The NMH at St. Vincents

B_Wayne

B_Wayne wrote: »

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

Thank you. I wasn't actually aware of that. I seem to have confused this group with another that promised to pay something like €3 million that they owe in redress, shortly.

I believe the orders should contribute to the fund, as well as the state, since there is culpability on both the orders, and the State, who incarcerated some of these women.

And, with that, I'm going to have to bow out of the discussion. I've a number of projects to finalise before Monday, so, whereas I may (probably wishful thinking) have a quick browse on Boards in the next few weeks, I definitely will not have time to do much, if any, posting - and none at all for the kind of research required when differences of opinion arise.

I stand by my original statement that it is wrong to criticise all Nuns for what some Nuns did. While also recognising that whoever decided not to pay towards redress schemes has a moral reasoning that I can neither understand, nor defend.

ohnonotgmail

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.

i think you'll find that transplanting stolen organs is illegal pretty much everywhere. and even if it wasnt then professional ethics should stop it.

Deleted User wrote: »

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?

you are aware of the Hippocratic oath? if a procedure is bad for somebodies health then no doctor acting ethically would perform it.

ohnonotgmail

Deleted User wrote: »

Thank you. I wasn't actually aware of that. I seem to have confused this group with another that promised to pay something like €3 million that they owe in redress, shortly.

I believe the orders should contribute to the fund, as well as the state, since there is culpability on both the orders, and the State, who incarcerated some of these women.

And, with that, I'm going to have to bow out of the discussion. I've a number of projects to finalise before Monday, so, whereas I may (probably wishful thinking) have a quick browse on Boards in the next few weeks, I definitely will not have time to do much, if any, posting - and none at all for the kind of research required when differences of opinion arise.

I stand by my original statement that it is wrong to criticise all Nuns for what some Nuns did. While also recognising that whoever decided not to pay towards redress schemes has a moral reasoning that I can neither understand, nor defend.

and people are not doing that. they are criticising the order not individuals. this has been explained to you many many times but you refuse to let it sink in. you prefer your persecution complex.

pilly

pilly wrote: »

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.

It may not be anyone else's business, but it becomes someone else's business very quickly when litigation arises, for instance. Especially if Joe Publics taxes go towards paying extra premiums due to large compensation awards, or worse, the hospital has difficulty obtaining Insurance.

Anyway, as I've explained, I really don't have time for this, so, I'll have to leave it at that, unfortunately.

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

It may not be anyone else's business, but it becomes someone else's business very quickly when litigation arises, for instance. Especially if Joe Publics taxes go towards paying extra premiums due to large compensation awards, or worse, the hospital has difficulty obtaining Insurance.

Anyway, as I've explained, I really don't have time for this, so, I'll have to leave it at that, unfortunately.

Non sequitur when it's private hospitals doing cosmetic surgery jobs. Joe public taxes don't pay for bad work but it's not a bad idea to present to Iona etc. Let them use that as a reason to call a halt to public hospital operations necessary for women's health "if something goes wrong, they'll sue the hospital" so ban the operations and cut the risk of being sued for sloppy work causing harm to women and their health.

A plus being if the hospital performing "anti-life" operations closes down due to lack of insurance cover, it's a win win situation for Iona..... just sad that denial of health care means that women's health will be harmed anyway. We can continue to sen....... let them travel abroad to have the ops there.

Chuchote

What's all the kerfuffle about "abortion on demand"?

The call for this is purely for the first couple of months of pregnancy, and we have it already because women are taking abortion pills to end pregnancy at this stage.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

Non sequitur when it's private hospitals doing cosmetic surgery jobs. Joe public taxes don't pay for bad work but it's not a bad idea to present to Iona etc. Let them use that as a reason to call a halt to public hospital operations necessary for women's health "if something goes wrong, they'll sue the hospital" so ban the operations and cut the risk of being sued for sloppy work causing harm to women and their health.

A plus being if the hospital performing "anti-life" operations closes down due to lack of insurance cover, it's a win win situation for Iona..... just sad that denial of health care means that women's health will be harmed anyway. We can continue to sen....... let them travel abroad to have the ops there.

Ah! The old "Iona" defence.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with the Iona Institute. I'd never actually heard of them until I read about their existence on Boards.

Way to ignore the need for any morals in hospitals - because, of course, any new discovery will automatically be morally acceptable - or not!

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

Ah! The old "Iona" defence.
I have nothing whatsoever to do with the Iona Institute. I'd never actually heard of them until I read about their existence on Boards.

Way to ignore the need for any morals in hospitals - because, of course, any new discovery will automatically be morally acceptable - or not!

Yes well, Iona and it's offspring are the self-appointed guardians of public and private morals when it comes to women's health [amongst other] issues because they see as them contrary to the good word, regardless of O/P likes, dislikes and wishes. If you didn't know they were making decisions for you, on your behalf, without your knowledge, you know now. It's good that the debate increased your Irish current affairs knowledge [the institute].

New discoveries are worth examining on the basis of "are they GOOD and FIT for purpose" rather than merely "do they fit my moral outlook on life" and made contrary to law if they don't.

OK, so if the nuns are no longer the beneficial owners of St Vincents, who are now the beneficial owners of the three hospitals? Is a private healthcare company in control of one of the state's largest hospitals, a so-called "public" hospital?

Given the hundreds of millions of public money put into these hospitals, how is handing ownership from a private religious organisation's company to a private company progress? Again, who are the beneficial owners of this private company which is in receipt of such an enormous gift of hospitals from a religious organisation, the Sisters of Charity, which has been indicted in a wide range of institutional child abuse most infamously via its running of the notorious Magdalene laundries?

No guilt, no remorse, at all for their crimes. A clear two fingers in fact in its decision to not transfer the hospitals to the putative representative of the Irish public in 2017, the Irish state. Only the most rightwing libertarian ideologue could consider this transfer to a private corporation rather than to the state to be progress. That fact that it is legal speaks volumes for how fúcked we continue to be by church and state cohering for almost two centuries.

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

OK, so if the nuns are no longer the beneficial owners of St Vincents, who are now the beneficial owners of the three hospitals? Is a private healthcare company in control of one of the state's largest hospitals, a so-called "public" hospital?

Given the hundreds of millions of public money put into these hospitals, how is handing ownership from a private religious organisation's company to a private company progress? Again, who are the beneficial owners of this private company which is in receipt of such an enormous gift of hospitals from a religious organisation, the Sisters of Charity, which has been indicted in a wide range of institutional child abuse most infamously via its running of the notorious Magdalene laundries?

No guilt, no remorse, at all for their crimes. A clear two fingers in fact in its decision to not transfer the hospitals to the putative representative of the Irish public in 2017, the Irish state. Only the most rightwing libertarian ideologue could consider this transfer to a private corporation rather than to the state to be progress. That fact that it is legal speaks volumes for how fúcked we continue to be by church and state cohering for almost two centuries.

The situation at the moment is that the Nuns order [the SOC] owns the site and St Vincent's hospital. The allegedly altered deal for the proposed new NMH now includes the SOC handing ownership of the SVHG over to a trust and having nothing at all to do with the SVHG.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

The situation at the moment is that the Nuns order [the SOC] owns the site and St Vincent's hospital. The allegedly altered deal for the proposed new NMH now includes the SOC handing ownership of the SVHG over to a trust and having nothing at all to do with the SVHG.

But who will be the beneficial owner of said trust? Rich people often protect their wealth by establishing trusts. I think the Irish public should have a right to know the individuals or corporations who will be the new owners of these so-called "public hospitals". It's a crazy situation that so much public money will be handed over to a private faceless firm or private faceless "trust" which is guaranteed enormous sums of public money via its ownership of these public hospitals.

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

But who will be the beneficial owner of said trust? Rich people often protect their wealth by establishing trusts. I think the Irish public should have a right to know the individuals or corporations who will be the new owners of these so-called "public hospitals". It's a crazy situation that so much public money will be handed over to a private faceless firm or private faceless "trust" which is guaranteed enormous sums of public money via its ownership of these public hospitals.

Answer not known publicly at the moment. Maybe it's just coincident that one trust is taking over from another trust, 1st trust said to ensure that if the SOC sell up or end connection with SVHG the site will be handed over to a group or body with the same ethos of the SOC.

aloyisious

aloyisious wrote: »

Yes well, Iona and it's offspring are the self-appointed guardians of public and private morals when it comes to women's health [amongst other] issues because they see as them contrary to the good word, regardless of O/P likes, dislikes and wishes. If you didn't know they were making decisions for you, on your behalf, without your knowledge, you know now. It's good that the debate increased your Irish current affairs knowledge [the institute].

New discoveries are worth examining on the basis of "are they GOOD and FIT for purpose" rather than merely "do they fit my moral outlook on life" and made contrary to law if they don't.

Otherwise known as "ethical" - which was precisely the point I was making.

I made no mention of my moral outlook - only the moral outlook of the people of this Country.

You seem to have decided that my moral outlook is markedly different, for some reason? Because I see a need for ethics - and made a point of saying "not necessarily religious"!

Strange. Anyway, I'm glad we're in agreement on the need for ethics, even if we choose to phrase it differently.

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

Otherwise known as "ethical" - which was precisely the point I was making.

I made no mention of my moral outlook - only the moral outlook of the people of this Country.

You seem to have decided that my moral outlook is markedly different, for some reason? Because I see a need for ethics - and made a point of saying "not necessarily religious"!

Strange. Anyway, I'm glad we're in agreement on the need for ethics, even if we choose to phrase it differently.

This is just semantics .

Are you saying the values of the majority should constitute the 'ethical' basis of our laws ?

I'm saying ethics are necessary. No more, no less.
Others appear to disagree - or merely argue for the sake of semantics, or an assumption that I was suggesting that my personal ethics should form the basis of the ethos of a hospital. Which actually couldn't be further from the truth.

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm saying ethics are necessary. No more, no less.
Others appear to disagree - or merely argue for the sake of semantics, or an assumption that I was suggesting that my personal ethics should form the basis of the ethos of a hospital. Which actually couldn't be further from the truth.

I think the question you're being asked is where should these ethics come from?

To be more exact, there is already a well established field of modern medical ethics, based on personal autonomy and patient consent, and this understanding of ethics comes into sharp contradiction with religious ethics in reproductive medicine, among other "flash points".

So when there is a conflict between the two versions of "ethics", which do you think should prevail, or how should we choose?

marienbad

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm saying ethics are necessary. No more, no less.
Others appear to disagree - or merely argue for the sake of semantics, or an assumption that I was suggesting that my personal ethics should form the basis of the ethos of a hospital. Which actually couldn't be further from the truth.

But the problem I think is that ,left in isolation as you are doing ,it is a just meaningless platitude .

It is just like saying air and water are necessary for life , sure we can all agree, so now that we have stated the obvious ( and even engaged in an argument about it ) where do we go from here ?

Do you have an ethical system in mind ?

aloyisious

Deleted User wrote: »

Otherwise known as "ethical" - which was precisely the point I was making.

I made no mention of my moral outlook - only the moral outlook of the people of this Country.

You seem to have decided that my moral outlook is markedly different, for some reason? Because I see a need for ethics - and made a point of saying "not necessarily religious"!

Strange. Anyway, I'm glad we're in agreement on the need for ethics, even if we choose to phrase it differently.

Perhaps you might look at what I wrote with fresh eyes as it applies to ALL PERSONS making new discoveries: New discoveries are worth examining on the basis of "are they GOOD and FIT for purpose" rather than merely "do they fit my moral outlook on life" and made contrary to law if they don't.

I have NOT made any decision on your moral outlook as it has nothing to do with this debate.

The moral outlook of the people of the people of this country, as you've raised that particular angle, are as varied as the people themselves. Now, having said that, perhaps we should get back to the NMH debate.

volchitsa

volchitsa wrote: »

I think the question you're being asked is where should these ethics come from?

To be more exact, there is already a well established field of modern medical ethics, based on personal autonomy and patient consent, and this understanding of ethics comes into sharp contradiction with religious ethics in reproductive medicine, among other "flash points".

So when there is a conflict between the two versions of "ethics", which do you think should prevail, or how should we choose?

That's a very valid question.

It's also one that needs an awful lot of discussion.

I'd suggest we start with what is a common understanding of medicine.

Is it a medical procedure, which would automatically cover things that are medically possible - or is it about "healing" - or some combination of the two.

One for another thread, I think, and one I really will not have time to discuss for the next few weeks if things go as planned, and my husband is admitted for major surgery tomorrow.

marienbad wrote: »

But the problem I think is that ,left in isolation as you are doing ,it is a just meaningless platitude .

It is just like saying air and water are necessary for life , sure we can all agree, so now that we have stated the obvious ( and even engaged in an argument about it ) where do we go from here ?

Do you have an ethical system in mind ?

No, I do not. I think it is something that needs to be discussed, though, due to increasingly rapid advances in medicine.

aloyisious wrote: »

Perhaps you might look at what I wrote with fresh eyes as it applies to ALL PERSONS making new discoveries: New discoveries are worth examining on the basis of "are they GOOD and FIT for purpose" rather than merely "do they fit my moral outlook on life" and made contrary to law if they don't.

I have NOT made any decision on your moral outlook as it has nothing to do with this debate.

The moral outlook of the people of the people of this country, as you've raised that particular angle, are as varied as the people themselves. Now, having said that, perhaps we should get back to the NMH debate.

I never mentioned my moral outlook.
You brought that up.

Fit for purpose and "good" are not necessarily the same thing. Just as a medical procedure, and healing, are not necessarily the same thing.

You're right, though, it's time to get back the the thread topic. I was actually surprised at the number of replies something I considered to be an off the cuff remark generated.

Anyway, I'll leave you to it.
I still have a few bits of last minute packing to do, and I definitely will not be typing on a phone or tablet for the next while, whatever about reading...

volchitsa

Deleted User wrote: »

That's a very valid question.

It's also one that needs an awful lot of discussion.

I'd suggest we start with what is a common understanding of medicine.

Is it a medical procedure, which would automatically cover things that are medically possible - or is it about "healing" - or some combination of the two.

Except we don't need to start from first principles like that, because as I said, in this country we already have two main competing sets of pre-constructed ethos, one Catholic/Christian, the other the field of medical ethics, which if you ever listen to BBC radio 4 you will hear discussed in application based on real life cases in a fascinating series called Inside the Ethics Committee.

If you're interested there's a link about it:
Inside_the_Ethics_Committee

So all you need to do is tell us whether you think Catholic medical ethics should take priority over nonreligious medical ethics as currently practiced in the western world and why. It will only take a second, honest.

One for another thread, I think, and one I really will not have time to discuss for the next few weeks if things go as planned, and my husband is admitted for major surgery tomorrow.

All the best to him, and you.

aloyisious

Today's online Irish Examiner report: http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/still-no-decision-on-ownership-of-new-national-maternity-hospital-815826.html

aloyisious

Going through today's Irish Indo, I saw this report about a proposed HIQA investigation into the death of a patient in the NMH and the NMH court action to stop the investigation in it's tracks. It seems Dr Holohan from the Dept of Health co-signed a letter about the NMH court action [presumably sent to the NMH legal team] earlier this month.

There's [according to the Indo article] been no contact between the NMH and the Dept about the co-location plans at St Vincents. Para's 3 and 4 seem most pertinent, but others here might see something else in the Indo story that's equally relevant to actually getting the progression of the co-location back on track. The minister is mentioned in the last para as denying the NMH claims made in court. I photo'd the article. photo link below. Please note I've edited my original post, with some extra short additions and deletions of incorrect original parts in respect of the Indo report content.

Hotblack Desiato

Apologies for late notice, crazy busy week. Non-professional protesters have to fit in jobs and looking after kids around their activism


#MakeNMHOurs march tomorrow, Sat 8th 2pm at Dublin Spire

There is no way we will accept a €350m public hospital going under the control of a "trust" like the nuns and "brothers" used to secure their assets while insulating themselves from the consequences of their abuses.

Public hospital - public ownership. No more handing over public assets to unaccountable "trusts".

No promises as to "ethos" can be believed, and no ownership of a hospital built from the ground up by taxpayers other than by taxpayers is acceptable.

If we want to ensure that the new maternity hospital fully respects the reproductive rights of women - we have to make this happen. The government are happy to hand it over to nuns, who claim they have "stepped back" from healthcare but they still own the site, the government will not own the hospital it pays to build(!!) and the Vatican (through the articles of association of the charitable trust of the nuns) effectively owns the site and claim to control what can happen on that site.

No more.

It stops. Now.

ted1

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Apologies for late notice, crazy busy week. Non-professional protesters have to fit in jobs and looking after kids around their activism


#MakeNMHOurs march tomorrow, Sat 8th 2pm at Dublin Spire

There is no way we will accept a €350m public hospital going under the control of a "trust" like the nuns and "brothers" used to secure their assets while insulating themselves from the consequences of their abuses.

Public hospital - public ownership. No more handing over public assets to unaccountable "trusts".

No promises as to "ethos" can be believed, and no ownership of a hospital built from the ground up by taxpayers other than by taxpayers is acceptable.

If we want to ensure that the new maternity hospital fully respects the reproductive rights of women - we have to make this happen. The government are happy to hand it over to nuns, who claim they have "stepped back" from healthcare but they still own the site, the government will not own the hospital it pays to build(!!) and the Vatican (through the articles of association of the charitable trust of the nuns) effectively owns the site and claim to control what can happen on that site.

No more.

It stops. Now.

What hospital ranks as the top hospital in Ireland on a regular basis ?

Who owns the land ?

Hotblack Desiato

How do you define top hospital?

Is it still "top" if you're looking for a sterilisation or an abortion?

Is it funded by taxpayers but controlled by nuns or priests?

qo2cj1dsne8y4k

The days of religious orders having any input to the health and welfare of the citizens of our country should be well and truly over

DS86DS

Well why shouldn't they? This is a majority Roman Catholic country, and the religious orders have been running much of our healthcare system to a good standard when the state has been doing a terrible job.

Does it really matter who runs a hospital if you are been provided with good and professional healthcare that will heal the patient?

The solution is simple, if the concept is offensive to you, then use or go to another hospital.

eviltwin

DS86DS wrote: »

Well why shouldn't they? This is a majority Roman Catholic country, and the religious orders have been running much of our healthcare system to a good standard when the state has been doing a terrible job.

Does it really matter who runs a hospital if you are been provided with good and professional healthcare that will heal the patient?

The solution is simple, if the concept is offensive to you, then use or go to another hospital.

Best medical decisions should be based on best practice and not on what the Bible says

jimd2

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Apologies for late notice, crazy busy week. Non-professional protesters have to fit in jobs and looking after kids around their activism


#MakeNMHOurs march tomorrow, Sat 8th 2pm at Dublin Spire

There is no way we will accept a €350m public hospital going under the control of a "trust" like the nuns and "brothers" used to secure their assets while insulating themselves from the consequences of their abuses.

Public hospital - public ownership. No more handing over public assets to unaccountable "trusts".

No promises as to "ethos" can be believed, and no ownership of a hospital built from the ground up by taxpayers other than by taxpayers is acceptable.

If we want to ensure that the new maternity hospital fully respects the reproductive rights of women - we have to make this happen. The government are happy to hand it over to nuns, who claim they have "stepped back" from healthcare but they still own the site, the government will not own the hospital it pays to build(!!) and the Vatican (through the articles of association of the charitable trust of the nuns) effectively owns the site and claim to control what can happen on that site.

No more.

It stops. Now.

It shows how important the issue is to you if you couldn't get off your arse and communicate this until early hours on the day of the event.

You were probably reminded of it by someone in the pub.

If you are going to organise an event do it properly and communicate it properly or don't do it at all.

DS86DS

DS86DS wrote: »

The solution is simple, if the concept is offensive to you, then use or go to another hospital.

It's a hospital, not a corner shop. They're in short supply and they shouldn't be run by any group with an agenda outside of providing the best care possible for the citizens of Ireland.