The NMH at St. Vincents

markodaly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Are you denying the historical fact that the Catholic Centre Party voted for Hitler to gain absolute power?

I am not denying not accepting anything. One can cherry-pick any tidbit from history to try and make some grandiose point. It's akin to me saying 'Stalin was an atheist, who killed millions of people, so there!' Debate and history lessons by soundbite. Engage in that all you want, but I am better than that.

I'd love it if I no longer had anything to give out about about the RCC, but given their continued disgraceful actions and abuse of state funds to further their own ends, I'll be kept going for a long time yet.

I very much doubt it.

You're "no fan of the RCC" yet continually post on this thread attacking (ineptly) those who are opposed to nuns controlling the hospital.That just doesn't add up.

Ah, see, here comes the fact check.

The Nuns were not going to 'control' the hospital. Your bias/hate is showing... again!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dr-rhona-mahony-says-nuns-will-not-run-new-maternity-hospital-1.3725039

However, Dr Mahony said it was time people accepted the factual position.

“So let’s just be very clear. The Sisters of Charity will not be running this hospital. They never sought to run this hospital. They never sought to have any involvement in this hospital and they were never going to have any involvement in this hospital and they do not have any involvement in this hospital,” she told RTɒs Marian Finucane programme.

“Telling women stories that this hospital will be run by religious sisters is really damaging. It frightens women because they may believe that services for them will be restricted in terms of not providing termination of pregnancy, not providing contraception, when in fact the opposite is the case.

I would put Dr Rhona Mahony's opinion on this issue much higher up than yours and no way is she a mouthpiece for the RCC seeing as she was very much pro 8th amendment and campaigned for it.

So either Dr Rhona Mahony is lying.... or you are fear-mongering (As Dr Mahony would put it)

volchitsa

markodaly wrote: »

I am not denying not accepting anything. One can cherry-pick any tidbit from history to try and make some grandiose point. It's akin to me saying 'Stalin was an atheist, who killed millions of people, so there!' Debate and history lessons by soundbite. Engage in that all you want, but I am better than that.

I very much doubt it.

Ah, see, here comes the fact check.

The Nuns were not going to 'control' the hospital. Your bias/hate is showing... again!

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/dr-rhona-mahony-says-nuns-will-not-run-new-maternity-hospital-1.3725039


I would put Dr Rhona Mahony's opinion on this issue much higher up than yours and no way is she a mouthpiece for the RCC seeing as she was very much pro 8th amendment and campaigned for it.

So either Dr Rhona Mahony is lying.... or you are fear-mongering (As Dr Mahony would put it)

That's not a fact check, that's just you quoting someone else's opinion. Rhona Mahony is about as well informed about the Catholic church's intentions as you or I, and certainly no more than Peter Boylan, who contradicted her flatly.

She's also not neutral in this, since she was counting on the agreement with the nuns going ahead as planned for her own private practice that's attached to the maternity hospital.

Not saying she's lying, BTW, more that she's indulging in some wishful thing, making the assumption that when it comes down to it, the order will be able to go against Vatican instructions and Catholic teaching - something that no catholic hospital anywhere in the world does, according to Peter Boylan.

markodaly

volchitsa wrote: »

That's not a fact check, that's just you quoting someone else's opinion.

Dr Rhona Mahony is not just a random person off the street. She was Master of the National Maternity Hospital for 7 years and is now Executive Director of the Clinical Academic Directorate for Women's Health and Children for the same hospital.
I would hazard a guess she knows what she is talking about, much more than the usual suspect peddling fear of nuns wandering the corridors of the new hospital and barking orders.

But I guess you loved her 'opinion' when she was campaigning for repealing the 8th Amendment.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95962128&postcount=1523

So nobody who has dismissed the Amnesty report has anything specific to say about Dr Rhona Mahony's concrete examples where the law actually prevents doctors from doing their job in the safest possible way for the woman?

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95918011&postcount=1149

But it is. Several Obstetricians have said so, including Rhona Mahony. And the MMR, which only concerns maternal mortality, might not show that anyway.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/eighth-amendment-creates-unacceptable-risk-nmh-master-says-1.3443199

Speaking at a Together for Yes conference on Wednesday, Dr Rhona Mahony said “the existence of the Eighth Amendment in our Constitution is every day causing women serious risk and therefore I think it should be repealed”.

Dr Mahony said she was speaking in her capacity as a consultant obstetrician and as a specialist in maternal-foetal medicine.

Hey, but I guess its just her 'opinion'.

Rhona Mahony is about as well informed about the Catholic church's intentions as you or I.

Intention such as..... gifting the land away as per the news the past week and wanting feck all to do with it controlling the new NMH?

So what are these new 'intentions' that no one knows about?

MadYaker

What is with us and building hospitals :pac: we just can't do it.

Hotblack Desiato

Why don't they gift the land to the state, instead of some dubious charity with opaque governance? This is by no means a 'no strings attached' deal, but hopefully public pressure will eventually bring that about.

markodaly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Why don't they gift the land to the state, instead of some dubious charity with opaque governance? This is by no means a 'no strings attached' deal, but hopefully public pressure will eventually bring that about.

What exactly are the 'strings' and please be precise!

Hotblack Desiato

The strings are that it won't be owned by the state, we don't know yet who or what will actually own it, we don't know what the objectives of that body will be and we don't know who will govern that body, who will appoint them and who will hold them accountable.

markodaly

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

The strings are that it won't be owned by the state, we don't know yet who or what will actually own it, we don't know what the objectives of that body will be and we don't know who will govern that body, who will appoint them and who will hold them accountable.

That is not strings, that is describing something unknown as of now. But I am sure one can think of all far fetched 'What if' scenarios. :pac:

NuMarvel

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

Stopping women having abortions, sterilisations, getting contraception, etc.

In fairness, it was government policy that decided on the relocation. Vincent's weren't especially keen on it, and had to be persuaded by the Department to agree to it.

volchitsa

markodaly wrote: »

Dr Rhona Mahony is not just a random person off the street. She was Master of the National Maternity Hospital for 7 years and is now Executive Director of the Clinical Academic Directorate for Women's Health and Children for the same hospital.
I would hazard a guess she knows what she is talking about, much more than the usual suspect peddling fear of nuns wandering the corridors of the new hospital and barking orders.

But I guess you loved her 'opinion' when she was campaigning for repealing the 8th Amendment.

https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95962128&postcount=1523


https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=95918011&postcount=1149


https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/eighth-amendment-creates-unacceptable-risk-nmh-master-says-1.3443199


Hey, but I guess its just her 'opinion'.

Intention such as..... gifting the land away as per the news the past week and wanting feck all to do with it controlling the new NMH?

So what are these new 'intentions' that no one knows about?

Oh that's hilarious, a poster who supposedly joined in 2017 throwing up threads from 2015! Nothing of what I said then contradicts or is contradicted by what I've said since, despite your obsession. I should be flattered, really, that you would go to the bother of looking through my old posts like that. :rolleyes:

Hotblack Desiato

NuMarvel wrote: »

In fairness, it was government policy that decided on the relocation. Vincent's weren't especially keen on it, and had to be persuaded by the Department to agree to it.

True. And they're prepared to give it away for nothing, so if they have no desire to control or influence (or have another religious order or lay religious body do similar) the hospital, why not just give it to the state instead of this undefined charity?

NuMarvel

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

True. And they're prepared to give it away for nothing, so if they have no desire to control or influence (or have another religious order or lay religious body do similar) the hospital, why not just give it to the state instead of this undefined charity?

So because the State hasn't ended as the owner of their lands, you've determined there must be something sinister going on? I hope you realise how far fetched that sounds.

We're not privy to the details of discussions between the various parties. Maybe it's as simple as the State never asked. Or maybe the lands were offered and refused. Maybe it was thought the Vatican wouldn't agree to it for whatever reason so a charity was considered the next best thing.

Or maybe it was just that they didn't want to give them to the State. Like it or not, the lands are theirs so it's their right to decide who gets it.

volchitsa

NuMarvel wrote: »

So because the State hasn't ended as the owner of their lands, you've determined there must be something sinister going on? I hope you realise how far fetched that sounds.

We're not privy to the details of discussions between the various parties. Maybe it's as simple as the State never asked. Or maybe the lands were offered and refused. Maybe it was thought the Vatican wouldn't agree to it for whatever reason so a charity was considered the next best thing.

Or maybe it was just that they didn't want to give them to the State. Like it or not, the lands are theirs so it's their right to decide who gets it.

Yeah we know why the Vatican wouldn't agree to it. Starts with A, ends with N.
That's why it matters who exactly is on this charity, as it seems unlikely the Vatican would agree to giving it to an independent organisation that they would have no control over.

As has been pointed out, if they were happy to give control away, they could eother come out and say they would allow all procedures to be carried out according to Irish law not church law (but we know they aren't) or give the land to the people of Ireland, who are, after all, paying for the hospital.

NuMarvel

volchitsa wrote: »

Yeah we know why the Vatican wouldn't agree to it. Starts with A, ends with N.
That's why it matters who exactly is on this charity, as it seems unlikely the Vatican would agree to giving it to an independent organisation that they would have no control over.

I think you missed my point. We don't know why the State hasn't ended up as owners of the land. We only know that they haven't. Determining this is proof of sinister intentions is massively jumping to conclusions.

volchitsa wrote: »

As has been pointed out, if they were happy to give control away, they could eother come out and say they would allow all procedures to be carried out according to Irish law not church law (but we know they aren't) or give the land to the people of Ireland, who are, after all, paying for the hospital.

The Chairman of the Vincent's Hospital Group said exactly this three years ago:

In line with current policy and procedures at SVHG, any medical procedure which is in accordance with the laws of the Republic of Ireland will be carried out at the new hospital

markodaly

volchitsa wrote: »

Oh that's hilarious, a poster who supposedly joined in 2017 throwing up threads from 2015! Nothing of what I said then contradicts or is contradicted by what I've said since, despite your obsession. I should be flattered, really, that you would go to the bother of looking through my old posts like that. :rolleyes:

Not sure what my join date has to do on the matter.
I can search for old posts like anyone.

The simple fact is were caught out with overt hypocrisy.

Here you are on this thread, questioning Dr. Rhonda Mahony's opinion even stating there is some private monetary self-interest at play from her professional 'opinion'.

But in previous posts, that I have linked you used her 'opinion' as a claim to authority regarding the 8th.

So her opinion was good enough for you then, but now when her opinion is counter to your own personal bias, you outright dismiss it.

Hotblack Desiato

NuMarvel wrote: »

So because the State hasn't ended as the owner of their lands, you've determined there must be something sinister going on? I hope you realise how far fetched that sounds.

It's not far-fetched at all. We are talking about large sums of taxpayers' money here, it is only right that we have certainty and that certainty can only come from ownership. We are paying for this hospital, after all.


Letter from Peter Boylan in today's IT:

Sir, – April Duff (Letters, May 18th) raises valid questions regarding St Vincent’s Holdings CLG (company limited by guarantee), the company into which the Religious Sisters of Charity (RSC) have received Vatican permission to transfer their 100 per cent shareholding in the St Vincent’s Healthcare Group (SVHG). In particular she asks if the public can be sure that the news “will remove any remaining concerns about religious influence” on the planned new National Maternity Hospital, as the Minister for Health stated last week.

I believe serious concerns remain, and must be addressed transparently and immediately.

The statement by Sr Patricia Lenihan, the superior general of the RSC, on May 8th that the congregation “is confident that the SVHG board, management and staff will continue to provide acute healthcare services that foster Mary Aikenhead’s [the founder of the order] mission and core values” strongly suggests that a Catholic ethos will be maintained in St Vincent’s Holdings CLG.

Over the last 25 years or so, as the numbers of religious in Catholic congregations worldwide have declined, it has become common for their assets to be transferred into Vatican-approved charities, with lay boards of directors. These structures are known as public juridic persons of pontifical right. They are derived as a mechanism of canon law, but recognised in civil law. Sr Lenihan’s statement quoted above sums up precisely the function and responsibilities of a public juridic person.

There are numerous examples in North America and Australia, and increasingly in Ireland, Asia and Africa. In recent years we have seen the transfer to public juridic persons of the Mater Hospital group (2016), the Mercy Hospital in Cork (2016), the Bon Secours group (2017), and St John of God’s (2019). The holding companies of all these organisations are established under Irish company law. At the same time, they are absolutely transparent on their websites that they are part of the healthcare ministry of the Catholic Church. They are equally open that their hospitals do not provide services such as elective sterilisation, abortion, or IVF.

The problem with St Vincent’s Holdings CLG is that, as SVHG’s most recent annual report states, it intends to own the planned new National Maternity 100 per cent. Yet I cannot find a single example anywhere in the world where the Vatican has approved the transfer of assets of a Catholic congregation to a company that will own a hospital providing women’s healthcare services absolutely prohibited by Catholic teaching.

To believe that the Irish Sisters of Charity will be unique in this respect stretches my credulity to breaking point.

Unless it is proved beyond doubt that St Vincent’s Holdings is not a public juridic person (or similar vehicle), can the Minister of Health and his officials really be certain that no concerns remain about Catholic ethos on the Elm Park campus?

Have the members of the boards of both hospitals, appointed for their legal, professional and commercial expertise, made themselves fully aware of all issues pertaining to the civil and canonical transfer of assets of Catholic healthcare organisations and the obligations that ensue?

An estimated €100 million has already been spent on professional fees, preparatory works and the construction of a pharmacy and car park at Elm Park. It is now essential that the Religious Sisters of Charity publish both the relevant correspondence with the Vatican as well as the full memorandum and articles of association of St Vincent’s Holdings CLG so that the public can see exactly what has been agreed. Unverified assurances are no substitute for documentary evidence.

The whole saga has the makings of a very Irish scandal. – Yours, etc,

Dr PETER BOYLAN

(Life Governor

and Former Master,

National Maternity

Hospital),

Dublin 6.

Odhinn

NuMarvel wrote: »

So because the State hasn't ended as the owner of their lands, you've determined there must be something sinister going on? I hope you realise how far fetched that sounds.

We're not privy to the details of discussions between the various parties. Maybe it's as simple as the State never asked. Or maybe the lands were offered and refused. Maybe it was thought the Vatican wouldn't agree to it for whatever reason so a charity was considered the next best thing.

Or maybe it was just that they didn't want to give them to the State. Like it or not, the lands are theirs so it's their right to decide who gets it.

Given the activities of the Church over the last decades theres nothing "far fetched" about it.

NuMarvel

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

It's not far-fetched at all. We are talking about large sums of taxpayers' money here, it is only right that we have certainty and that certainty can only come from ownership. We are paying for this hospital, after all.

I have no issue with assuring certainty; but that wasn't what you said before. You assumed that because they didn't give the lands to the State then it must have been for nefarious reasons, without knowing a single thing that actually happened during the discussions. Even in your response, you can't point to anything in those discussions that supports your assumption.

Also, certainty doesn't only come solely from ownership, especially in the hospital sector. The state has funded the building of Tallaght, James', and Beaumont yet we don't actually own them. We've funded expansions in Vincent's and the Mater, but we don't own those new facilities. We're funding the building of the new children's hospital and... well, I think you get the point. Ownership is the most straight forward way to maintain control, and it's my preferred means too. But there are other mechanisms that can be employed. In the examples above it's because the boards are set up (or will be) by legislation and this legislation usually includes a provision that allows the Minister for Health to assert some control.

In the case of the new NMH, it's been stated by the Department that the new hospital will be owned by the State while the lands will continued to be owned by another party and leased to the State. Vincent's say this in their most recent annual report (something Boylan got wrong in his letter by the looks of it):

The State will own the building for the new facility and will lease the land from St. Vincent’s Healthcare Group.

I don't argue that this is a perfect arrangement, and there is still plenty that needs to be clarified. But there's nothing in this that supports the theory that there's something untoward happening.

Odhinn wrote: »

Given the activities of the Church over the last decades theres nothing "far fetched" about it.

In general, this isn't an unfair assumption. But there's a problem with that thinking in this case. And it's something that even Boylan hasn't addressed. The Vatican can effectively control what happens in the current NMH, yet hasn't done despite abortion being legislated for since 2013.

Under the NMH's charter, the Archbishop of Dublin is automatically the Chair of the NMH. The current Archbishop doesn't believe this is appropriate, so has never taken up the chairmanship. Yet the Vatican has never exerted public pressure on him to take up the role. Or replaced him with someone who would, and ensure procedures in the NMH were in accordance with the Catholic faith.

So, if you think the Vatican has engineered the transfer of lands at Vincent's in such a way to ensure abortions don't happen at the new NMH, which is still years away, why aren't they doing something about abortions in the current NMH?

Odhinn

NuMarvel wrote: »

.....................



In general, this isn't an unfair assumption. But there's a problem with that thinking in this case. And it's something that even Boylan hasn't addressed. The Vatican can effectively control what happens in the current NMH, yet hasn't done despite abortion being legislated for since 2013.

Under the NMH's charter, the Archbishop of Dublin is automatically the Chair of the NMH. The current Archbishop doesn't believe this is appropriate, so has never taken up the chairmanship. Yet the Vatican has never exerted public pressure on him to take up the role. Or replaced him with someone who would, and ensure procedures in the NMH were in accordance with the Catholic faith.

So, if you think the Vatican has engineered the transfer of lands at Vincent's in such a way to ensure abortions don't happen at the new NMH, which is still years away, why aren't they doing something about abortions in the current NMH?

Time will tell. I still don't think a wary perspective is inappropriate however.

Hotblack Desiato

NuMarvel wrote: »

Also, certainty doesn't only come solely from ownership, especially in the hospital sector. The state has funded the building of Tallaght, James', and Beaumont yet we don't actually own them. We've funded expansions in Vincent's and the Mater, but we don't own those new facilities. We're funding the building of the new children's hospital and... well, I think you get the point.

None of the above are maternity hospitals, so (as long as euthanasia remains illegal) there is little or no scope for conflict with "catholic social teaching". And Tallaght has specific guarantees over governance, coming from the Adelaide's protestant heritage.

Maternity hospitals are of course very different in this regard. There is direct and irreconcilable conflict between what range of treatments and procedures are legal, and what is permitted by catholic doctrine.

Ownership is the most straight forward way to maintain control, and it's my preferred means too. But there are other mechanisms that can be employed. In the examples above it's because the boards are set up (or will be) by legislation and this legislation usually includes a provision that allows the Minister for Health to assert some control.

So let the government and SVHG be fully open. Tell us why this charitable body will own the land and not the state. Tell us what its objectives will be. Tell us who will control it and who will appoint those who control it.

In the case of the new NMH, it's been stated by the Department that the new hospital will be owned by the State while the lands will continued to be owned by another party and leased to the State. Vincent's say this in their most recent annual report (something Boylan got wrong in his letter by the looks of it):

https://www.stvincents.ie/app/uploads/2019/12/St.-Vincents-Healthcare-Group-Annual-Report-2018.pdf

The State will own the building for the new facility and will lease the land from St. Vincent’s Healthcare Group. The new facility will be independently managed and governed by the National Maternity Hospital at Elm Park DAC. Clinical and corporate governance will be integrated with St. Vincent’s Healthcare Group.


It's the "clinical governance" people are worried about.

Also it's rather a shame this link is 404:

Download our information sheet on St. Vincent’s Holdings CLG and the National Maternity Hospital at Elm Park DAC

Also https://www.stvincents.ie/about-us/our-values/
Our values
Human Dignity

We respect the value of human life and the dignity and uniqueness of each person


Which sounds great, until they decide that this applies from the moment of fertilisation.

I don't argue that this is a perfect arrangement, and there is still plenty that needs to be clarified. But there's nothing in this that supports the theory that there's something untoward happening.

Religious orders in this country have plenty of form in this regard, and they're currently setting up lots of "lay bodies" to retain church control over their massive assets and insulate them from lawsuits. They got the state to pay the lion's share of the abuse bill and most haven't paid what little they said they would pay. The Mercy nuns built a multi-billion private healthcare empire on the back of the profits they made from enslaving, abusing and selling women and children at places like Tuam. At Vincent's they mortgaged a hospital built using public money to fund a lucrative private hospital. At the Mater Private they know all about the value of a euro, too.

So, if you think the Vatican has engineered the transfer of lands at Vincent's in such a way to ensure abortions don't happen at the new NMH, which is still years away, why aren't they doing something about abortions in the current NMH?

It's not just about abortion. What is the NMH's current position on contraception? Pretty sure you can't get a sterilisation there.

NuMarvel

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

None of the above are maternity hospitals, so (as long as euthanasia remains illegal) there is little or no scope for conflict with "catholic social teaching". And Tallaght has specific guarantees over governance, coming from the Adelaide's protestant heritage.

Maternity hospitals are of course very different in this regard. There is direct and irreconcilable conflict between what range of treatments and procedures are legal, and what is permitted by catholic doctrine.

So you're only worried about ownership and large sums of taxpayer's money when it comes to maternity hospitals? That's.... odd.

But let's look at the maternity hospitals. Of the 3 in Dublin, exactly none are owned by the State. And all three receive large amounts of money to provide services on the State's behalf. I'm sure if I looked, I'd find all three have had expansions funded by the state.

Yet the only maternity hospital that people are exercised about is the one that won't be open for another six years. Why is that?

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

https://www.stvincents.ie/app/uploads/2019/12/St.-Vincents-Healthcare-Group-Annual-Report-2018.pdf

The State will own the building for the new facility and will lease the land from St. Vincent’s Healthcare Group. The new facility will be independently managed and governed by the National Maternity Hospital at Elm Park DAC. Clinical and corporate governance will be integrated with St. Vincent’s Healthcare Group.


It's the "clinical governance" people are worried about.

Also it's rather a shame this link is 404:

Download our information sheet on St. Vincent’s Holdings CLG and the National Maternity Hospital at Elm Park DAC

I take it that this means we can now put the "ownership" argument behind us at least.

The integration of clinical governance is one of the advantages of co-location. It means the hospitals can act as one service. The current and most recent master of the current NMH have said they have no issue with the proposed new clinical governance structures. What's more the Chair of the Hospital Group has already said the hospital will provide services in accordance with law.

It's fair to ask questions about the governance structures, but those questions have been answered.

BTW, that 404 didn't have anything new in it, so you're not missing much.

It's not just about abortion. What is the NMH's current position on contraception? Pretty sure you can't get a sterilisation there.

It may not be about just abortion, but that's a very good measure to determine whether religious thinking is influencing the operation of our hospitals.

And if a hospital doesn't provide contraception or sterilisation services, but does provide abortion services, then it's fair to say that the decision on the services they provide isn't based on religious ethos.

aloyisious

Has anyone seen, heard or read an article from TheJournal.ie concerning the new NMH deal and the Nuns. I read an article posted on another site concerning the above but can't find it listed on the journals site. The Journal's report referred to a mortgage of the present public hospital to BOI in 2010 and clause 5.11 of the new NMH constitution giving its directors power to "acquire, hold, sell, manage, lease, mortgage or dispose of all or any part of the property of the company".

The company referred to is the new NMH company set up in 2016. I am not sure if the 2010 BOI mortgage would give the BOI pre-existing rights over any properties listed within the new NMH property list, which is why I am asking my question from the start.

One important point is this from the other site's post which IS NOT PART of the reported TheJournal.ie report mentioned on the other site.. The hospitals are governed by the Order’s 2010 ‘Health Service Philosophy and Ethical Code’ and do not provide contraception, sterilisation, IVF, abortion and other procedures, legal in Ireland but prohibited by Catholic teaching.

Edit: Dr Peter Boylan wrote a letter publicized in the Irish Indo a few days ago covering his views on a statement from SVU on medical procedures carried out in the hospital in line with the laws of the land will be carried out in the new NMH and free of any religious influence The Indo has firewalled its publication.

horse7

Is there some conspiracy concerning Blanchardstown hospital and co-location. It was not considered suitable when the children's hospital was to be built,it is not considered suitable for the maternity hospital that is to be built, it's located in the most suitable access area off the M50, it's located in the area with the highest birthrate. What is going on???

karlitob

horse7 wrote: »

Is there some conspiracy concerning Blanchardstown hospital and co-location. It was not considered suitable when the children's hospital was to be built,it is not considered suitable for the maternity hospital that is to be built, it's located in the most suitable access area off the M50, it's located in the area with the highest birthrate. What is going on???

Simply - it’s a small hospital. No conspiracy - it’s not at the cutting edge of clinical in ireland. It’s a Model 3 hospital with no specialities to speak of.

Co-location with a tertiary adult hospital is the recommended approach for both paediatrics and obstetrics. Connolly doesn’t cut it.

NuMarvel

horse7 wrote: »

Is there some conspiracy concerning Blanchardstown hospital and co-location. It was not considered suitable when the children's hospital was to be built,it is not considered suitable for the maternity hospital that is to be built, it's located in the most suitable access area off the M50, it's located in the area with the highest birthrate. What is going on???

All three maternity hospitals are to be relocated, and Connolly has already been selected as the site for the Rotunda.

But as karlitob says, it's only a Model 3 hospital at the moment, and will need significant investment and upgrades before it's a suitable site.

That's why it wasn't selected for the Children's Hospital. While the space was acknowledged as the key plus for the site, it would take too long and too much money to bring it up to the necessary standard for a national children's service.

Shebean

They've a mass grave in Tuam and likely elsewhere. Certainly in Canada. Yet we let these people operate in the country and even get preferential treatment.
The country is still very backward.
They should have all assets seized, redress to the victims and then left to religion* all they like.

*verb

Cluedo Monopoly

Rome has been screwing the state for decades in terms of negotiations. FF/Woods' sweet indemnity deal in 2002 being the latest example.

https://twitter.com/SocDems/status/1407638150449709066

Hotblack Desiato

Cluedo Monopoly wrote: »

FF/Woods' sweet indemnity deal in 2002

the Paedophile Bailout

The greatest scandal in modern Irish history

karlitob

NuMarvel wrote: »

All three maternity hospitals are to be relocated, and Connolly has already been selected as the site for the Rotunda.

Correct - I had forgotten about that. Thanks for reminding me.

That said - there’s some part of me thinks it just won’t happen. I don’t know why; no evidence to back it up - but the docs in the rotunda LOVE the rotunda. They love the history, they love that it’s the oldest maternity hospital in the world. I can’t see them wanting to leave the city centre to go out to blanch. I’m probably wrong though!

Hotblack Desiato

We can always blow up the fcuking ugly Garden of licking the catholic church's hole Remembrance and let them expand into there