The NMH at St. Vincents

pilly

Call me Al wrote: »

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

Exactly.

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

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

If it's not about individual Nuns, why the constant derogatory tone when referring to "Nuns" throughout this thread?

So, which Nun involved in St Vincents was in any way involved with abuse?

Because, if there are none - then it is ridiculous to punish someone for belonging to an organisation, if that particular person did nothing wrong.

That's basic common sense.
The strawmanning is pretending to misunderstand the very basic concept of "Innocent until proven guilty".

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.

So, if you were a teacher working in, say, Kerry, and another teacher in Dublin was abusing kids without your knowledge, you'd expect to be castigated for it?

We both know that isn't true!

Whether any surviving Nuns knew about abuse , or not, is entirely irrelevant, in this case.

It would only be relevant if the Nuns involved with St. Vincents were aware of abuse, and did nothing.
Even then, justice would demand proof that every Nun involved with St Vincents was guilty of covering up abuse, before all of them could be declared unfit to be involved in providing medical care.

Hence my belief that those Nuns are being judged, and condemned, without trial, for crimes (and they were crimes) that they have never personally been accused of - never mind found guilty.

Modern Ireland - innocent until proven guilty - unless you're a Nun!

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

If it's not about individual Nuns, why the constant derogatory tone when referring to "Nuns" throughout this thread?

So, which Nun involved in St Vincents was in any way involved with abuse?

Because, if there are none - then it is ridiculous to punish someone for belonging to an organisation, if that particular person did nothing wrong.

That's basic common sense.
The strawmanning is pretending to misunderstand the very basic concept of "Innocent until proven guilty".

So, if you were a teacher working in, say, Kerry, and another teacher in Dublin was abusing kids without your knowledge, you'd expect to be castigated for it?

We both know that isn't true!

Whether any surviving Nuns knew about abuse , or not, is entirely irrelevant, in this case.

It would only be relevant if the Nuns involved with St. Vincents were aware of abuse, and did nothing.
Even then, justice would demand proof that every Nun involved with St Vincents was guilty of covering up abuse, before all of them could be declared unfit to be involved in providing medical care.

Hence my belief that those Nuns are being judged, and condemned, without trial, for crimes (and they were crimes) that they have never personally been accused of - never mind found guilty.

Modern Ireland - innocent until proven guilty - unless you're a Nun!

It seems to me that the strawman argument being proposed here is that the O/P is using a strawman argument. It's not about individual nuns or an individual nun, or any past criminal act, it was about the underlying ethos that would have been a component part of the last proposed [now apparently scrapped] deal between the SOC, SVHG, the Govt and the NMH.

That ethos is a man-made structure based on the word of God and propagated by men and women which was seen [in this case] as likely to be a factor when nuns in the SOC order were put to the dilemma of deciding if medical health procedures could be performed by surgeons on other women in the new NMH under their ownership.

To me there is no difference between the state of a woman's health and a woman's life, as the 1st is correlated to the 2nd and vice versa.

hatrickpatrick

aloyisious wrote: »

That ethos is a man-made structure based on the word of God

In my view it's very much not based on the word of God and is very, very often in direct conflict and contradiction with the aforementioned word. I wouldn't agree either that this has nothing to do with past crimes - of course it does. Apart from the ethos issue, the religious orders and the church itself have permanently destroyed their credibility when it comes to caring for vulnerable people in any way, shape or form - and somebody who requires serious medical treatment for any reason, maternity related or otherwise, is most certainly classed as a vulnerable person. Ergo, religious entities should not be allowed to have any involvement whatsoever in providing any form of healthcare.

aloyisious

Unless someone has hacked into the Iona Institute, or set up a fake Facebook page using the Iona Institute's name, this seems to be it's current position on the ethos of hospitals and doctors. I lifted the encircled para below from the facebook page [which I just saw and read] which is using the above title. The author of the Institute statement seems to be Dr Angelo Bottone, research officer at the institute. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjI0bn50pnUAhVGJMAKHVr8BKUQFgg2MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ionainstitute.ie%2Fpersonnel-and-patrons%2F&usg=AFQjCNFbFF_c2Rhz6v_UxYGu3dtWTySeyw

I listened to part of the RTE 1 coverage of the breaking news yesterday but missed the later input on the issue by David Quinn so I don't know if he agrees/might agree with today's Iona Institute F/B statement. The link below is of that F/B page.

[The Sisters of Charity have decided to quit their hospitals. But society still needs to decide what kind of ethos will govern its hospitals. Should the ethos be one that allows doctors to kill the unborn, the old and the infirm in certain circumstances or not? That is the key question. An ethic that allows doctors to kill is a corruption of real medicine.]

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/post-the-nuns-will-a-pro-life-or-pro-choice-ethic-govern-the-st-vincents-hospitals/

Edit... while you are reading the above Iona Institute statement and what's in the link, it's worth keeping in mind that the Institute is NOT a Roman Catholic group, according to what Patricia Casey [patron of the Institute] said several weeks ago during an RTE interview. She corrected what the interviewer said at the time to make that point clear. It does have a former COI bishop as a patron as well.

Chuchote

Letter in today's Irish Times

When I initially heard that the Sisters of Charity were divesting themselves of ownership of St Vincent’s Hospital, my reactions were threefold.
First, I welcomed the decision as a sensible one, given the numbers and ages of the nuns themselves.
Second, I hoped the State would formally recognise the positive deeds of the nuns through the years.
Third, I was pleased that a facility whose financial input came from the people of Ireland was finally to be owned by the Government on behalf of those people.
My positive thoughts soon evaporated when it became apparent that instead of the Sisters giving the hospital to the people, they are giving it to a trust which is absolutely not beholden to the people. This is nothing less than a slap in the face.

aloyisious

Chuchote wrote: »

Letter in today's Irish Times

Umm, a trust.... So; on the face of it, nothing much may have changed as it is my understanding that St Vincent's Hospital presently is held in a trust whereby should the SOC quit ownership of it, or the order become disestablished due to lack of membership etc, the Hospital will have to be handed over solely to a group or body with the same ethos as the SOC.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

It seems to me that the strawman argument being proposed here is that the O/P is using a strawman argument. It's not about individual nuns or an individual nun, or any past criminal act, it was about the underlying ethos that would have been a component part of the last proposed [now apparently scrapped] deal between the SOC, SVHG, the Govt and the NMH.

That ethos is a man-made structure based on the word of God and propagated by men and women which was seen [in this case] as likely to be a factor when nuns in the SOC order were put to the dilemma of deciding if medical health procedures could be performed by surgeons on other women in the new NMH under their ownership.

To me there is no difference between the state of a woman's health and a woman's life, as the 1st is correlated to the 2nd and vice versa.

The OP merely asked if this was a joke.

I'm referring to a distinct tone in this thread that is critical of "Nuns".

Some Nuns, in the past, were responsible for some horrendous acts.
Others spent their lives doing good, and made valuable contributions to Society.

Therefore, criticism of "Nuns", as if they were all equally guilty of wrongdoing, is quite simply finding every Nun guilty of wrongdoing simply by being members of an order - which is patently ridiculous.

aloyisious wrote: »

Unless someone has hacked into the Iona Institute, or set up a fake Facebook page using the Iona Institute's name, this seems to be it's current position on the ethos of hospitals and doctors. I lifted the encircled para below from the facebook page [which I just saw and read] which is using the above title. The author of the Institute statement seems to be Dr Angelo Bottone, research officer at the institute. https://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjI0bn50pnUAhVGJMAKHVr8BKUQFgg2MAM&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.ionainstitute.ie%2Fpersonnel-and-patrons%2F&usg=AFQjCNFbFF_c2Rhz6v_UxYGu3dtWTySeyw

I listened to part of the RTE 1 coverage of the breaking news yesterday but missed the later input on the issue by David Quinn so I don't know if he agrees/might agree with today's Iona Institute F/B statement. The link below is of that F/B page.

[The Sisters of Charity have decided to quit their hospitals. But society still needs to decide what kind of ethos will govern its hospitals. Should the ethos be one that allows doctors to kill the unborn, the old and the infirm in certain circumstances or not? That is the key question. An ethic that allows doctors to kill is a corruption of real medicine.]

http://www.ionainstitute.ie/post-the-nuns-will-a-pro-life-or-pro-choice-ethic-govern-the-st-vincents-hospitals/

Edit... while you are reading the above Iona Institute statement and what's in the link, it's worth keeping in mind that the Institute is NOT a Roman Catholic group, according to what Patricia Casey [patron of the Institute] said several weeks ago during an RTE interview. She corrected what the interviewer said at the time to make that point clear. It does have a former COI bishop as a patron as well.

I don't generally read anything by the Iona Institute, or David Quinn, unless from a link in Boards, but there is a discussion to be had on the ethos of hospitals, re: Whether whether the practice of medicine means "healing illness", or whether it should incorporate Euthanasia, abortion on demand, or cosmetic surgery, for instance.

It's one for another thread, perhaps - but a valid question, and one worth discussing.

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

The OP merely asked if this was a joke.

I'm referring to a distinct tone in this thread that is critical of "Nuns".

Some Nuns, in the past, were responsible for some horrendous acts.
Others spent their lives doing good, and made valuable contributions to Society.

Therefore, criticism of "Nuns", as if they were all equally guilty of wrongdoing, is quite simply finding every Nun guilty of wrongdoing simply by being members of an order - which is patently ridiculous.



I don't generally read anything by the Iona Institute, or David Quinn, unless from a link in Boards, but there is a discussion to be had on the ethos of hospitals, re: Whether whether the practice of medicine means "healing illness", or whether it should incorporate Euthanasia, abortion on demand, or cosmetic surgery, for instance.

It's one for another thread, perhaps - but a valid question, and one worth discussing.

Gotcha on the "nuns" plurality bit now - broad-stroke effect of opinions casting shadows...

Re the Iona statement, it's par for the course for people of the institute to release multiple-issue statements though to imply that hospitals and doctors will practice euthanasia without the presence of the ethos currently in situ at hospitals like St Vincent's might be stretching reality a bit more than usual. I thought at first the statement was about the sisters handing over control of SVHG, wasn't expecting to find them doing so would leave SVHG open to unethical doctors practicing uncontrolled killing of the elderly and infirm.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

Gotcha on the "nuns" plurality bit now - broad-stroke effect of opinions casting shadows...

Re the Iona statement, it's par for the course for people of the institute to release multiple-issue statements though to imply that hospitals and doctors will practice euthanasia without the presence of the ethos currently in situ at hospitals like St Vincent's might be stretching reality a bit more than usual. I thought at first the statement was about the sisters handing over control of SVHG, wasn't expecting to find them doing so would leave SVHG open to unethical doctors practicing uncontrolled killing of the elderly and infirm.

I certainly wouldn't expect that to be the case.
Nevertheless, there is, I believe, ample room for discussion on what ethos non-denominational hospitals should have.

For instance, is plastic surgery "medical treatment"?
In some cases, it is. eg. Severe scarring after burns, or a "defect" affecting someone psychologically, off the top of my head.

What if someone wants a cosmetic procedure that may actually be injurious to their health, though?
Obviously, the vast majority of surgeons would refuse to carry out such procedures, but in the absence of a clearly defined ethos, or a set of clearly defined ethics and morals, it's not unrealistic to believe that some surgeons would carry out the procedure.

Hence, my belief that the discussion needs to be had.
Ireland seems to spend a lot of time playing catch-up with legislation as society develops. So, there is a need for some controls, at least, to protect against any potentially damaging future developments, imo.

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

If it's not about individual Nuns, why the constant derogatory tone when referring to "Nuns" throughout this thread?

So, which Nun involved in St Vincents was in any way involved with abuse?

Because, if there are none - then it is ridiculous to punish someone for belonging to an organisation, if that particular person did nothing wrong.

That's basic common sense.
The strawmanning is pretending to misunderstand the very basic concept of "Innocent until proven guilty".

nuns means the collective body which is the order. It really isnt that hard to understand. almost like you dont want to.

Hotblack Desiato

aloyisious wrote: »

Edit... while you are reading the above Iona Institute statement and what's in the link, it's worth keeping in mind that the Institute is NOT a Roman Catholic group, according to what Patricia Casey [patron of the Institute] said several weeks ago during an RTE interview. She corrected what the interviewer said at the time to make that point clear. It does have a former COI bishop as a patron as well.

Ah, that would be Bishop Token.

Deleted User wrote: »

For instance, is plastic surgery "medical treatment"?
In some cases, it is. eg. Severe scarring after burns, or a "defect" affecting someone psychologically, off the top of my head.

What if someone wants a cosmetic procedure that may actually be injurious to their health, though?
Obviously, the vast majority of surgeons would refuse to carry out such procedures, but in the absence of a clearly defined ethos, or a set of clearly defined ethics and morals, it's not unrealistic to believe that some surgeons would carry out the procedure.

Hence, my belief that the discussion needs to be had.
Ireland seems to spend a lot of time playing catch-up with legislation as society develops. So, there is a need for some controls, at least, to protect against any potentially damaging future developments, imo.

What's any of the above got to do with maternity hospitals?

The Iona Institute, as usual, are transparently trying to move the discussion away from an issue uncomfortable for them and where public opinion is overwhelmingly against them, onto unrelated issues where they feel more able to make a stand successfully, at least for a few years.

Also complaining about the use of the word 'nuns' in a thread about a hospital run by nuns is pretty laughable

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

nuns means the collective body which is the order. It really isnt that hard to understand. almost like you dont want to.

When did the justice system punish the collective? Or even accuse the entire collective? Yet, that is exactly what is happening throughout this thread.

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Ah, that would be Bishop Token.




What's any of the above got to do with maternity hospitals?

The Iona Institute, as usual, are transparently trying to move the discussion away from an issue uncomfortable for them and where public opinion is overwhelmingly against them, onto unrelated issues where they feel more able to make a stand successfully, at least for a few years.

Also complaining about the use of the word 'nuns' in a thread about a hospital run by nuns is pretty laughable

Nothing to do with a Maternity hospital, specifically. Everything to do with whether any hospital should have an ethos - whether religious, or not!

I haven't complained about the use of the word "Nuns" - Ive complained about the fact that all Nuns are being tarred with the same brush, as if every Nun engaged in abuse.

But, you knew that!

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

When did the justice system punish the collective? Or even accuse the entire collective? Yet, that is exactly what is happening throughout this thread.

you really are determined to be obtuse as possible. when i say collective i mean the organisation. but again you know that but are determined to pretend to be thick

Chuchote

Of course every hospital and every doctor has an ethos.

Whether that ethos includes denying women rights over their own bodies or not is another question.

aloyisious

@Lochlach: Going all theological here for a few moments and away [again] from the religious ethos of the SOC nuns in respect of this debate thread on giving them future ownership of the new NMH [said ethos prescribed by the RC Church to which they belong] the problem with the "anti-collective guilt" and "no one should be blamed for the collective's actions" argument is that collective guilt is ok with Christian and RC church teaching. I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you can't think of that version of collective guilt.

Now as for legal [outside that of religious] recognition of collective guilt, there's plenty of evidence of that worldwide, corporate and otherwise. Again I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you can't think of legal recognition of collective guilt.

It seems to me that there is a need to change the moral code teaching of the Church, assuming its ethos is based on a moral code, something it's actions give me cause to doubt. The barrel of apples is still being turned bad by the few hiding behind scripture and canon law.

elperello

On Tuesday's Irish Times the Chairman of Saint Vincent's Hospital Group a Mr James Menton was quoted as saying -

"There has been a lot of simplistic talk, predicated on 'we paid for the hospital so we should own it' "

apparently he also said

The notion the State could own the hospital simply because it provided the funding was "a facile premise".

Full article here http://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/withdrawal-from-st-vincent-s-had-been-on-radar-of-order-for-years-1.3100842

Mr Menton was formerly a partner in KPMG. Having had some dealings with KPMG in the past I was a bit surprised that a man holding these views on property rights could have risen to such heights in the firm so I went to their website to see if they were giving this kind of advice to their clients now. I didn't find any but I did come across this nugget in the Healthcare section, my underlining.

"Healthcare systems are facing unprecedented challenges that require policy makers, payers, providers & suppliers to completely rethink how they work."

Indeed.

https://home.kpmg.com/ie/en/home/industries/healthcare.html

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

When did the justice system punish the collective? Or even accuse the entire collective? Yet, that is exactly what is happening throughout this thread.

People don't want the order involved. Because of what the order has been involved in previously.

Does that mean that some members of the order who had no part in or knowledge of what went on previously are unfairly getting tarred with the same brush? I'd say yes. But if I were looking for somebody to blame for that, I'd look at the members of the order who brought that cloud on them in the first place, leading the public to the very reasonable conclusion that the order as a whole is best avoided, even though not every member of the order was involved.

Anyway, my sympathy is limited as even those nuns who have done nothing to be labelled abusers and so on, still have no business being involved in the running of a maternity hospital.

B_Wayne

[Deleted User] wrote: »

When did the justice system punish the collective? Or even accuse the entire collective? Yet, that is exactly what is happening throughout this thread.



Nothing to do with a Maternity hospital, specifically. Everything to do with whether any hospital should have an ethos - whether religious, or not!

I haven't complained about the use of the word "Nuns" - Ive complained about the fact that all Nuns are being tarred with the same brush, as if every Nun engaged in abuse.

But, you knew that!

The order has actively avoided paying compensation to victims of the laundries which they ran. That's a pretty clear reason on why they should have no involvement with a state hospital.

seamus

ziggy wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This.

David Quinn was continually trying to drag Dr. Boylan into a discussion on this earlier in the week, claiming that a hospital "must" have an ethos, hinting that public hospitals allowing abortions were in violation of the hippocratic oath. Dr. Boylan was having none of it of course, dismissing Quinn's notion as mere opinion.

A public hospital needs no more ethos than to do what is legal. If a private hospital wishes to restrict itself further than they can knock themselves out, provided it's legal.

kylith

elperello wrote: »

On Tuesday's Irish Times the Chairman of Saint Vincent's Hospital Group a Mr James Menton was quoted as saying -

"There has been a lot of simplistic talk, predicated on 'we paid for the hospital so we should own it' "

Does this 'simplistic talk' extend to his car? Why should he own it just because he paid for it?

ohnonotgmail

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

you really are determined to be obtuse as possible. when i say collective i mean the organisation. but again you know that but are determined to pretend to be thick

I'm not being remotely obtuse.

I'm making the very simple point that every member of that order, or, indeed many other orders, was not involved in abuse. Therefore, they should not be spoken of as if they were!

It's a very simple concept, actually.

Chuchote wrote: »

Of course every hospital and every doctor has an ethos.

Whether that ethos includes denying women rights over their own bodies or not is another question.

Exactly. An ethos is necessary, whether religiously motivated, or not.

aloyisious wrote: »

@Lochlach: Going all theological here for a few moments and away [again] from the religious ethos of the SOC nuns in respect of this debate thread on giving them future ownership of the new NMH [said ethos prescribed by the RC Church to which they belong] the problem with the "anti-collective guilt" and "no one should be blamed for the collective's actions" argument is that collective guilt is ok with Christian and RC church teaching. I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you can't think of that version of collective guilt.

Now as for legal [outside that of religious] recognition of collective guilt, there's plenty of evidence of that worldwide, corporate and otherwise. Again I won't insult your intelligence by assuming you can't think of legal recognition of collective guilt.

It seems to me that there is a need to change the moral code teaching of the Church, assuming its ethos is based on a moral code, something it's actions give me cause to doubt. The barrel of apples is still being turned bad by the few hiding behind scripture and canon law.

Can you think of any legal use of "collective guilt" in Ireland, though?

You are entitled to your opinion on the morals of the Catholic Church. I suspect we might disagree on some, and agree on others. Tbh, I've neither the time, nor inclination, to get into it, as I've a family member scheduled for major surgery on Monday, so, I won't have tie to engage in debates on boards.

osarusan wrote: »

People don't want the order involved. Because of what the order has been involved in previously.

Does that mean that some members of the order who had no part in or knowledge of what went on previously are unfairly getting tarred with the same brush? I'd say yes. But if I were looking for somebody to blame for that, I'd look at the members of the order who brought that cloud on them in the first place, leading the public to the very reasonable conclusion that the order as a whole is best avoided, even though not every member of the order was involved.

Anyway, my sympathy is limited as even those nuns who have done nothing to be labelled abusers and so on, still have no business being involved in the running of a maternity hospital.

That was the only point I actually wanted to make.

I don't actually care whether the Nuns run the Maternity Hospital or not!

B_Wayne wrote: »

The order has actively avoided paying compensation to victims of the laundries which they ran. That's a pretty clear reason on why they should have no involvement with a state hospital.

I believe that matter has been addressed, has it not?

seamus wrote: »

This.

David Quinn was continually trying to drag Dr. Boylan into a discussion on this earlier in the week, claiming that a hospital "must" have an ethos, hinting that public hospitals allowing abortions were in violation of the hippocratic oath. Dr. Boylan was having none of it of course, dismissing Quinn's notion as mere opinion.

A public hospital needs no more ethos than to do what is legal. If a private hospital wishes to restrict itself further than they can knock themselves out, provided it's legal.

There, I disagree!

It's legal, if it's not illegal - that leaves a lot of scope for unethical behaviour - and I'm not referring to "religious" ethics, either.

Chuchote

elperello wrote: »

On Tuesday's Irish Times the Chairman of Saint Vincent's Hospital Group a Mr James Menton was quoted as saying -

"There has been a lot of simplistic talk, predicated on 'we paid for the hospital so we should own it' "

apparently he also said

The notion the State could own the hospital simply because it provided the funding was "a facile premise".

Damn, better eat those carrots I bought in Lidl quick before someone else claims them; didn't realise my title wasn't clear.

B_Wayne

Deleted User wrote: »

I believe that matter has been addressed, has it not?

No, it has not, they have actively avoided compensating while they are worth a small fortune.........

Yesterday, the Mercy Sisters, the Sisters of Charity, the Good Shepherd Sisters and the Sisters of Our Lady of Charity informed the Minister for Justice Alan Shatter that it would not pay into the fund, which could cost as much as €58 million.

http://www.thejournal.ie/explainer-how-can-religious-orders-refuse-to-pay-compensation-to-magdalenes-996240-Jul2013/

ToddyDoody

Nuns release press statement:

"Go fcuk the lot of ye"

elperello

The more I've been reading up on this "victory for people power" the more I'm getting the sinking feeling that we have just swapped habits for suits.

seamus

Deleted User wrote: »

There, I disagree!

It's legal, if it's not illegal - that leaves a lot of scope for unethical behaviour - and I'm not referring to "religious" ethics, either.

The law and the medical council binds doctors (and other scientific professionals) to many, many, ethical principles.

If you are concerned about a procedure that could be done because it's legal, then you make it illegal. Why would invent an additional set of arbitrary rules to bind medical professionals by?

seamus

seamus wrote: »

The law and the medical council binds doctors (and other scientific professionals) to many, many, ethical principles.

If you are concerned about a procedure that could be done because it's legal, then you make it illegal. Why would invent an additional set of arbitrary rules to bind medical professionals by?

Lots of reasons. Medical developments are advancing much faster than legislation can keep up.
It's not at all inconceivable that procedures are possible, and not illegal, that many of us would find reprehensible - and professional ethics alone don't stop some pretty awful procedures being carried out in other Countries - transplanting stolen Human organs being one case in point, for instance.

Hence, it's better, imo, to draw up a set of ethics - as I said, not necessarily based on Religion - though of course, many ethics would share a common basis with several Religions - on what the "ethos" of the Hospital/s actually entails.
Not an easy task, but, I think, one that may avert problems later on.

Another issue would be concern about cosmetic "treatments", tbh.

I've read various cases over the years where women have developed painful back conditions through being given ridiculous breast implants, because they felt it would improve their chances of modelling careers, for instance. I've no issue with people having cosmetic surgery - but I do believe that sometimes what people want, and are willing to pay for, is not necessarily good for their health - a 27Z boob job being a case in point.

So, the question is valid:

Is medicine about healing, or is it just a tool to provide whatever procedure people want - irrespective of whether it is injurious to health, or the general public find it acceptable, or repugnant?

pilly

Deleted User wrote: »

Lots of reasons. Medical developments are advancing much faster than legislation can keep up.
It's not at all inconceivable that procedures are possible, and not illegal, that many of us would find reprehensible - and professional ethics alone don't stop some pretty awful procedures being carried out in other Countries - transplanting stolen Human organs being one case in point, for instance.

Hence, it's better, imo, to draw up a set of ethics - as I said, not necessarily based on Religion - though of course, many ethics would share a common basis with several Religions - on what the "ethos" of the Hospital/s actually entails.
Not an easy task, but, I think, one that may avert problems later on.

Another issue would be concern about cosmetic "treatments", tbh.

I've read various cases over the years where women have developed painful back conditions through being given ridiculous breast implants, because they felt it would improve their chances of modelling careers, for instance. I've no issue with people having cosmetic surgery - but I do believe that sometimes what people want, and are willing to pay for, is not necessarily good for their health - a 27Z boob job being a case in point.

So, the question is valid:

Is medicine about healing, or is it just a tool to provide whatever procedure people want - irrespective of whether it is injurious to health, or the general public find it acceptable, or repugnant?

That very much depends on who pays in my opinion. If someone is willing to pay for their 27Z boob job then it's no-one elses business.