development in the story as I don't think any of us here can honestly predict what might happen next tbh.

Samaris

......... wrote: »

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.

Oh come on. We elect these guys to make decisions, not hold referenda on every decision (actually, presumably we elect these guys so we don't have to have a referendum on everything). When they get it wrong and if we notice, the complaining starts and the State reacts to it. That is quite as much democracy as a working system than a full vote is.

The State seems to be indicating that the deal did not originally include exemptions for medical procedures and advice that the order don't like. Whether it did or not doesn't entirely matter to the situation as it is now, what matters is that people react to it and if enough do, it will be changed. I hope the deal did not, else we've got an even longer way to go.

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 ?

I can't find a source for who approached whom, but taking that as true, the deal at the time -appears- to have ceded ownership of the building and land but insisted on operational independence. Firstly, whoever made the deal overlooking how annoyed many people would be with the religious orders, although I do grant the co-location argument (connected to the one already there). Then a bishop came out and threw a cat amongst the pigeons with his comments indicating that the agreement didn't actually mean much in terms of what healthcare could be provided.

I'm really not sure where you're driving at, tbh. Is it that the Order should run the hospital? That we should complain at the State rather than the Order regarding decisions (the thing that is actually happening!), that these procedures should not be carried out in general in hospitals or that hospitals should be State-run?

Osgoodisgood

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Repeating it as many times as you like won't change the fact that the site is being donated free of charge, and any maternity unit built on it will likely offer the same services as are currently available at Holles St.

:cool:
citation please

lawred2

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"

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.

Ffs

She is not the architect of this agreement. She can say all she likes. Doesn't make it true though.

One eyed Jack

Osgoodisgood wrote: »

:cool:
citation please

The Minister for Health has said there must be "no question of religious interference" with the new National Maternity Hospital. Simon Harris made the statement after a protest was held outside the Department of Health in Dublin over the ownership of the new hospital, which is to be built on the campus of St Vincent's Hospital.

It has emerged that the Religious Sisters of Charity is to be given ownership of the €300m taxpayer-funded hospital because it owns the land on which it is to be built.

Speaking on RTÉ’s Six One, Mr Harris said: "I want to make sure that no religious order makes one cent from this move." The minister said a lien will be put on the building to ensure it cannot be sold; cannot be used for a loan, and cannot be used for any other purpose other than maternity care. Minister Harris said he has written to the Health Service Executive to make sure the State's interest is fully protected. He added that there will be more safeguards in this new maternity hospital than the current maternity hospital at Holles Street.

In a statement earlier, Mr Harris said that "three key criteria must be in place" before the project proceeds beyond the planning stage. Those criteria are: that the "hospital must be developed in line with best international practice for maternity hospitals and co-located with an adult acute hospital"; that the "hospital must have clinical, operational and financial independence, with no question of religious interference"; and that "the State's financial and public health interest in this hospital must be fully protected."

With regard to the final point, Mr Harris said no private entity or religious order can profit in any way from the hospital.

He added that he has met with the Director General of the HSE and requested that these criteria are met before any contracts are entered into. Mr Harris also rejected allegations that nuns from the Sisters of Charity will be running the hospital and that the order has been gifted the hospital.

Source: https://www.rte.ie/news/ireland/2017/0420/868906-national-maternity-hospital/

lawred2 wrote: »

Ffs

She is not the architect of this agreement. She can say all she likes. Doesn't make it true though.

Read the agreement for yourself then -


http://www.nmh.ie/_fileupload/News/Final%20NMH-SVUH%20Agreement%2021_11_16.pdf

Call me Al

One Eyed Jack, that link shows what most here are saying... that we, the public, are gifting them a hospital on their land.
They are not gifting us the land.
They will own everything.

One eyed Jack

Call me Al wrote: »

One Eyed Jack, that link shows what most here are saying... that we, the public, are gifting them a hospital on their land.
They are not gifting is the land.
They will own everything.

We the public, are not gifting them a hospital. We the public are getting a better service by co-locating the hospital on the grounds of the currently located acute hospital, and the State isn't being asked to pay for the site. It doesn't matter to me personally who actually owns the land, or the hospital, as long as it enables the State to provide the best medical care for women and children.

I completely get that it matters to other people though, and I get why it matters to them, but I personally don't see their objections as reasonable grounds to prevent the current proposed agreement from going ahead.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

We the public, are not gifting them a hospital. We the public are getting a better service by co-locating the hospital on the grounds of the currently located acute hospital, and the State isn't being asked to pay for the site. It doesn't matter to me personally who actually owns the land, or the hospital, as long as it enables the State to provide the best medical care for women and children.

I completely get that it matters to other people though, and I get why it matters to them, but I personally don't see their objections as reasonable grounds to prevent the current proposed agreement from going ahead.

As it now stands who will own the hospital and the site when all this is done and dusted ?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

As it now stands who will own the hospital and the site when all this is done and dusted ?

The St. Vincents Healthcare Group.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The St. Vincents Healthcare Group.

so the Nuns are giving the State sweet FA then , correct ?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

so the Nuns are giving the State sweet FA then , correct ?

No?

Is this line of loaded questioning actually going somewhere that hasn't been covered in the thread umpteen times already?

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No?

Is this line of loaded questioning actually going somewhere that hasn't been covered in the thread umpteen times already?

You are banging on for page after page as if ''the Nuns'' were providing a brilliant state of the art service to the people of Ireland .

When the truth of the matter is that they are getting a massive asset to own for NOTHING !

It is like giving RTE over to Dennis O'Brien to run according to his ethos.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No?

Is this line of loaded questioning actually going somewhere that hasn't been covered in the thread umpteen times already?

Its a perfectly reasonable question, are you going to respond to it or hide behind rhetorical questions?

And why do you keep saying that patients will get first class/world class treatment when it has been established (in an uncompromising statement by a bishop) that no matter who agrees to what, a Catholic ethos will exist in the hospital which will restrict many forms of normal 'world class' treatment. This has also been covered umpteen times but still you ignore it.

The premises may be world class - the state is paying for that - but a beautiful building is pointless if routine medication and treatment cannot be provided.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Its a perfectly reasonable question, are you going to respond to it or hide behind rhetorical questions?

It's not a reasonable question IMO to be asking first of all who will own the hospital when all is done and dusted as it stands, and then to follow that up with a question about the SOC and what they are or aren't giving the State. That's already been established in the thread already. If marienbad had a point, I'd like to hear it, but continuing to ask loaded questions, of course I think it's reasonable on my part to ask where is she going with it. It wasn't a rhetorical question. If there's a point to her line of questioning, then I'd rather that than going over what's already been established in the thread.

And why do you keep saying that patients will get first class/world class treatment when it has been established (in an uncompromising statement by a bishop) that no matter who agrees to what, a Catholic ethos will exist in the hospital which will restrict many forms of normal 'world class' treatment. This has also been covered umpteen times but still you ignore it.

You mean the statement attributed to the bishop where he was quoted out of context?

Catholic bishop clarifies weekend comments on National Maternity Hospital


I haven't ignored it at all.

The premises may be world class - the state is paying for that - but a beautiful building is pointless if routine medication and treatment cannot be provided.

Very true, so it's a good thing then the SVHG has released a statement clarifying it's position -

St Vincent's chairman: Any legal medical procedure will be carried out at new maternity hospital

THE CHAIRMAN OF the board of the St Vincent’s Hospital Group has said that any medical procedure that is currently legal in Ireland will be carried out at the new National Maternity Hospital.

James Menton, chairman of SVHG, was responding to comments made by the former Master of the National Maternity Hospital, Dr Peter Boylan around the planned new hospital.
The €300 million new hospital will be built on land owned by the SVHG, next to the current St Vincent’s University Hospital. The religious order the Sisters of Charity are the shareholders of the SVHG. Boylan questioned whether the National Maternity Hospital would still carry out procedures at odds with a Catholic ethos when it moves to its new location on the grounds of St Vincent’s Hospital in Elm Park in south Dublin. “That would make the new hospital unique in the world in that it would be the only hospital in the world owned by the Catholic Church and effectively run by a company that is owned by the Catholic Church to allow things like IVF, sterilisation, abortion, gender reassignment surgery etc, etc,” Boylan told RTÉ’s Morning Ireland last week.

In a statement released today, Menton said that suggesting that procedures that are currently available at the NMH will not be available in the new hospital is “entirely false and without foundation”. “In line with current policy and procedures at SVHG, any medical procedure which is in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Ireland will be carried out at the new hospital,” he said. When asked to clarify if this meant that specific procedures like IVF treatment would be available at the new hospital, a spokesperson for Menton confirmed that it did.

Walter H Price

tigger123 wrote: »

Surely purchasing the land by CPO opens a can of worms in relation to every other Church owned school and hospital throughout the country? Can't imagine the RCC playing ball after that.

Wonder how practical a solution it really is.

What are they going to do , refuse to maintain the buildings , stop paying teachers / doctors / nurses ? Refuse to buy equipment , oh wait .......

The Church can stomp there little slippered feet and winge and whine all they want they hold no actual power anymore , the number of "Real Catholics" left in Ireland is a fraction of what it was, the majority even the cultural catholics want the out of public life all together, put it up them CPO their land , let them know their ethos isn't welcome in our schools or Hospitals anymore , which it quite evidently isn't and for good reason.

Call me Al

That headline is a tad misleading...
It should say "Any Currently Legal...." as is quoted in the body of the article.

A fairly relevant point and difference considering Citizens Assembly results.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not going to keep going over the same thing given that you think telling me the nominal value of the site is all it would actually cost. Repeating it as many times as you like won't change the fact that the site is being donated free of charge, and any maternity unit built on it will likely offer the same services as are currently available at Holles St.

"Likely" really isn't good enough though, given the inevitable conflicts between the religious ethos of the owners and many different medical treatments that the new hospital will be expected to offer. IVF and sterilizations for example, just to mention two which are problematic for the Catholic Ethos.

As for the "donation", it's an unusual definition of the word, seeing as the SoC will own the land at the end of the operation. Land which will have increased in value, and which will also have added to the value of the other buildings on the campus.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's pie in the sky idealism IMO to think the SVHG would roll over and take it on being served with a CPO. Politicians know this, which is why Alan Kelly can look great suggesting it, while knowing full well it won't happen. Alan Kelly is well known for his blow-hard commentaries

I'm left wondering, not for the first time, why these cut-throat property developers are granted tax exemption status. I'd be happier to see them carry out their negotiations as they wish if they weren't constantly given extra help due to their supposed charity status. Don't see much sign of charity in their actions.

Osgoodisgood

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I completely get that it matters to other people though, and I get why it matters to them, but I personally don't see their objections as reasonable grounds to prevent the current proposed agreement from going ahead.

It seems that Simon Harris, Rhona Mahony and several others have significantly underestimated the number of "objections" irrespective of whether or not they are seen as reasonable.

aloyisious

@One Eyed Jack: It seems from his statements that Simon Harris wants guarantees from the SOC nuns that there will be absolutely no interference in the clinical, operational and financial independence of the new NMH. There is a definite implication in that that he, or some-one else in Govt, has woken up to the fact the deal is not watertight when it comes to interference with the independence of the new NMH on three fronts.

The inclusion of financial independence as well, is to prevent any levies or charges being put on the NMH by its proposed owners, the SOC. I reckon that was included by canny people in another Dept to prevent charges or levies being placed on the NMH, like rent and/or property deals involving the deeds of the new NMH building being made by the SOC or its agents as part of the SOC property portfolio outside the knowledge and agreement of the Govt and any new NMH board. I'd take it as a safe presumption that Simon (and/or the Depot of Finance) want that up front before any deal is signed in legal finality.

I like your acceptance of recognizing that any maternity unit built on it will likely offer the same services as are currently available at Holles St (even though that has as to be confirmed in writing by the SOC) as required by Simon Harris, and accept that would not be to your liking. For what its worth, thanks genuinely.

Edit... Re the bishop's clarification on his statement about something outside his diocese and the misunderstanding of his previous statement, the bishop is well versed in the making of statements. The notion that his statement was interpreted differently to the way he intended it to be is (IMO) complete hogwash. IMO. it was the clear firing of a warning shot across the bows of the SOC in connection with it agreeing to the proposed NMH at the SVH campus and its clinical and operational independence.

pilly

aloyisious wrote: »

This public statement-cum-admission by Chris Fitzpatrick will cause some excitement in medical circles here....

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/social-affairs/pregnancy-terminations-in-irish-hospitals-for-decades-consultant-1.3067993

Nothing shocking in that really? Surely it's always been policy to save a mothers life?

VinLieger

pilly wrote: »

Nothing shocking in that really? Surely it's always been policy to save a mothers life?

Try telling that to savita's husband

aloyisious

After consideration, I've moved my last post about the Chris Fitzpatrick I/Times article over to the Abortion Discussion, Part Trois thread as this one is solely about the NMH. Anyone who's responded to mine can move theirs over there as well, if they like. Please just remember to delete them from here though.

Donal55

Walter H Price wrote: »

What are they going to do , refuse to maintain the buildings , stop paying teachers / doctors / nurses ? Refuse to buy equipment , oh wait .......

The Church can stomp there little slippered feet and winge and whine all they want they hold no actual power anymore , the number of "Real Catholics" left in Ireland is a fraction of what it was, the majority even the cultural catholics want the out of public life all together, put it up them CPO their land , let them know their ethos isn't welcome in our schools or Hospitals anymore , which it quite evidently isn't and for good reason.

Its nothing to do with the numbers of catholics.
Its to do with Law.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

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.

Land it completely got free from the Irish people.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=103358298&postcount=828

volchitsa wrote: »

They seem to have got very rich out of their "charitable works". Odd, that.

To quote Dr Noel C. Browne during a Dail debate in 1972 on the disposal of the original SVH in St Stephen's Green when FF government handed the order the land and the funding to build the hospital:

"If they were not the Sisters of Charity I wonder whether they would get so much charity from this Government"

aloyisious wrote: »

After consideration, I've moved my last post about the Chris Fitzpatrick I/Times article over to the Abortion Discussion, Part Trois thread as this one is solely about the NMH. Anyone who's responded to mine can move theirs over there as well, if they like. Please just remember to delete them from here though.

The entirety of that interview (what you quoted was just an article extracted on one part) is very relevant to this discussion Aloyisious.

http://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/time-to-end-outmoded-relationship-between-church-and-state-1.3067628

Prof. Chris Fitzpatrick wrote:

At the commencement of the 21st century, I believe the time has come to start unpicking the outmoded relationships that exist between church and State, between private and public morality; relationships that are no longer fit for purpose in a modern, secular, pluralist and compassionate European republic.

tigger123

Walter H Price wrote: »

What are they going to do , refuse to maintain the buildings , stop paying teachers / doctors / nurses ? Refuse to buy equipment , oh wait .......

The Church can stomp there little slippered feet and winge and whine all they want they hold no actual power anymore , the number of "Real Catholics" left in Ireland is a fraction of what it was, the majority even the cultural catholics want the out of public life all together, put it up them CPO their land , let them know their ethos isn't welcome in our schools or Hospitals anymore , which it quite evidently isn't and for good reason.

The point i was making is that they (the RCC) have more leverage than the State in this, due to their ownership of so many State run/owned institutions around the country.

The State could kick them out, do a CPO, etc etc, but I would be worried about that affects future similar negotiations around future co-owned projects.

This (unfortunately) doesn't exist in isolation.

Walter H Price

Donal55 wrote: »

Its nothing to do with the numbers of catholics.
Its to do with Law.

CPO is law , we use them every day of the week for acquiring land for gas pipes , water pipes , roads , rail lines etc ... If transport 21 goes ahead hundreds of CPO's will be issued all along the Dublin Cork line , buying peoples houses to level them for expanded tracks etc ... when Gas is brought to Kerry 100's of km's of fertile farmland will be CPO'd for the pipe to be run from Middleton, residential and active farm land are much harder acquired then disused land on the site of a hospital.

CPO's are legal , they are used literally every day , that lad cannot be worth anymore than €50m as it is not zoned for residential , therefor has little intrinsic value regards its acreage and postcode, i would rather €350m is spent to guarantee secular healthcare, than €300m be spent on a hospital to be handed over to a group who told us eating meat on a Friday was bad while selling , abusing , killing and raping kids.

A CPO can be issued 110% , this government are choosing not to.

oppenheimer1

VinLieger wrote: »

Try telling that to savita's husband

Was that not classified as medical misadventure?

oppenheimer1

Walter H Price wrote: »

CPO is law , we use them every day of the week for acquiring land for gas pipes , water pipes , roads , rail lines etc ... If transport 21 goes ahead hundreds of CPO's will be issued all along the Dublin Cork line , buying peoples houses to level them for expanded tracks etc ... when Gas is brought to Kerry 100's of km's of fertile farmland will be CPO'd for the pipe to be run from Middleton, residential and active farm land are much harder acquired then disused land on the site of a hospital.

CPO's are legal , they are used literally every day , that lad cannot be worth anymore than ?50m as it is not zoned for residential , therefor has little intrinsic value regards its acreage and postcode, i would rather ?350m is spent to guarantee secular healthcare, than ?300m be spent on a hospital to be handed over to a group who told us eating meat on a Friday was bad while selling , abusing , killing and raping kids.

A CPO can be issued 110% , this government are choosing not to.

CPO's are usually issued when there is no technical solution other than acquiring property to deliver the project.

Alternatives​ exist here, this is a political not a technical problem. I wonder would a CPO override constitutional property rights in this instance?

Walter H Price

tigger123 wrote: »

The point i was making is that they (the RCC) have more leverage than the State in this, due to their ownership of so many State run/owned institutions around the country.

The State could kick them out, do a CPO, etc etc, but I would be worried about that affects future similar negotiations around future co-owned projects.

This (unfortunately) doesn't exist in isolation.

My View on this is that the state should either pass responsibility for the cost of maintenance and staffing of these church "owned" institutions (schools & Hospitals) onto the church or give them the opportunity to hand them over to the state. as much as you are saying we cannot afford to buy these Schools / hospitals , the Church cannot afford the cost of maintaining or staffing them. We are we spending tax money on maintaining church asset's ? and training / staffing religious schools and hospitals.