The NMH at St. Vincents

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

The answer to that question is that traditionally, there were no "general population" schools, to my knowledge, anyway.
Certainly there were none in the vast majority of rural areas.

I know there was a Jewish population in Dublin, and I think, Cork (from memory) at the foundation of the state.

I have no idea what educational arrangements were made for that group.

For the rest of rural Ireland, at any rate, people of Protestant denominations mainly went to existing schools, reflecting their own ethos.

There were some Catholic schools, but nowhere near enough to cater for demand.

Hence, collections were taken up in many parishes for the building of schools, for the Catholic population.

That pretty much covered the entire population.

Multiculturalism, and a variety of religions, or none, came much later.

This is where the problems began, since the State did not build enough schools for the general population, who wanted neither ethos.

I know there were agreements between the Government and the various religious bodies re: freedom of religion in religious ethos schools. I don't have the time, (or tbh, the inclination) to research it.

About the only "general population" schools I know of in Ireland are the Educate together schools, I'm not sure what ethos, if any, the Gaelscoileanna have.

So, it's not a question of who mandated for religious ethos "general population" schools.

It's that the schools were always single faith schools, with the occasional pupil from other faiths attending.

Traditionally, it was simply a matter of arranging for the local Minister to attend for religion classes for his own flock.

Nowadays, there is a greater variety of faiths, or people who want entirely secular schools, which they are perfectly entitled to.

What I would argue they are not entitled to, is to demand that their right to a secular, or A.N other education, is any more, or less, of a right than those who want their single faith schools to remain.

Hence, it is the State that has a responsibility to deal with the issue - not the Catholic, or any other Church, that has any responsibility to cede their own ethos.

And we are still seriously off-topic, and tbh, I'm getting bored with this conversation (no offence intended).

I wanted to make the point that everyone has a right to their choice of educational type. Yet no-one has a right to deny others that same choice. I certainly didn't expect it to go on for several pages...

Understood and accepted thoroughly and worthy of a thread or debate of its own, just debated by me on the basis that I reckoned that the freedom of school ethos matters was a different topic to the one of the thread; that the RC ethos of an order of nuns involved in nursing would be anachronistic when it comes to them taking ownership with a controlling board membership of a new NMH where abortions would take place, regardless of reason.

aloyisious

Seán O'Rourke has just broken track on an interview on his RTE 1 show to report breaking news that the SOC have decided to break links with the St Vincent's Health Care Group and have nothing to do with the New Maternity Hospital. As it's breaking news Seán said he's waiting for more details.

OK, Patsy McGarry on the radio.... the SOC are to relinquish involvement with the three hospitals. a new company called St Vincent's which will comply with irish laws will be set up. The Sisters will have no involvement with the new company.

Seán said that as Dr Rhona Mahony was in theatre, she was not available but they [RTE] would try to get back to her for comment.

Call me Al

aloyisious wrote: »

Seán O'Rourke has just broken track on an interview on his RTE 1 show to report breaking news that the SOC have decided to break links with the St Vincent's Health Care Group and have nothing to do with the New Maternity Hospital. As it's breaking news Seán said he's waiting for more details.

OK, Patsy McGarry on the radio.... the SOC are to relinquish involvement with the three hospitals. a new company called St Vincent's which will comply with irish laws will be set up. The Sisters will have no involvement with the new company.

Seán said that as Dr Rhona was in theatre, she was not available but they [RTE] would try to get back to her for comment.

This is a very interesting development.
But the devil is in the detail.
I look forward to seeing more details.

Wheeliebin30

If true Simon Harris said give him a month.

It wasn't good enough at the time for some opposition groups but lets see if he was true to his word.

seamus

Seems to be true alright;

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0529/878662-st-vincents-religious-sisters-of-charity/

Main points to analyse are who will head up the new company called "St. Vincents" (i.e. will it be chaired by a Bishop?) and the specific rewording in relation to ethos.

This is a great win for Simon Harris if everything is above board. I wonder will there be an apology forthcoming for Dr. Boylan?

ohnonotgmail

seamus wrote: »

Seems to be true alright;

https://www.rte.ie/news/2017/0529/878662-st-vincents-religious-sisters-of-charity/

Main points to analyse are who will head up the new company called "St. Vincents" (i.e. will it be chaired by a Bishop?) and the specific rewording in relation to ethos.

This is a great win for Simon Harris if everything is above board. I wonder will there be an apology forthcoming for Dr. Boylan?

Be interesting to who actually owns the new company.

Hermy

From RTE

The sisters' shares will be transferred to St Vincent's for a nominal consideration.

What does that mean exactly?

suicide_circus

What involvement will the Sisters of Charity have in the new maternity hospital?



Nun

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

Hermy wrote: »

From RTE

What does that mean exactly?

They will have no involvement in the running of any of the hospitals, nor influence nor monetary gain.

Game over.

ohnonotgmail

Hermy wrote: »

From RTE

What does that mean exactly?

there has to be some consideration when doing the transfer, they cant do it for nothing. so it will be a €1 or similar amount.

Boggy Turf

Good news indeed. A victory for common sense and the ongoing separation of church and state.

Does that mean they will pay what they owe to the Abuse Redress board?

Hermy

Mira Ambitious Balloonist wrote: »

They will have no involvement in the running of any of the hospitals, nor influence nor monetary gain.

Game over.

Excellent!

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there has to be some consideration when doing the transfer, they cant do it for nothing. so it will be a €1 or similar amount.

Literally a nonminal fee - gotcha.

Boggy Turf wrote: »

Good news indeed. A victory for common sense and the ongoing separation of church and state.

Except that it should never have happened in the first place.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there has to be some consideration when doing the transfer, they cant do it for nothing. so it will be a €1 or similar amount.

Read the news reports. A nominal or Peppercorn payment.

ohnonotgmail

Mira Ambitious Balloonist wrote: »

Read the news reports. A nominal or Peppercorn payment.

I know what a nominal consideration means. that is why is suggested €1 or similar.

NuMarvel

Boggy Turf wrote: »

Good news indeed. A victory for common sense and the ongoing separation of church and state.

Does that mean they will pay what they owe to the Abuse Redress board?

Their payments to the redress board are separate to decisions about the hospital. But going by Gavan Reilly's Twitter feed, they've paid what they've been asked to up to this point, and are basically waiting on the final bill, factoring in monies owed to them for legal fees: https://twitter.com/gavreilly/status/869138383624392704

pilly

Excellent news. Goes to show that the power of the people does work for good.

NuMarvel

Just to point out, despite this development, the new National Maternity Hospital still won't be State owned. It will still be owned by, and ultimately part of, the St Vincent's Hospital Group. What will be changing is that the hospital group will no longer be owned by a religious order, but a charity.

ohnonotgmail

NuMarvel wrote: »

Just to point out, despite this development, the new National Maternity Hospital still won't be State owned. It will still be owned by, and ultimately part of, the St Vincent's Hospital Group. What will be changing is that the hospital group will no longer be owned by a religious order, but a charity.

and we still dont know who will ultimately control that charity.

Robert McGrath

NuMarvel wrote: »

Just to point out, despite this development, the new National Maternity Hospital still won't be State owned. It will still be owned by, and ultimately part of, the St Vincent's Hospital Group. What will be changing is that the hospital group will no longer be owned by a religious order, but a charity.

The current NMH isn't State owned either

NuMarvel

Robert McGrath wrote: »

The current NMH isn't State owned either

Nope, and the State doesn't usually end up owning capital developments in voluntary hospitals, but mentioning it nonetheless in case people think the block to State ownership was the order owning Vincent's hospital.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

pilly wrote: »

Excellent news. Goes to show that the power of the people does work for good.

Turns out that this was on the cards over a month ago but needed the legalities , new company registration, etc. sorted first. Hence the minister asking for a month when the furore started. Not much to do with people power really.

NuMarvel

Mira Ambitious Balloonist wrote: »

Turns out that this was on the cards over a month ago...

Haven't heard that elsewhere yet. Do you have a source/link for that?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

NuMarvel wrote: »

Haven't heard that elsewhere yet. Do you have a source/link for that?

Discussion on RTE radio this morning.

Blazer

Mira Ambitious Balloonist wrote: »

Turns out that this was on the cards over a month ago but needed the legalities , new company registration, etc. sorted first. Hence the minister asking for a month when the furore started. Not much to do with people power really.

But without the protests it wouldn't have happened. Its been nearly 6 weeks since this first broke so saying this was going to happen anyway is a bit disingenuous.
It took 2 weeks of protests before Harris grew a pair and backed down on the original plan.

My name is URL

Mira Ambitious Balloonist wrote: »

Turns out that this was on the cards over a month ago but needed the legalities , new company registration, etc. sorted first. Hence the minister asking for a month when the furore started. Not much to do with people power really.

If that was the case then why did board members resign in protest? They would have been aware of those things

Damn right this happened because of the furore it caused

pilly

Mira Ambitious Balloonist wrote: »

Turns out that this was on the cards over a month ago but needed the legalities , new company registration, etc. sorted first. Hence the minister asking for a month when the furore started. Not much to do with people power really.

Absolute bull****.

If this had been on the cards anyway then board members would not have resigned.

Sorry Mira Ambitious Balloonist, you can fool yourself into thinking that the nuns did this for purely innocent reasons but it's not true.

nelly17

My name is URL wrote: »

If that was the case then why did board members resign in protest? They would have been aware of those things

Damn right this happened because of the furore it caused

He was told resign or the board will take a vote on his position

NuMarvel

My name is URL wrote: »

If that was the case then why did board members resign in protest? They would have been aware of those things

Damn right this happened because of the furore it caused

pilly wrote: »

Absolute bull****.

If this had been on the cards anyway then board members would not have resigned.

Sorry Srameen, you can fool yourself into thinking that the nuns did this for purely innocent reasons but it's not true.

The people who resigned were on the board of the National Maternity Hospital. How would they know about the Sisters of Charity's ownership plans for St Vincent's Hospital Group?

blanch152

Blazer wrote: »

But without the protests it wouldn't have happened. Its been nearly 6 weeks since this first broke so saying this was going to happen anyway is a bit disingenuous.
It took 2 weeks of protests before Harris grew a pair and backed down on the original plan.

From the start, Harris was saying the ownership arrangements hadn't been fully worked out.

Not surprised, sooner or later one of these protests would have been shown up to be about little or nothing.

pilly

NuMarvel wrote: »

The people who resigned were on the board of the National Maternity Hospital. How would they know about the Sisters of Charity's ownership plans for St Vincent's Hospital Group?

Because it was over that issue that Boylan resigned. Of course they would have informed him if things were going to change.

The amount of people trying to make like this was all going to happen anyway is making me cringe. I'm so embarrassed for people holding on the very last bit of loyalty/pride whatever it may be towards nuns who frankly are on the way out anyway and soon will be all gone.

Please stop embarrassing yourself. If this was known at the time it would have been announced. All they've done today is make the announcement. NO reason they couldn't have done that a month ago.