The NMH at St. Vincents

RobertKK

pilly wrote: »

If it's no skin off your nose why feel the need to comment so?

I feel some people have been avoiding the real reason for their opposition, and the self righteousness lacked honesty.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

I feel some people have been avoiding the real reason for their opposition, and the self righteousness lacked honesty.

the real reason as you imagine it. A bit condescending to think you know what people are thinking better than they do. almost like the attitude of the catholic church itself.

ohnonotgmail

RobertKK wrote: »

Women's health is such a generic term, what you mean is the state handing over the running of a hospital to a group who oppose abortion and this is fundamentally where the issue lies in regards to "women's health" in this debate.

they oppose a lot more that an abortion when it comes to womens health. they oppose contraception and sterilisation as well.

RobertKK

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

the real reason as you imagine it. A bit condescending to think you know what people are thinking better than they do. almost like the attitude of the catholic church itself.

Is it not better to be honest in what one thinks?
I made it clear it is how I think/feel.
For some what I said is the truth, for others they have other reasons.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

Yes, but I presume the considerable debts / mortgages of the hospital complex will be rolled into the charity....

Osgoodisgood

RobertKK wrote: »

Women's health is such a generic term, what you mean is the state handing over the running of a hospital to a group who oppose abortion and this is fundamentally where the issue lies in regards to "women's health" in this debate.

You have no idea what I mean.
Let me help.
The SOC have views on the following topics that in my opinion make them a very poor fit to be bequeathed a hospital whose central purpose is to provide women with sexual and reproductive healthcare:

Abortion
IVF
Gender reassignment
Sterilization
Contraception

The other issue is the public facility being handed over to a private group at all. If they'd considered giving the hospital to the Irish Association of Fishmongers I would've had a problem with that as well, I just don't know how big a problem as I'm not as up to speed on their "ethos" and how they'll choose to apply it.

Now you know what I mean. Try not to speak on my behalf again you cheeky scamp. It's kind of rude.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Yes, but I presume the considerable debts / mortgages of the hospital complex will be rolled into the charity....

does it have considerable debts and mortgages?

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

does it have considerable debts and mortgages?

Yes, that was the reason stated why the nuns couldn't simply give some of the lands to the State.

pilly

RobertKK wrote: »

I feel some people have been avoiding the real reason for their opposition, and the self righteousness lacked honesty.

Not even going to be baited. Too happy about the news. Now I can run around getting pregnant all over the place and get rid of the babies.

NuMarvel

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

does it have considerable debts and mortgages?

I can't find a figure, but a loan was taken out on the construction and equipping of the new private hospital. And at 8 floors, with 230 private rooms, diagnostic suits, plus a whole lot more, I can't imagine it was cheap.

ohnonotgmail

NuMarvel wrote: »

I can't find a figure, but a loan was taken out on the construction and equipping of the new private hospital. And at 8 floors, with 230 private rooms, diagnostic suits, plus a whole lot more, I can't imagine it was cheap.

what does a mortgage on a private hospital have to do with the new public maternity hospital?

The devil really is in the detail on this transaction and those that welcomed this deal so effusely would have been better advised to wait until the details are well clarified.

Apart from the issue of who controls the new charity - will they be deep cover church representatives, there is the risk that the state will end up paying twice for these facilities - once when it funded them originally and now to meet any mortgages that the nuns subsequently took out..

RobertKK

pilly wrote: »

Not even going to be baited. Too happy about the news. Now I can run around getting pregnant all over the place and get rid of the babies.

Apologies if you thought I was baiting, You bring up a point as if it doesn't happen...there was a statistic that a third of women who go for an abortion, previously had an abortion. so for some what you say is fact.
For 2012: 37% of women seeking an abortion, previously had an abortion.
4,500 women had at least 4 abortions.
33 women had 9 or more abortions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10173977/Record-high-number-of-abortions-which-are-repeats.html

But abortion has been a factor that came under the 'women's health' in this debate, rather than it being said straight out by some, and I was not accusing you or trying to bait you.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

Apologies if you thought I was baiting, You bring up a point as if it doesn't happen...there was a statistic that a third of women who go for an abortion, previously had an abortion. so for some what you say is fact.
For 2012: 37% of women seeking an abortion, previously had an abortion.
4,500 women had at least 4 abortions.
33 women had 9 or more abortions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10173977/Record-high-number-of-abortions-which-are-repeats.html

But abortion has been a factor that came under the 'women's health' in this debate, rather than it being said straight out by some, and I was not accusing you or trying to bait you.

I don't understand what your point is. If it's not about having a go at other posters, then it must be about the hospital itself, right? Only I can't see how the number of previous abortions a woman has had is related to the NMH? Unless you mean that having the Sisters of Charity run it would actually have prevented abortions being carried out there.

Is that what you're saying?

Hermy

Deleted User wrote: »

It's nice to read an objective post in this thread.

Orders of Nuns all have their own "ethos", and just as each order is different, so, too, are individual Nuns different.

You get the good, the bad, and the indifferent personalities among them, just like any other group.

Yet, to read some of the posts here, you'd be forgiven for thinking that every Nun who ever lived was guilty of abuse, which common sense dictates is just not rational.

That is neither defending, nor excusing, those Nuns who were guilty of abuse. But automatically treating every Nun as if they were guilty is another form of abuse. It's emotional and psychological abuse.

Worth thinking about?

While I agree with you that not all were individually guilty of abuses, nonetheless the organisations they are members of are guilty of committing, facilitating and covering up among other things, sexual abuse of minors, child trafficking and false imprisonment of women whose only crime was to become pregnant outside of wedlock. And given that many of these organisations are still in denial about their criminal past, I really don't think they are suitable people to be running any public institution, least of all a maternity hospital.

NuMarvel

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what does a mortgage on a private hospital have to do with the new public maternity hospital?

The private hospital is part of the hospital group that the Sisters of Charity are transferring to new owners, so the mortgage on the hospital would be part of that transfer too.

RobertKK

volchitsa wrote: »

I don't understand what your point is. If it's not about having a go at other posters, then it must be about the hospital itself, right? Only I can't see how the number of previous abortions a woman has had is related to the NMH? Unless you mean that having the Sisters of Charity run it would actually have prevented abortions being carried out there.

Is that what you're saying?

Read what was in the post I replied to, that is the only reason I brought it up.

Hospitals I believe also play politics in certain cases.

volchitsa

RobertKK wrote: »

Read what was in the post I replied to, that is the only reason I brought it up.

Hospitals I believe also play politics in certain cases.

I did, that's why I asked. It looks to me like you're having a go at people who objected to the proposed arrangement, and accusing them of being motivated by their pro choice convictions, but you say you aren't.

But if you aren't, then what relevance is it that someone is pro choice? Unless you mean the nuns were acting as a barrier to abortions ever being provided in the hospital as and when the law allows them.

Which is certainly a suspicion held by some pro choice people. It's just that it's been denied by the hospital so now I'm wondering if you're agreeing with pro choice?

Call me Al

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

what does a mortgage on a private hospital have to do with the new public maternity hospital?

https://www.google.ie/amp/s/www.irishtimes.com/news/state-assets-used-to-secure-hospital-funds-1.604120%3Fmode%3Damp

If you take a gander at this link you'll see that SVHG have in the past used publicly funded and provided assets within the public hospital as collateral for their private hospital and car park as well I think. When the HSE tried to secure their investment on the site they discovered that couldn't do so.

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Yes, that was the reason stated why the nuns couldn't simply give some of the lands to the State.

robbiezero

pilly wrote: »

I'd say a lot of people are steaming today over this which makes me very happy.

Like who?
You are easily amused.

Hermy

Hermy wrote: »

While I agree with you that not all were individually guilty of abuses, nonetheless the organisations they are members of are guilty of committing, facilitating and covering up among other things, sexual abuse of minors, child trafficking and false imprisonment of women whose only crime was to become pregnant outside of wedlock. And given that many of these organisations are still in denial about their criminal past, I really don't think they are suitable people to be running any public institution, least of all a maternity hospital.

So, if a teacher/solicitor/garda/doctor is guilty of abuse, and it's covered up, does that mean that every member of that organisation - even those members who were nowhere near the location of the crime, and had no way of knowing anything about it, are automatically suspects? Unfit to have anything to do with children, legal issues, or medical matters?

Clearly not!

Yet, that is the logic that is being applied. Those who have not been found to have any connection to wrongdoing are being condemned for no reason other than being a part of the same organisation.

If some of the nuns running the hospital had been found guilty of abuse, I could see the point.

I don't recall any such allegations ever being made.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

So, if a teacher/solicitor/garda/doctor is guilty of abuse, and it's covered up, does that mean that every member of that organisation - even those members who were nowhere near the location of the crime, and had no way of knowing anything about it, are automatically suspects? Unfit to have anything to do with children, legal issues, or medical matters?

Clearly not!

Yet, that is the logic that is being applied. Those who have not been found to have any connection to wrongdoing are being condemned for no reason other than being a part of the same organisation.

If some of the nuns running the hospital had been found guilty of abuse, I could see the point.

I don't recall any such allegations ever being made.

that is not the logic that is being applied and you know it. It is the organisations that have been condemned as they facilitated the abuse by covering it up. the catholic structures in this country (and others) are rotten and the sooner they have no influence on society the better

pilly

Deleted User wrote: »

So, if a teacher/solicitor/garda/doctor is guilty of abuse, and it's covered up, does that mean that every member of that organisation - even those members who were nowhere near the location of the crime, and had no way of knowing anything about it, are automatically suspects? Unfit to have anything to do with children, legal issues, or medical matters?

Clearly not!

Yet, that is the logic that is being applied. Those who have not been found to have any connection to wrongdoing are being condemned for no reason other than being a part of the same organisation.

If some of the nuns running the hospital had been found guilty of abuse, I could see the point.

I don't recall any such allegations ever being made.

The Sisters of Charity were involved with the Magdalene Laundries so there was a connection.

And no-one is saying every individual nun is evil but the very fact that they ignore, deny and cover up abuse is the reason they're not trusted. Very simple.

pilly

RobertKK wrote: »

Apologies if you thought I was baiting, You bring up a point as if it doesn't happen...there was a statistic that a third of women who go for an abortion, previously had an abortion. so for some what you say is fact.
For 2012: 37% of women seeking an abortion, previously had an abortion.
4,500 women had at least 4 abortions.
33 women had 9 or more abortions.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/news/10173977/Record-high-number-of-abortions-which-are-repeats.html

But abortion has been a factor that came under the 'women's health' in this debate, rather than it being said straight out by some, and I was not accusing you or trying to bait you.

No need for an apology, I'm not at all offended because I've no interest in your discussion.

Plenty of threads on abortion. Feel free to discuss over there.

aloyisious

RobertKK wrote: »

It is no skin off my nose who runs it.
Just think the concern from many is more to do with abortion than with the nuns.
If the nuns were all for allowing abortion, there would have been none of this debate in my opinion.

In your's above, you've got it right, it's the crux of the debate we're involved in here.

Abortions are one part of the medical procedures carried out in Maternity Hospitals here as part of the course there, something Dr Mahony and previous masters at Holles St NMH did as part of their duties and obligations of care there and would be obliged to perform at the new NMH, something which is averse to the SOC ethos, which a senior RC churchman reminded them of.

Sterilizations are another of the procedures carried out in the present NMH the RC church has an issue with, believing them necessary only in life-saving requirements for the women, and not simply a matter of choice for women.

All the above has been pointed out in the debate here umpteen times before.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

that is not the logic that is being applied and you know it. It is the organisations that have been condemned as they facilitated the abuse by covering it up. the catholic structures in this country (and others) are rotten and the sooner they have no influence on society the better

Actually, I don't know it.

If none of the Nuns at the St Vincents group were involved in abuse, then they were found guilty by association.

Your own post below proves that!

As does the highlighted final sentence in your post.

pilly wrote: »

The Sisters of Charity were involved with the Magdalene Laundries so there was a connection.

And no-one is saying every individual nun is evil but the very fact that they ignore, deny and cover up abuse is the reason they're not trusted. Very simple.

Whether the Sisters of Charity were involved with the laundries or not, unless the individual Nuns involved in St Vincents were guilty of abuse in the Laundries, then these Nuns are "not trusted" because of the actions of others - or "Guilty by association"!

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, I don't know it.

If none of the Nuns at the St Vincents group were involved in abuse, then they were found guilty by association.

Your own post below proves that!

As does the highlighted final sentence in your post.





Whether the Sisters of Charity were involved with the laundries or not, unless the individual Nuns involved in St Vincents were guilty of abuse in the Laundries, then these Nuns are "not trusted" because of the actions of others - or "Guilty by association"!

It is not about individual nuns. stop with your stupid strawman. it is about the organisation that allowed abuse to continue.

pilly

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, I don't know it.

If none of the Nuns at the St Vincents group were involved in abuse, then they were found guilty by association.

Your own post below proves that!

As does the highlighted final sentence in your post.





Whether the Sisters of Charity were involved with the laundries or not, unless the individual Nuns involved in St Vincents were guilty of abuse in the Laundries, then these Nuns are "not trusted" because of the actions of others - or "Guilty by association"!

That's fine by me. If I was a member of an organisation that was involved in such widespread abuse and I didn't do anything about it then I'd expect to be castigated for it and held responsible. Makes perfect sense.

Why shouldn't they be. Are you trying to say of the 200 left that none of them worked in the Laundries, witnessed abuse, took part in abuse, covered up abuse? It's not possible.

marienbad

RobertKK wrote: »

Women's health is such a generic term, what you mean is the state handing over the running of a hospital to a group who oppose abortion and this is fundamentally where the issue lies in regards to "women's health" in this debate.

This is just rubbish Robert , lots of us have a problem with the State handing over assets to any 3rd party , be they roads bridges tunnels hospitals without any transparent reasoning or process.

Is that an unreasonable position to hold ?

Call me Al

pilly wrote: »

That's fine by me. If I was a member of an organisation that was involved in such widespread abuse and I didn't do anything about it then I'd expect to be castigated for it and held responsible. Makes perfect sense.

Why shouldn't they be. Are you trying to say of the 200 left that none of them worked in the Laundries, witnessed abuse, took part in abuse, covered up abuse? It's not possible.

Unfortunately nobody in the order ever appear to have turned whistleblower about any of the abuse.