The NMH at St. Vincents

Walter H Price

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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).

Literally every country has hospitals , i've no issue paying for hospitals the issue is why are we tax funding institutions (schools and hospitals) that are being run with a religious ethos, that is absolutely backwards.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

.

Modern international standards does not ,cannot and should not be run on the basis of the ethos of any one religion .

And you keep banging on about the free site - how is it free when the State builds a 300 million hospital on it and then gifts it and the finished construction back to the original owners . How is that free exactly ?

One eyed Jack

marienbad wrote: »

Modern international standards does not ,cannot and should not be run on the basis of the ethos of any one religion.

Walter H Price wrote: »

Literally every country has hospitals , i've no issue paying for hospitals the issue is why are we tax funding institutions (schools and hospitals) that are being run with a religious ethos, that is absolutely backwards.

It's not backwards at all Walter IMO and it is exactly how things are in most countries you'll visit in your efforts to find a country that isn't backwards in one way or another.

And you keep banging on about the free site - how is it free when the State builds a 300 million hospital on it and then gifts it and the finished construction back to the original owners . How is that free exactly ?

The State didn't have to pay for the site, ergo - free.

ohnonotgmail

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not backwards at all Walter IMO and it is exactly how things are in most countries you'll visit in your efforts to find a country that isn't backwards in one way or another.

how what is in most countries? you dont think perhaps we should avoid doing things that are backward by being progressive?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The State didn't have to pay for the site, ergo - free.

the state never owns the site so how is it free? they also have to spend €300m on a hospital and give it to the nuns. you have a weird definition of free.

marienbad

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not backwards at all Walter IMO and it is exactly how things are in most countries you'll visit in your efforts to find a country that isn't backwards in one way or another.





The State didn't have to pay for the site, ergo - free.

and the State won't own the site either , they are just getting a loan of it to build a hospital before handing it back !

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not backwards at all Walter IMO and it is exactly how things are in most countries you'll visit in your efforts to find a country that isn't backwards in one way or another.





The State didn't have to pay for the site, ergo - free.

The state won't own the site after building an expensive facility on it, ergo - not free for the state at all.

The order will own a site whose value is vastly increased. They're the ones who get something for free. They've already used public buildings as collateral for their private developments projects in the recent past - this would potentially allow them to borrow even more on the strength of the newer valuation.

And what happens if they did that and then they don't make the payments? Why do I feel certain that the state would end up having to pay, because otherwise the banks could seize the hospital.

Or maybe you'd have no problem with the banks owning the hospital either?

Walter H Price

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not backwards at all Walter IMO and it is exactly how things are in most countries you'll visit in your efforts to find a country that isn't backwards in one way or another.





The State didn't have to pay for the site, ergo - free.

Plenty of countries where healthcare is not provided by religious orders or has no religious involvement , state hospitals in the UK , Scandinavia etc... i cant imagine there are too many government building hospitals to hand to religious orders in 2017

How is it free , they are giving €35m worth of land and were building a €300m Euro hospital and handing them control of the board of it , in no way is that free , they get to dictate the ethos etc... With paying a cent for the hospitals building , maintenance , staffing etc.

In a debate on this yesterday on Drivetime someone literally suggested that this is a "catholic Country" and if you don't want catholic ethos schools and hospitals you should go back to where your from , i'm from here but if that is the prevailing attitude and tbh i'm not seeing our politicians doing much to show that it isn't then i'm out , no way i want to raise kids here.

pilly

Walter H Price wrote: »

Plenty of countries where healthcare is not provided by religious orders or has no religious involvement , state hospitals in the UK , Scandinavia etc... i cant imagine there are too many government building hospitals to hand to religious orders in 2017

How is it free , they are giving €35m worth of land and were building a €300m Euro hospital and handing them control of the board of it , in no way is that free , they get to dictate the ethos etc... With paying a cent for the hospitals building , maintenance , staffing etc.

In a debate on this yesterday on Drivetime someone literally suggested that this is a "catholic Country" and if you don't want catholic ethos schools and hospitals you should go back to where your from , i'm from here but if that is the prevailing attitude and tbh i'm not seeing our politicians doing much to show that it isn't then i'm out , no way i want to raise kids here.

Jesus Walter, I agree with you on a lot of things but your hatred of this country is getting a little bit too much tbh.

Every country has religion you know. Very few are truly secular.

Not that I agree with the current situation but it's changing. Albeit slowly.

volchitsa

pilly wrote: »

Jesus Walter, I agree with you on a lot of things but your hatred of this country is getting a little bit too much tbh.

Every country has religion you know. Very few are truly secular.

Not that I agree with the current situation but it's changing. Albeit slowly.

Walter may be a bit harsh, but seriously there's a lot to be harsh about, there's not many countries other than places like Afghanistan and Iran where religion is still allowed to have any say in the running of the country.

And Ireland is literally handing over a maternity hospital to nuns who have a terrible record of abuse of vulnerable people. Including recently, this isn't just historic - there've been a couple of very critical HIQA reports into care facilities run by the SOC order, unexplained injuries to residents and the like.

If a group of imams were running a maternity in Saudi Arabia we'd think it showed the ignorance of people there to allow them that power. Why is it "hatred" to react violently to our own country doing something similar?

lawred2

pilly wrote: »

Walter H Price wrote: »

Plenty of countries where healthcare is not provided by religious orders or has no religious involvement , state hospitals in the UK , Scandinavia etc... i cant imagine there are too many government building hospitals to hand to religious orders in 2017

How is it free , they are giving €35m worth of land and were building a €300m Euro hospital and handing them control of the board of it , in no way is that free , they get to dictate the ethos etc... With paying a cent for the hospitals building , maintenance , staffing etc.

In a debate on this yesterday on Drivetime someone literally suggested that this is a "catholic Country" and if you don't want catholic ethos schools and hospitals you should go back to where your from , i'm from here but if that is the prevailing attitude and tbh i'm not seeing our politicians doing much to show that it isn't then i'm out , no way i want to raise kids here.

Jesus Walter, I agree with you on a lot of things but your hatred of this country is getting a little bit too much tbh.

Every country has religion you know. Very few are truly secular.

Not that I agree with the current situation but it's changing. Albeit slowly.

Jeez.. There we go again with a wholly irrelevant response. The poster you responded to has not communicated any desire or issue with religion or people being religious - the issue is quite clearly the handing of a state asset to a private entity. Bad enough that is until one considers that that asset is to be a maternity hospital where the religious order have an ethos which is nailed on to prove restrictive in terms of the possible range of procedures.

So the state and the citizen loses in more ways than one.

But sure yeah whatever.. Waffle on.

Walter H Price

Walter H Price wrote: »

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.

The National schools I'm referring to have never been in state ownership. Nor have the sites.
Most of them are nearly a hundred years old, built on sites owned by the Church, many of them built using voluntary labour and skills by a people who were delighted to be able to openly educate their children - my own grandparents among them.

You should educate yourself about why education in this Country was church run.

It was because the British didn't educate Catholics, and the newly formed Government couldn't afford to educate anyone.

So, the people, who are the Church, donated money for sites, and raw materials, and did most of the building work themselves.

The Church are the trustees of the buildings. Because the church is its members.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

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.

+10,000. That women's march had no interest in women, or their rights, only in abortion and reproductive rights. To the extent that a group of pro-life women were not allowed to march, and one of the main speakers is openly an advocate of Sharia law - which is hardly favourable to any modern definition of women's rights.

pilly

lawred2 wrote:

Jeez.. There we go again with a wholly irrelevant response. The poster you responded to has not communicated any desire or issue with religion or people being religious - the issue is quite clearly the handing of a state asset to a private entity. Bad enough that is until one considers that that asset is to be a maternity hospital where the religious order have an ethos which is nailed on to prove restrictive in terms of the possible range of procedures.

The poster I was responding to (who doesn't need your jumping to his defence by the way) has plenty of problems with religion.

And I've already said I totally agree about the hospital. I just don't agree that the whole country is a backwards kip.

Nothing irrelevant about my opinion.

jimmycrackcorm

Walter H Price wrote: »

Literally every country has hospitals , i've no issue paying for hospitals the issue is why are we tax funding institutions (schools and hospitals) that are being run with a religious ethos, that is absolutely backwards.

Schools are being built and funded based on demand. Right now there is a very significant demand for educate together schools being funded, but there are also expansion of catholic schools because parents still want to send their kids to them.

My siblings in London tell me that the catholic schools are the ones that people are trying their most to get their kids into.

jimmycrackcorm

Walter H Price wrote: »

How is it free , they are giving €35m worth of land and were building a €300m Euro hospital and handing them control of the board of it , in no way is that free , they get to dictate the ethos etc... With paying a cent for the hospitals building , maintenance , staffing etc.

There's no obligation on the state to build a hospital at that location except the medical expertise says that it is best to co-locate. Sure if it makes people happy then put the NMH out on a greenfield site away from another hospital and spend the additional equivalent of 35m extra just so people don't feel as outraged. 35m is a cheap price for outrage these days.

Lest someone suggests a CPO, it should be remembered that Vincent's can easily argue that their land can be used to expand existing medical facilities.

In a debate on this yesterday on Drivetime someone literally suggested that this is a "catholic Country" and if you don't want catholic ethos schools and hospitals you should go back to where your from , i'm from here but if that is the prevailing attitude and tbh i'm not seeing our politicians doing much to show that it isn't then i'm out , no way i want to raise kids here.

It's not the prevailing argument and it is a straw-man argument to suggest that some crackpot on the radio reinforces your point.

volchitsa wrote: »

And Ireland is literally handing over a maternity hospital to nuns who have a terrible record of abuse of vulnerable people. Including recently, this isn't just historic - there've been a couple of very critical HIQA reports into care facilities run by the SOC order, unexplained injuries to residents and the like.

If a group of imams were running a maternity in Saudi Arabia we'd think it showed the ignorance of people there to allow them that power. Why is it "hatred" to react violently to our own country doing something similar?

HIQA has reported negatively on many facilities not restricted to being run by religious orders.

The nuns already own St. Vincent's and I don't think I've ever heard of anything regarding any controversy over medical procedures being overridden by a religious ethos there.


I take a pragmatic view on this, the same as I do about the children's hospital - build it beside Tallaght or Connolly. It's easier to get human expertise to move to a location than try to fint a location to suit.

babi-hrse

HONKEY TONK wrote: »

I find it funny that people are shaking their fists at the RCC being involved yet more the 90% of the parents who's kids are born there will go running to the church 6 months later to get their baby baptised.

That proves the point. You think people want that?
Don't get baptised can't send child to some schools because surprise again the church owns them
Honestly either your trying to rile people up by making negatives sound like a positive or you really can't see what is outrageous about it

BalcombeSt4

pilly wrote: »

Jesus Walter, I agree with you on a lot of things but your hatred of this country is getting a little bit too much tbh.

Every country has religion you know. Very few are truly secular.

Not that I agree with the current situation but it's changing. Albeit slowly.

So people who want to help improve the country must secretly hate the country then? Gtfo.

pilly

BalcombeSt4 wrote:

So people who want to help improve the country must secretly hate the country then? Gtfo.

The poster I was talking to repeatedly states a desire to "gtfo" of Ireland, not improve it.

Grow up with your silly American phrases.

Hotblack Desiato

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Schools are being built and funded based on demand. Right now there is a very significant demand for educate together schools being funded, but there are also expansion of catholic schools because parents still want to send their kids to them.

Really? Most parents have no choice. Where I live, the catholic schools were recently expanded, there is no ET, and no parents were consulted about this at all.

My siblings in London tell me that the catholic schools are the ones that people are trying their most to get their kids into.

That's because in the UK they're basically schools for snobs.

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

The nuns already own St. Vincent's and I don't think I've ever heard of anything regarding any controversy over medical procedures being overridden by a religious ethos there.

They don't allow sterilizations or contraceptive implants for starters.

jimmycrackcorm

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

Really? Most parents have no choice. Where I live, the catholic schools were recently expanded, there is no ET, and no parents were consulted about this at all.

How do you think ET schools come to be? I think you're ignoring the silent fact that a lot of Irish people send their kids to Catholic schools without giving a rat's are about the the faith.

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

That's because in the UK they're basically schools for snobs.

That's not correct. How is it snobbish? It's a standard because of the way they're run.

Hotblack Desiato wrote:

They don't allow sterilizations or contraceptive implants for starters.

Why would you need to go to hospital for those procedures? They don't do root canals either.

With all due respects to other peoples' religious beliefs, this situation with the NMH ownership is exactly the kind of practice this country needs to be moving away from. The Catholic Church has done so much harm in this country and without full redress to its victims yet. In 2017 to be awarding one of their orders ownership of a National Hospital is such a step backwards. Not just Catholics and nuns, there should be no religious ownership of any Irish state service, institution or infrastructure in this day and age IMO.

The nuns were kind when I was growing up in my small, rural hometown. They thought me how to play the piano, something I'll be eternally grateful for. However, now as an adult, and after hearing of the horrific revelations from their repressive institutions for years and years now, I wouldn't let anyone associated with the Catholic Church run one of our prisons.

Only in Ireland (and I usually hate that expression): One month - Mass grave of the remains of 800 babies found discarded in a septic tank on the grounds of a former institution run by Catholic nuns. Couple of months later - Sisters of Charity awarded ownership of the new National Maternity Hospital. What the f**k?

A separation of church and state is badly needed in this country, and it looked like we were slowly moving towards that until this fiasco emerged.

marienbad

[QUOTE=jimmycrackcorm;103404918

Why would you need to go to hospital for those procedures? They don't do root canals either.[/QUOTE]


What an appalling and dismissive reply , but it probably sums up why the primacy of the RCC is inevitably ebbing away.

And this inability to show any compromise or compassion ends up in an avalanche of change when change does come .

rainbow kirby

I'm in London, the Ofsted outstanding primary near my apartment which seems very similar overall to an ET school is so oversubscribed the catchment area is less than a 200ml radius around the school for two form entry.

aloyisious

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why would you need to go to hospital for those procedures? They don't do root canals either.

Possibly to prevent a return to unsafe back-street operations.

IMO, we are way past the age when one person's understanding of morality trump's that of another in matters of personal surgery, the latter person seeking a sterilization by choice and the former person refusing it because the O/P's body was working normally as per nature and didn't require surgery to remove a failing body part to save her life. The church does allow for sterilization if it is to save the woman's life so it's only the former's desire to comply with the notion behind the 1968 Humanae Vitae encyclical. Pope Paul vi decided that, re procreation of the human race, the snip is out if it's by the woman's choice "can't have women having thoughts of bodily integrity wrecking God's plan".

Actually, having read further into the H/V preface, it seems H/V was for married couples only.... Subtitled "On the Regulation of Birth," Humanae Vitae begins by noting that "The transmission of human life is a most serious role in which married people collaborate freely and responsibly with God the Creator." The increase in global population, "a new understanding of the dignity of woman and her place in society, of the value of conjugal love in marriage and the relationship of conjugal acts to this love," and "man's stupendous progress in the domination and rational organization of the forces of nature" has raised "new questions" that "[t]he Church cannot ignore."

Walter H Price

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

How do you think ET schools come to be? I think you're ignoring the silent fact that a lot of Irish people send their kids to Catholic schools without giving a rat's are about the the faith.



That's not correct. How is it snobbish? It's a standard because of the way they're run.



Why would you need to go to hospital for those procedures? They don't do root canals either.

Your correct on point 1 there is still a large amount of cultural Catholicism in this country , despite mass numbers collapsing and virtually no one under the age of 50 living by the "rules" i.e no sex outside marriage, use of contraception , living in sin all that jazz etc .. At the same time given the current restrictions and issues with waiting lists some parents are having to baptize kids against their wish just to get them a basic state education , this is fundamentally wrong.

The reason this is snobbish is that a large amount of Catholic schools in the UK are private they receive little state funding same as in the US and Canada , unlike here though there are an abundance of Secular State Schools in the UK which are ethos free and do not have a baptism barrier , here we have a handful of educate together that's about it.

They are elective procedures but all hospitals should be providing these , we are potential talking about a national maternity hospital opposed to any sort of family planning , contraceptives , elective sterilization , IVF and if it is legislated for based on the citizens assembly recommendations will they Carrie out terminations ? The moral rules of one faith do not belong in any state run education or healthcare it's archaic and completely backwards. Again i would struggle to pick a single other European government that would spend €300m of tax payers money on a hospital to hand over control of its board to religious orders.

I haven't protested anything in the past few years no issues with Water or Fees , no interest in the Occupy stuff or the homeless stuff but i will gladly protest this if it goes ahead.

kylith

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Why would you need to go to hospital for those procedures? They don't do root canals either.

Do you actually think tubal ligation can be carried out in a GP office?

Walter H Price

kylith wrote: »

Do you actually think tubal ligation can be carried out in a GP office?

Bigger question is why are we paying €300M for a state of the art maternity hospital that you cannot carry out certain legitimate and legal medical procedures in because an order that killed raped and sold kids for decades says they are immoral.

kylith

Walter H Price wrote: »

Bigger question is why are we paying €300M for a state of the art maternity hospital that you cannot carry out certain legitimate and legal medical procedures in because an order that killed raped and sold kids for decades says they are immoral.

Absolutely. For me, TBH, it's not even about the order's record. There is simply no way that 300m of public funds be handed over to a private group who can then refuse to carry out medical procedures because they disagree with them.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if a religious group wants to impose their ethos on a public service (schools/hospitals) they can pay for it themselves, from construction to staffing and upkeep.

Walter H Price

kylith wrote: »

Absolutely. For me, TBH, it's not even about the order's record. There is simply no way that 300m of public funds be handed over to a private group who can then refuse to carry out medical procedures because they disagree with them.

I've said it before, I'll say it again: if a religious group wants to impose their ethos on a public service (schools/hospitals) they can pay for it themselves, from construction to staffing and upkeep.

100% if the RCC want hospitals and devout Catholics want a hospital with limited services to suit there religious view more power to them , so long as not a cent of public money goes on building and Maintenance of that hospital and the staff are employed and compensated by the church, ditto for schools.

The ethos of one religion even if it is the majority religion has no place in public services or politics, Religion is a private matter and that's how it should be treated.

babi-hrse

babi-hrse wrote: »

That proves the point. You think people want that?
Don't get baptised can't send child to some schools because surprise again the church owns them
Honestly either your trying to rile people up by making negatives sound like a positive or you really can't see what is outrageous about it

You have a point for those who do not want to send their children to schools with a religious ethos.

But you ignore the fact that many people are happy to send their children to a school with a religious ethos.

The reasonable answer is for the state to build schools to accommodate parents who want E.T schools, or entirely non-denominational schools, while allowing those who are happy with the current situation the same rights, as taxpayers.

The state cannot afford to buy church owned schools - nor would some people be happy were they to do so, including those from minority faiths.

So, the only realistic answer is for the state to actually live up to it's responsibilities, and provide the type of schools that people want to send their children to. Equal rights for all.

volchitsa

Just heard Ronan Mullan on Sean O'Rourke parading his victimhood complex.

They genuinely expect us to believe that if they don't get public money to run hospitals according to their "ethos" they're being discriminated against.