The NMH at St. Vincents

One eyed Jack

uptherebels wrote: »

keep telling yourself that, go down with the sinking ship.
The RCC in this country is dying a death of a thousand cuts. Not as fast as i would like but probably within my lifetime.

You reckon within your lifetime you'll see as many hospitals and schools that are owned by organisations other than the RCC?

Too bad they cant evolve a conscience and stop dodging compensation for their crimes.

I've always maintained I'd rather see the perpetrators of crimes brought to justice rather than simply paying off the victims. I've always thought it was either short-sighted, or deliberate on the part of Government to make deals like they did with people's lives. I'd rather see Government use the same money they put into a compensation fund to provide proper mental health services in this country and provide proper services for people living in socioeconomic poverty, provide proper services for people with cognitive, intellectual and physical disabilities, provide proper services where they are lacking instead of outsourcing to organisations set up to pay themselves a cushy salary for doing nothing.

That's just me though.

Religion is a private matter and has no place in hospitals, government and in schools.

I addressed this already.

volchitsa

soups05 wrote: »

true, and i am at a loss to explain how they can be handed something so valuable. I don't agree with it but I am simply reacting to the posters bringing up the scandals from the past. when i meet a german friend I don't repeatedly give him grief over the nazi's and the war. why do some insist on giving grief to the clergy over past mistakes.
can't we as a country move on and let it drop? I am not a catholic anymore for my own reasons, none of which have a bearing on the good men and women who devoted their lives to their faith. These days it seems to be cool to bash the church.

That said I would prefer a proper management for a hospital, one which can balance the needs of a huge business which is how a hospital needs to be run.

Umm, it's not the same because for one thing, the Nazi party doesn't exist any more? Whereas this is the same order of nuns who still haven't paid up for past harm, so they don't even seem,to feel too much remorse?

Blaming all Germans for stuff the Nazis did is like blaming the Irish in general for clerical abuse. Blaming the Nazi party is fair and good.

Charles Babbage

This thread is largely an excuse for anti Catholic bile rather than adult discussion, the problem is that in this country nobody seems accountable for anything , whether they are part of of Catholic order or part of the HSE.

http://www.wexfordecho.ie/2017/03/23/hse-chief-admits-senior-official-involved-in-grace-case-still-works-for-tusla/

uptherebels

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You reckon within your lifetime you'll see as many hospitals and schools that are owned by organisations other than the RCC?





I've always maintained I'd rather see the perpetrators of crimes brought to justice rather than simply paying off the victims. I've always thought it was either short-sighted, or deliberate on the part of Government to make deals like they did with people's lives. I'd rather see Government use the same money they put into a compensation fund to provide proper mental health services in this country and provide proper services for people living in socioeconomic poverty, provide proper services for people with cognitive, intellectual and physical disabilities, provide proper services where they are lacking instead of outsourcing to organisations set up to pay themselves a cushy salary for doing nothing.

That's just me though.






I addressed this already.

Hopefully in my life time i will see the church relegated to a position where it has no influence in any schools,hospitals and has no sway or influence directly or indirectly on decisions made by the government. And this is happening slowly but surely.

Convenient then that the people you want to be held responsible are dead or at an age where they wont be before a court. Just brush it under the carpet?

Paying off victims? the bill they have to pay is not just to throw money at them, is covers inquiries and survivor supports aswell? no?

how else do you hold an institution liable, if not by making them pay?

uptherebels

Charles Babbage wrote: »

This thread is largely an excuse for anti Catholic bile rather than adult discussion, the problem is that in this country nobody seems accountable for anything , whether they are part of of Catholic order or part of the HSE.

http://www.wexfordecho.ie/2017/03/23/hse-chief-admits-senior-official-involved-in-grace-case-still-works-for-tusla/

Pointing out the failings and crimes of a religious institution isnt really bile is it?

its also an excuse for the fervent supporters of the church to excuse and deflect

Geuze

gctest50 wrote: »

Between the 1940s and 1980s, the barbaric symphysiotomy procedure was performed in preference to Caesarean sections,

Note that this is incorrect, this procedure was normal at that time.

Geuze

Chuchote wrote: »

There's a great suggestion going around that the hospital should be named Savita Halappanavar Memorial

Please note that this woman died of sepsis infection.

https://www.rte.ie/news/2013/1009/479282-savita-halappanavar/

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/hiqa-savita-halappanavar-report.pdf

mohawk

Geuze wrote: »

Note that this is incorrect, this procedure was normal at that time.

It was not normal in rest of developed world. Ireland was quite unique in its use of Symphysiotomy instead of CSections in this period.

infogiver

Chuchote wrote: »

Well, let's hope you never have septicaemia and need an abortion then.

Is abortion the cure for septicaemia now?

infogiver

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

If they insist on imposing their catholic ethos on patients then perhaps we can do without them?

So you think you can advertise jobs and include "no Catholics Muslims or Orthodox Jews need apply "
Have you even heard of the Equality Act?

uptherebels

infogiver wrote: »

So you think you can advertise jobs and include "no Catholics Muslims or Orthodox Jews need apply "
Have you even heard of the Equality Act?

Did you actually read what you quoted?

infogiver

gctest50 wrote: »

They may not be the best for the job

How do they feel about say IVF ?

Do you actually believe that your going to have your infertility treated by an actual nun??

BabyCheeses

Chuchote wrote: »

The "abortion doesn't cure septicaemia" trope is an identifier for Iona types.

I'm amazed people continue to play dumb and act as if anyone is saying that once you have an abortion all signs of infection disappear.

Better not tell them that someone with a bad cut should have it cleaned, they might start thinking that the cut will magically disappear as you clean it. Hope it is ok to use the word magically here and someone doesn't take offence to it being anti catholic bigotry.

Gunmonkey

Chuchote wrote: »

There's a great suggestion going around that the hospital should be named Savita Halappanavar Memorial

Thats a bit in bad taste.

Given its a maternity hospital something like:

-"Show Us Your Married Or Yer Out The Door" Maternity Hospital
-National "Have A Band Or Be Banned" Maternity Hospital
-The "Prayer Is Your Epidural" Maternity Hospital

infogiver

uptherebels wrote: »

Did you actually read what you quoted?

Yes of course.
If the poster is going to disqualify candidates for jobs in the hospital based on the fact that their religious persuasion prohibits abortions then you'll have to disqualify all Catholics Muslims and Orthodox Jews.
You do realise that all 3 of these religions prohibit abortion?
And also that the equality act says anyway you can't discriminate against someone because of their religion ?

gctest50

infogiver wrote: »

Do you actually believe that your going to have your infertility treated by an actual nun??

So they won't be setting the ethos then ?

Won't have any problems getting an abortion there when it's legalized then

infogiver

gctest50 wrote: »

So they won't be setting the ethos then ?

Won't have any problems getting an abortion there when it's legalized then

If you get your hearts dearest wish and abortion on demand is legalised in Ireland then I'm sure you'll be able to have one anywhere and as often as you think you need one.
It's something for you to look forward too in our bright new happy Ireland.
Abortion is of course going to solve all women's health problems because there are no negatives at all attached to having an abortion.
After all 1/5 pregnancies in the UK now end in abortion so we'll have to get cracking if we want to catch up with them.

spacetweek

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not being handed over to a religious society to run. The information in the Irish Times article in the opening post is deliberately misleading (no surprise there really). There are a number of reasons the location was chosen, not least because it would provide a better maternity service.

Would you mind explaining a bit further? The article was very clear that the SOC would own the institution.

Samaris

infogiver wrote: »

Is abortion the cure for septicaemia now?

My god, this comment keeps coming up and it is incredibly mendacious.

The point of the comment about septicaemia is that abortion absolutely is the cure for septicaemia when said septicaemia is originating from an infection causing a rapid inevitable miscarriage. It is not uncommon to start in miscarriages if the body doesn't or can't start the process of dislodging the dying or dead foetus and it can kill, often as it starts in the placenta, which can't come out until the foetus does. When the body cannot remove it itself, surgical or other physical intervention is needed (such as stimulating the birthing procedure with drugs).

Because abortion was frowned upon, despite being legal in this country when the life of the woman rested on it, Mrs. Halappanavar was not treated appropriately and died of a septic miscarriage. This case was an absolute clear-cut case of the treatment required being withheld and -then- appropriate monitoring not being given. She died of something that was eminantly treatable, and the reason the treatment was not given was religion trumping medical compassion, (admittedly grey) legal requirements and common sense.

In short, yes in certain circumstances, much like chopping a foot off is a cure for a sore toe if the reason for the toe being sore is the foot rotting off. It would have saved Savita Halappanavar's life. For at least four people so far to just flat-out ignore this in favour of "is abortion a cure for septicaemia then" as if she had an infected cut on her knee and someone suggested trying an abortion to see if that would help is staggering. And that it keeps being used as a silly dig is just..deeply insulting to what happened to her.

realdanbreen

Chuchote wrote: »

Partly tradition because the grandad would like it; partly blackmail because their child won't get an education without it.

Ah shucks, let's not offend Grandad. 'won't get an education without it' ? unbelievable!:D

realdanbreen

Chuchote wrote: »

There's a great suggestion going around that the hospital should be named Savita Halappanavar Memorial

I take it when you say ' a great suggestion going around ' that you mean going around in your head!

One eyed Jack

Samaris wrote: »

My god, this comment keeps coming up and it is incredibly mendacious.

My reply wasn't intending to be mendacious Samaris, it was intended to be quite a straightforward answer to what I considered to be a trite comment that ignored the nuances your outlaid above. The HIQA report came to a different conclusion than yours so suggesting simply that an abortion was the standard treatment for septicaemia literally ignored many of the nuanced and complicating factors in that case. That's why I didn't immediately make the connection between what the poster was suggesting, and the actual facts of that particular case. It was an unfortunate set of circumstances which led to the death of Savita Halappanavar and using her death as a stick to beat people with in order to make a point is disrespectful IMO, it's up there with suggestions that the new hospital block be named in her memory! I genuinely do wonder about the kind of person who came up with that idea!

volchitsa

Samaris wrote: »

My god, this comment keeps coming up and it is incredibly mendacious.

The point of the comment about septicaemia is that abortion absolutely is the cure for septicaemia when said septicaemia is originating from an infection causing a rapid inevitable miscarriage. It is not uncommon to start in miscarriages if the body doesn't or can't start the process of dislodging the dying or dead foetus and it can kill, often as it starts in the placenta, which can't come out until the foetus does. When the body cannot remove it itself, surgical or other physical intervention is needed (such as stimulating the birthing procedure with drugs).

Because abortion was frowned upon, despite being legal in this country when the life of the woman rested on it, Mrs. Halappanavar was not treated appropriately and died of a septic miscarriage. This case was an absolute clear-cut case of the treatment required being withheld and -then- appropriate monitoring not being given. She died of something that was eminantly treatable, and the reason the treatment was not given was religion trumping medical compassion, (admittedly grey) legal requirements and common sense.

In short, yes in certain circumstances, much like chopping a foot off is a cure for a sore toe if the reason for the toe being sore is the foot rotting off. It would have saved Savita Halappanavar's life. For at least four people so far to just flat-out ignore this in favour of "is abortion a cure for septicaemia then" as if she had an infected cut on her knee and someone suggested trying an abortion to see if that would help is staggering. And that it keeps being used as a silly dig is just..deeply insulting to what happened to her.

This needs to be reposted as often as necessary.

And there are two other issues in the original post as well : one is that the HIQA report begins by announcing that it is not investigating the cause of death for Savita Halappanavar, since that has already been carried out in the investigation chaired by Professor Arulkumaran - and that report does indeed mention need to terminate the pregnancy earlier, and fear of the law as a factor in the reluctance to do so.

Which brings me to my other point : whether abortion is a "cure" for septicemia is not the question : the pregnancy should have been terminated before septicemia occurred, because once it does set in, it can be fatal.

A law that does not allow such a termination as long as the woman's life is "not yet" in danger is forcing doctors to play a very dangerous and unnecessary game with women's lives. A game that Savita lost.

Samaris

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My reply wasn't intending to be mendacious Samaris, it was intended to be quite a straightforward answer to what I considered to be a trite comment that ignored the nuances your outlaid above. The HIQA report came to a different conclusion than yours so suggesting simply that an abortion was the standard treatment for septicaemia literally ignored many of the nuanced and complicating factors in that case. That's why I didn't immediately make the connection between what the poster was suggesting, and the actual facts of that particular case. It was an unfortunate set of circumstances which led to the death of Savita Halappanavar and using her death as a stick to beat people with in order to make a point is disrespectful IMO, it's up there with suggestions that the new hospital block be named in her memory! I genuinely do wonder about the kind of person who came up with that idea!

I read the report as well, and to say that it disagrees is pushing it a bit. She died of septicaemia. The septicaemia was caused by an infection, probably of the placenta, although reports don't say where it originated, it's just the most common, which was inadequately managed because of the over-emphasis of non-intervention until the foetal heart had stopped, coupled with poor phrasing/understanding/wilful ignoring of the law that meant those who opposed "abortion" in this case could hold out against it, apparently primarily due to religious concerns. On top of this and to add disgrace onto disgrace, there was poor emphasis on managing the infection and keeping track of her tests.

The ultimate cause of her death was a septic pregnancy for which the proper procedure was denied, this is what the HSE report states.

Overall the Investigation team found three key causal factors.

1. Inadequate assessment and monitoring of Ms. Halappanavar that would have enabled the clinical team in UHG to recognise and respond to the signs that her condition was deteriorating. Ms. Halappanavar’s deteriorating condition was due to infection associated with a failure to devise and follow a plan of care for her that was satisfactorily cognisant of the facts that:

the most likely cause of her inevitable miscarriage was infection and
the risk of infection and sepsis increased with time following admission and especially following the spontaneous rupture of her membranes.
2. Failure to offer all management options to Ms. Halappanavar who was experiencing inevitable miscarriage of an early second trimester pregnancy where the risk to her was increasing with time from the time that her membranes had ruptured.

3. UHG’s non-adherence to clinical guidelines relating to the prompt and effective management of sepsis, severe sepsis and septic shock from when it was first diagnosed.

There is no debate on that, she died of septic shock caused by infection starting at the pregnancy site that was causing the pregnancy to spontaneously abort the dying foetus. This would have been solved by aborting the foetus and removing the infection before the infection inevitably killed her too. This option was refused. She died. Even in medieval times a choice could be made to save the mother from an unviable pregnancy and while they usually died, the effort would be made to save their lives! It is inexcusable that she died when the treatment was available and the ability to perform it safely existed.

While I agree the original comment took some short-cuts, in essence, they were correct in this particular case. No-one is indicating that general abortion is the general cure for general septicemia.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My reply wasn't intending to be mendacious Samaris, it was intended to be quite a straightforward answer to what I considered to be a trite comment that ignored the nuances your outlaid above. The HIQA report came to a different conclusion than yours so suggesting simply that an abortion was the standard treatment for septicaemia literally ignored many of the nuanced and complicating factors in that case.

No it didn't, it said that it was not investigating the cause of her death.
People who know the report well enough to discuss its contents in any detail but who apparently don't know that are being mendacious.

Imallrightjack

Nun joke anyone?


The seven dwarfs are in Rome and they go on a tour of the city.
After a while they go to the Vatican and meet the pope. Grumpy, for once,
seems to have a lot to say; he keeps asking the pontiff questions about
the church, and in particular, nuns.
"Your Holiness, do you have any really short nuns?"
"No, my son, all our nuns are at least five feet tall."
"Are you sure? I mean, you wouldn't have any nuns that are, say,
about my height? Maybe a little shorter?"
"I'm afraid not. Why do you ask?"
"No reason." Pause. "Positive? Nobody in a habit that's about
three feet tall, two and a half feet tall?"
"I'm sure."
"Okay."
Grumpy looks dejected at this news, and the pope wonders why.
So he listens to the dwarfs as they leave the building.
"What'd he say? What'd he say?" chant the other six dwarfs.
Grumpy says, "He said they don't have any."
And the other six start chanting, "Grumpy ****ed a penguin! Grumpy
****ed a penguin! Grumpy ****ed a penguin!"....

Woodville56

Personally I feel that the religious communities should withdraw totally from all public service obligations - education, health & social care and let the state and those who protest about religious involvement in these areas take it on. Of course there's been abuse and evil and criminality in religious run institutions and other involvements over the years, perpetrated by a minority of religious, no one is denying it - case proven. The Catholic Church stands fairly indicted on these issues, but what really stands out now is the venom and nastiness dished out here and elsewhere against Catholicism and religious in general- most of whom are decent, honorable people trying to live out the faith they believe in. There are many faults and failings in the institutional hierarchical Church and these have been called out rightly and fairly - as a practising catholic, albeit struggling with some of my religion's teachings, I understand the "church" to be not only the hierarchy but also those who profess and practice their faith, however uncool and backward looking it may seem to the more "enlightened" among us. So we have contributors to this forum calling the church (and in my view, by association, all who support it) lying hypocrites, rats, criminals etc etc. There are decent and genuinely caring religious out there who are hurt and saddened by the sins of their confreres ( past and present) and who are now unjustly subjected to ridicule and abuse right across the media by the hurlers on the high moral ditch, those who don't really believe in any form of religion much and whose pastime is taking cheap shots at those who do. I do believe that the Catholic Church needs to reform itself big time, it needs to divest itself of the trappings of power and authority and become more pastoral and spiritual for those who wish to remain in the catholic tradition. It should not however cease to preach its mission and its beliefs without fear or favour for those who want to hear , be it on abortion, social justice or other human rights issues. And yes the Catholic church should divest its role in public services (services it took on when the state was unwilling or unable to provide them), and take its own resources with it - for the use of those who value and respect its ethos. The church's involvement in education , health etc has become an onerous millstone around its neck and best let those who we have elected to govern us decide provision policy in the areas of education, health and social services.It should pay its reparation money through selling off assets etc, a poorer church would be no less spiritual or supportive of those who really follow it's teachings. So let those who shout loudest now, and for whom the very mention of religion or religious values is anathema, let them elect a secular government and have their liberal values translated into laws and practices. For those of us who still believe and practice our faith, just leave us to get on with our " silliness" as some see it . We should know better but that's life - live and let live !

One eyed Jack

spacetweek wrote: »

Would you mind explaining a bit further? The article was very clear that the SOC would own the institution.

The Sisters of Charity own the property on which the new block is being built (already gave the Constitutional sections which outline why the State cannot interfere with this), but they will not be running the hospital. They are only shareholders in the SVHG -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Same rag (that seems to have quite a hard-on for it's anti-religious bigotry), different author -


Merger of St Vincent’s and Holles Street units in best interests of women’s safety

Michael Keane is clinical director of SVHG and Professor of Medicine at UCD

Woodville56

Imallrightjack wrote: »

Nun joke anyone?


The seven dwarfs are in Rome and they go on a tour of the city.
After a while they go to the Vatican and meet the pope. Grumpy, for once,
seems to have a lot to say; he keeps asking the pontiff questions about
the church, and in particular, nuns.
"Your Holiness, do you have any really short nuns?"
"No, my son, all our nuns are at least five feet tall."
"Are you sure? I mean, you wouldn't have any nuns that are, say,
about my height? Maybe a little shorter?"
"I'm afraid not. Why do you ask?"
"No reason." Pause. "Positive? Nobody in a habit that's about
three feet tall, two and a half feet tall?"
"I'm sure."
"Okay."
Grumpy looks dejected at this news, and the pope wonders why.
So he listens to the dwarfs as they leave the building.
"What'd he say? What'd he say?" chant the other six dwarfs.
Grumpy says, "He said they don't have any."
And the other six start chanting, "Grumpy ****ed a penguin! Grumpy
****ed a penguin! Grumpy ****ed a penguin!"....

Really insightful contribution there to the topic under discussion

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

No it didn't, it said that it was not investigating the cause of her death.
People who know the report well enough to discuss its contents in any detail but who apparently don't know that are being mendacious.

volchista you deserve the courtesy of a reply if only to tell you that I won't be further engaging in any discussion surrounding the case of Savita Halappanavar in a thread which isn't about the death of Savita Halappanavar. I admit I got side-tracked later in the thread about the broader issue of religiosity in Ireland, and the thread isn't about that either, so I won't be engaging on that any further either. The threads end up in a mess of spaghetti quotes and quote mining and there's no significant discussion takes place when the thread gets taken over by a small few posters and drives everyone else away who might actually want to contribute to the thread with a relevant point to the actual topic under discussion.

Long, protracted bitching and snide comments back and forth that end up on a hiding to nowhere, don't inform anyone or foster understanding nor do they broaden anyone's knowledge of the actual issues involved in the actual topic, which in this case is not IMO, a thread about the death of Savita Halappanavar, but I felt that following Samaris' post, my initial reply to the original point, did deserve an explanation as to why I at least replied in the way I did.