The NMH at St. Vincents

Walter H Price

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

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?

there is (or should be an impasse here) in that the land is being "Gifted" but in return the asset when built must be handed over to the religious order (however its staffing and maintenance will remain the responsibility of the state) ... By this same logic , Do you think a CPO could be avoided if a property owner offered to gift their home and land for an expanded train line but then wanted ownership of the line , a say in how frequently trains ran or what type of trains could run etc ... i very much doubt it.

We want to own that hospital and run it as a secular institution as it should be, with a sole focus on patient welfare not on a made up ethos , then the only viable option here is too CPO the land and build the hospital a legal case for CPO here could be very very easily made to be honest.

NuMarvel

Walter H Price wrote: »

there is (or should be an impasse here) in that the land is being "Gifted" but in return the asset when built must be handed over to the religious order (however its staffing and maintenance will remain the responsibility of the state) ... By this same logic , Do you think a CPO could be avoided if a property owner offered to gift their home and land for an expanded train line but then wanted ownership of the line , a say in how frequently trains ran or what type of trains could run etc ... i very much doubt it.

We want to own that hospital and run it as a secular institution as it should be, with a sole focus on patient welfare not on a made up ethos , then the only viable option here is too CPO the land and build the hospital a legal case for CPO here could be very very easily made to be honest.

I'm sure a CPO would be legally sound but as I've said before, it presents practical issues for a co-located hospital.

There's also the prospect that a CPO would be challenged by SVHG in court, and regardless of the outcome of the case, it would further delay the project.

And from looking at the floor plans in the planning application, it looks like we would not only have to CPO the land, but also at least part of the current Vincent's Hospital. Otherwise, those linking corridors on the 2nd to 4th floors will be leading to walls.

looksee

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

Does that doublespeak mean anything at all? Where she was going with it? She wasn't 'going' anywhere, she was asking question - or at least asking you to confirm a point - which you still have not done.

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

How was he quoted out of context? His 'clarification' is just backtracking nonsense which does not change his first statement - presumably the archbishop had a go at him.

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

A statement that was timed very handily for you, though I have no confidence in 'statements'. In the subsequent 'but you said's' that come up I can hear a voice coming from the lofty heights of the management board explaining as to fools and imbiciles that 'circumstances change' and 'we have to concentrate on the well-being of our patients' and other such inanities that we can do nothing about as there is no legal leverage in a 'statement'.

Walter H Price

NuMarvel wrote: »

I'm sure a CPO would be legally sound but as I've said before, it presents practical issues for a co-located hospital.

There's also the prospect that a CPO would be challenged by SVHG in court, and regardless of the outcome of the case, it would further delay the project.

And from looking at the floor plans in the planning application, it looks like we would not only have to CPO the land, but also at least part of the current Vincent's Hospital. Otherwise, those linking corridors on the 2nd to 4th floors will be leading to walls.

Again i would rather a delay and a hospital run on a secular basis then spending €300m to build a hospital witch will then be immediately handed over to a religious order to dictate the "ethos" and hold power over what medical procedures can be carried out etc as the Bishop of Elphin pointed out they will be duty bound to do.

The "gift" argument is a non run runner because it is not a gift , they are prepared to allow the government gift them a €300m facility ... the ethos makes it not fit for purpose to be honest. CPO is the route , if we've to sacrifice a bit of time and a few corridors it will be well worth it in the long run.

oppenheimer1

Walter H Price wrote: »

there is (or should be an impasse here) in that the land is being "Gifted" but in return the asset when built must be handed over to the religious order (however its staffing and maintenance will remain the responsibility of the state) ... By this same logic , Do you think a CPO could be avoided if a property owner offered to gift their home and land for an expanded train line but then wanted ownership of the line , a say in how frequently trains ran or what type of trains could run etc ... i very much doubt it.

We want to own that hospital and run it as a secular institution as it should be, with a sole focus on patient welfare not on a made up ethos , then the only viable option here is too CPO the land and build the hospital a legal case for CPO here could be very very easily made to be honest.

If that same land owner also ran train services on their land, then a CPO could be challenged. Using the existing track may prove more code effective.

The SoC are not gifting their land, they are allowing the state to build a hospital on their land. They will retain ownership of the land.

One eyed Jack

looksee wrote: »

Does that doublespeak mean anything at all? Where she was going with it? She wasn't 'going' anywhere, she was asking question - or at least asking you to confirm a point - which you still have not done.

How was he quoted out of context? His 'clarification' is just backtracking nonsense which does not change his first statement - presumably the archbishop had a go at him.

Do you actually want to hear my opinion on your questions, or are you just going to continue to ask questions and provide your own answers?

That's fine if you want to do that, it's exactly what marienbad was doing, and I don't know why I'd bother answering the question then when you're not actually interested in any opinion that doesn't align with your own predjudiced conclusions.

A statement that was timed very handily for you, though I have no confidence in 'statements'. In the subsequent 'but you said's' that come up I can hear a voice coming from the lofty heights of the management board explaining as to fools and imbiciles that 'circumstances change' and 'we have to concentrate on the well-being of our patients' and other such inanities that we can do nothing about as there is no legal leverage in a 'statement'.

Timed handily for me? I've known about this proposal for the last number of years, never mind a statement being released to the media last week to clarify what was agreed already. If Boylan hadn't kicked off a fuss like a petulant child and executed his role as a member of the NMH as he was supposed to do, then he might still have some legal leverage to argue his position instead of talking nonsense in the media to fuel scaremongering people who really should know better.

Walter H Price

Walter H Price wrote: »

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.

We are also saving tax money by not having to start building countless schools from scratch, are we not?

NuMarvel

Walter H Price wrote: »

Again i would rather a delay and a hospital run on a secular basis then spending €300m to build a hospital witch will then be immediately handed over to a religious order to dictate the "ethos" and hold power over what medical procedures can be carried out etc as the Bishop of Elphin pointed out they will be duty bound to do.

The "gift" argument is a non run runner because it is not a gift , they are prepared to allow the government gift them a €300m facility ... the ethos makes it not fit for purpose to be honest. CPO is the route , if we've to sacrifice a bit of time and a few corridors it will be well worth it in the long run.

You might want to think about the purpose of those corridors before deciding that eliminating them is worth it in the long run. On one floor they are right next to operating theatres in the new maternity hospital. Why do you think that is?

And you might also think about the effect a CPO will have on the relationship with Vincent's. A co-located hospital is meant to be a collaboration, but I can't see that being a very effective one if we've forced them to sell us a plot of land right next to the current hospital, and turned it into a building site for 3 to 4 years.

I absolutely agree that the State should be the owners here, and in all future cases, eg the Children's Hospital. I just don't think that a CPO is the best way to go about it in this instance because there are other relevant factors to consider.

Walter H Price

Deleted User wrote: »

We are also saving tax money by not having to start building countless schools from scratch, are we not?

we are building new schools , the church just owns the dirt , they don't actually pay for any building , maintenance and staffing costs.

oppenheimer1

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.

Your problem is that ideology always seems to trump practicality, no matter the cost. I agree that no matter what the assurances given, the ownership structure means that it is possible that some procedures will not happen at the new hospital. I don't like this however there is a greater good to be served here and that is the timely provision of emergency medicine to mother's and babies that need it.

The objectional procedures from a Catholic perspective are almost all non-emergency. It may not be politically palatable but should it come to it there is nothing stopping the state from opening a clinic across the road to deal with these issues, for non-emergency cases.

Co-located is to allow for the easy exchange of ideas and of patients in emergency situations. Doctors have to abide by the law so they will be obliged to carry out whatever procedures necessary in emergency situations, no matter the ethos of the facility.

It's easy to be an idealist when you don't have to use the overcrowded facilities at Holles St.

Walter H Price

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Your problem is that ideology always seems to trump practicality, no matter the cost. I agree that no matter what the assurances given, the ownership structure means that it is possible that some procedures will not happen at the new hospital. I don't like this however there is a greater good to be served here and that is the timely provision of emergency medicine to mother's and babies that need it.

The objectional procedures from a Catholic perspective are almost all non-emergency. It may not be politically palatable but should it come to it there is nothing stopping the state from opening a clinic across the road to deal with these issues, for non-emergency cases.

Co-located is to allow for the easy exchange of ideas and of patients in emergency situations. Doctors have to abide by the law so they will be obliged to carry out whatever procedures necessary in emergency situations, no matter the ethos of the facility.

It's easy to be an idealist when you don't have to use the overcrowded facilities at Holles St.

To be honest i think they should be looking for a greenfield site at this stage no way a religious order should be handed a €300m euro medical facility paid for through general taxation , in the modern world with the wealth of knowledge available through online mediums , medical journal , conferences etc ... you don't need to build two hospitals on top of each other to exchange ideas and leanings etc ... the nuns either do gift the land , and hold no ownership over the hospital or its ethos , the government CPO the land or they look for an alternative green field site , for me they are the only palatable solutions to this. In addition the entire board of the NMH needs to be reconfigured and all religious board members removed, that this is even still be argued in 2017 , after all of the reports and enquirers which have shown the RCC for what a vile ugly institution it is , is an absolute farce.

ohnonotgmail

Walter H Price wrote: »

To be honest i think they should be looking for a greenfield site at this stage no way a religious order should be handed a €300m euro medical facility paid for through general taxation , in the modern world with the wealth of knowledge available through online mediums , medical journal , conferences etc ... you don't need to build two hospitals on top of each other to exchange ideas and leanings etc ... the nuns either do gift the land , and hold no ownership over the hospital or its ethos , the government CPO the land or they look for an alternative green field site , for me they are the only palatable solutions to this. In addition the entire board of the NMH needs to be reconfigured and all religious board members removed, that this is even still be argued in 2017 , after all of the reports and enquirers which have shown the RCC for what a vile ugly institution it is , is an absolute farce.

Just to clarify something, the reason for colocating is not to exchange ideas and learnings. It is to have a hospital with a wide range of specialities nearby in case of emergencies.

Walter H Price

Walter H Price wrote: »

we are building new schools , the church just owns the dirt , they don't actually pay for any building , maintenance and staffing costs.

We are? Because only the local secondary school is state-owned in my area.

All 9 national schools in the area are owned by the local churches. (RC, Presbyterian, and CofI).

One of those schools has a site approved for building a new school for 10 or 12 years, now.

Tell the parents/teachers there that "we" are building new schools. I'm not sure whether they'll laugh, or cry, though!

NuMarvel

Walter H Price wrote: »

To be honest i think they should be looking for a greenfield site at this stage no way a religious order should be handed a €300m euro medical facility paid for through general taxation , in the modern world with the wealth of knowledge available through online mediums , medical journal , conferences etc ... you don't need to build two hospitals on top of each other to exchange ideas and leanings etc ... the nuns either do gift the land , and hold no ownership over the hospital or its ethos , the government CPO the land or they look for an alternative green field site , for me they are the only palatable solutions to this. In addition the entire board of the NMH needs to be reconfigured and all religious board members removed, that this is even still be argued in 2017 , after all of the reports and enquirers which have shown the RCC for what a vile ugly institution it is , is an absolute farce.

I'm going to quote from the KPMG review of Maternity Services to address this, with some emphasis added:

"Dublin’s model of stand-alone maternity hospitals is not the norm internationally. It is well recognised that for optimal clinical outcome, maternity services should be co-located with adult acute services, or in the case of neonatology and fetal medicine tri-located with adult and paediatric services. The benefits of co-location and tri-location are clear. Co-location allows the mother access to a full range of medical and support services should the need arise, for example, cardiac and vascular surgery, diabetes services, intensive care facilities, haematology services, psychiatric services and many others.

aloyisious

[QUOTE=Deleted User;.

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[/QUOTE]

Ta for that, got an I/T & went looking for the rest. Found his opinion piece inside.

A bank sold the Elm Park House grounds to the SOC in Nov 1933. Problems afflicted the order, putting the hospital building on hold until the Govt provided the cash in the early 60's for building the new St Vincents Hospital in a deal for it getting the SOC's Stephens Green Vincents Hospital property. The history on who got what is in the Dail records posted here by Jackie Browne.

The Govt and the SOC went to court over the Stephens Green site ownership, the SOC won the case.

EPH Golf and Sports Club history link: https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiu7qnz5dHTAhUqL8AKHUsWDw0QFgg0MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.elmpark.ie%2Fabout%2Fclub-history.717.html&usg=AFQjCNGfXh2QFDjuz-Rz7uWqMTOOR2L3pw

BlinkingLights

It's high time the state started taking proper responsibility for running and managing state services.

All they're doing is effectively gifting resources to private organisations with very definite agendas to carry out social engineering.

We've this ludicrous notion that these are "charities" and "voluntary organisations". They're simply state services outsourced to private companies with a religious ethos. It's high time we start to actually see it like that.

These organisation are OUR employees and contractors, yet for most of the history of he state it's they who are setting the agenda.

The Brits go on about taking back control, the Irish could do with adopting the same stance but towards the religious institutions.

What we have has for the last 80+ years is the tail wagging the dog (and often giving the dog a few slaps if it didn't do exactly what it was told.)

Walter H Price

Deleted User wrote: »

We are? Because only the local secondary school is state-owned in my area.

All 9 national schools in the area are owned by the local churches. (RC, Presbyterian, and CofI).

One of those schools has a site approved for building a new school for 10 or 12 years, now.

Tell the parents/teachers there that "we" are building new schools. I'm not sure whether they'll laugh, or cry, though!

Same as the hospital , the church is not building it its giving the land for the department to build a school to hand back to a religious order once tax money is used to build the actual building , they then get ownership , a say over whats taught and how (sex ed and compulsory religion) and to who (baptisim) barrier) in a school paid for by tax money , maintained with tax money staff by teachers trained by and paid by tax money the whole thing is beyond ridiculous.

I honestly would rather not that hospital not be built all all then build and paid for by us to be handed over to the church or a religious sect. Honestly the more this sh!t goes on the more eager i am to get out of this backwards little kip of a country.

One eyed Jack

Walter H Price wrote: »

Honestly the more this sh!t goes on the more eager i am to get out of this backwards little kip of a country.

Don't let the departure gates hit your arse on the way out!

Meanwhile, I'm glad we have hospitals like St. Vincents and the Mater as I have relatives who spent most of their childhoods in Crumlin, then were transferred to St. Vincents, and will soon be having procedures done in the Mater hospital which wouldn't have been feasible 20 years ago.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don't let the departure gates hit your arse on the way out!

Meanwhile, I'm glad we have hospitals like St. Vincents and the Mater as I have relatives who spent most of their childhoods in Crumlin, then were transferred to St. Vincents, and will soon be having procedures done in the Mater hospital which wouldn't have been feasible 20 years ago.

Relevance? Point? etc etc

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

Relevance? Point? etc etc

If these hospitals didn't exist in this "backwards little kip of a country", etc etc.

lawred2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If these hospitals didn't exist in this "backwards little kip of a country", etc etc.

Relevance to handing ownership and management of a taxpayer funded newly constructed hospital to a private body?

VinLieger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If these hospitals didn't exist in this "backwards little kip of a country", etc etc.

Yup and for a myriad of reasons at the time it made sense for them to be run as catholic hospitals.

However now it no longer does, we can afford to build it and there is zero need for the new NMH to be owned and run by the SOC, in fact considering their history and the churches history with regards to women, babies and birthing in this country it makes sense for them to have nothing to do with it.

Basically using history as an argument for the church to run it is hilarious

One eyed Jack

lawred2 wrote: »

Relevance to handing ownership and management of a taxpayer funded newly constructed hospital to a private body?

It was relevant to the part of Walter's post I quoted, but if it keeps you happy - I'm happy as a taxpayer to fund these hospitals and I'd have been as happy to fund the new maternity hospital as per the original agreement that was made between the IMH, St. Vincents and the State (what Walter calls this backward little kip of a country).

One eyed Jack

VinLieger wrote: »

Yup and for a myriad of reasons at the time it made sense for them to be run as catholic hospitals.

However now it no longer does, we can afford to build it and there is zero need for the new NMH to be owned and run by the SOC, in fact considering their history and the churches history with regards to women, babies and birthing in this country it makes sense for them to have nothing to do with it.

Basically using history as an argument for the church to run it is hilarious

Using history as a reason to object to the hospital being run by the SVHG is the equivalent of idiots that go on about "800 years of oppression" nonsense IMO.

Sofiztikated

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Don't let the departure gates hit your arse on the way out!

Meanwhile, I'm glad we have hospitals like St. Vincents and the Mater as I have relatives who spent most of their childhoods in Crumlin, then were transferred to St. Vincents, and will soon be having procedures done in the Mater hospital which wouldn't have been feasible 20 years ago.

I've spent my childhood in and out of Crumlin, and had operations that weren't feasible.

Makes no odds to the fact that a modern country should hand over a new hospital to the nuns.

VinLieger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Using history as a reason to object to the hospital being run by the SVHG is the equivalent of idiots that go on about "800 years of oppression" nonsense IMO.

I know right cus its not like the last magdalene laundry was only closed down 21 years ago.....

800 years ..... 21 years...... yup exactly the same allright

One eyed Jack

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I've spent my childhood in and out of Crumlin, and had operations that weren't feasible.

Makes no odds to the fact that a modern country should hand over a new hospital to the nuns.

There were plenty more reasons as to why the maternity hospital was being co-located on the grounds of St. Vincents rather than, as you put it - handing a new hospital over to the nuns. One of those reasons was to bring healthcare in Ireland up to modern international standards, where Ireland is unusual in this regard.

One eyed Jack

VinLieger wrote: »

I know right cus its not like the last magdalene laundry was only closed down 21 years ago.....

800 years ..... 21 years...... yup exactly the same allright

Yep, it's the same argument from ignorance of history is used to justify both positions.

VinLieger

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Yep, it's the same argument from ignorance of history is used to justify both positions.

Whats with your hard on for giving the catholic church more control of our state institutions?

One eyed Jack

VinLieger wrote: »

Whats with your hard on for giving the catholic church more control of our state institutions?

That's a bit of a leap. I'm not interested in giving the religious orders any more control over State assets and affairs of the State than they don't have already, nor would I be interested in giving the State any more control over the assets of religious orders and their affairs than it does already. That is secularism in practice.

Now, specifically in relation to St. Vincents and the proposals for a new co-located maternity unit - it's an objective, pragmatic decision based on modern international standards to co-locate a maternity unit with an already existing acute unit, and the State isn't being asked to pay a cent for the proposed site.

But, the main objections appear to be from people who know nothing about St. Vincents hospital as it is run today, and would rather hark back to a time in history where they would like to paint romanticised notions of oppression and victimhood, and object to a modern hospital on that basis, oh, and of course the idea that St. Vincents aren't an abortion clinic, or because the land is owned by a couple of crusty old farts in habits.

It's not that I have a hard-on for giving the Catholic Church more control of our State Institutions. It's disappointment with the fact that a minority of people who can never see past the ends of their own noses, put the skids on a project that could have brought Irelands healthcare system into line with modern standards.

It's like I had said previously - this kind of stuff reminds me of the women's march, bleating about women's rights and women's oppression, but exclude and attempt to silence any women who disagreed with them, because they knew better and spoke for all women, apparently.