The NMH at St. Vincents

Well delayed the start of the work to be strictly accurate, not a brick laid yet AFAIK.

According to a live discussion programme on RTE right now, there is what seemed to be a settlement between the SVHG board and the Dept of Health over membership of the new SVHG board [an alternative three members] and the lease of the new NMH building to the state for either 100 or 200 years reported on in todays Irish Times. However the RTE host has also mentioned that Dr Boylan has objected to what has been reported, saying the NMH situation hasn't changed. The Labour Party member on the RTE discussion group has just made similar objections to the way the NMH is proposed to be managed, saying its time that the religious and vested parties should get out of the proposed new NMH completely. I haven't got a link to the I/T article as I want to get a print copy of it to read what the actual article has in it before I post any statement on what is actually in the I/T article.

It looks like the new proposal is an attempt by the Govt to distract the public with the extended lease to convince people that the actual owners [the nuns] will not have any continuing behind-the-scenes connections with either SVHG and or the site apparently handed over to SVHG. Dr Boylan has made it plain that the situation will stay fouled up until the site is completely free of any vestige of RC ethical control [overt or covert] and the Labour party seem to have taken the same position. I believe its more lies and a smoke and mirror job again by the RC church with the assent of the Govt coalition. The lies of mother church are coming home to roost with the sisters. Coincidentally the public is distracted with how the state {the Govt and the HSE] are handling the Covid-19 situation, all eyes taken off the activities over ethical control of the NMH site on the SVHG property.

Just wish they would bloody just get on with it , ignore all the naysayers and wackos ,and just build it already.

Notb a patch on these ones in fairness

There is a thread OP but surprisingly hasn't attracted any traffic since last year

As I said earlier this is now a done deal and will go ahead during the next week.

The battle is over and nobody is saying we don't need a new hospital.

Instead of attacking the motives of those who oppose the Elm Park site why not ask ourselves why the NMH and the Children's Hospital were not co-located with the Connolly Hospital on the 50acres owned by the state with plenty of room for expansion?

Most people give birth in the nearest non private hospital , theres not much choice involved. Abortion is now legal in Ireland. I presume if a womans life is in danger she will be allowed to get an abortion. My theory is maybe 10 per cent of people in Ireland are actually Catholics, the rest go along with it because most schools are still owned by the Catholic Church. More people in small towns, in rural areas go to mass most people in dublin don't bother going. I don't know if medical procedures are decisions will be effected by the fact the hospital is on land owned by the Nuns

So basicly people with money can get anything done in a private hospital. If the new hospital gets built there no operations that could be seen as contraception will be carried out. Does that mean women cannot get iuds without going to a private hospital. I'm not a medical expert. Are there no such operations carried out at public hospitals ? I don't think the Nuns should have total control over all medical operations especially since its the government that ll be spending millions of euros to pay the staff and the cost of building a hospital , which is probably 100s of millions of euros. I don't think the government actually expects women nowadays to have more than 2 or 3 children , this is not the 80s.

I saw that reported on VMN last night and I'm surprised there's been very little reaction to the fact Stephen Donnelly either mislead the Dail or yet again had a bout of forgetfulness.

He was asked directly in the Dail had he personally asked SVHG if the site could be purchased and his catagorical answer was yes. (VMN played the Dail exchange)

Yesterday Roisin Shorthall asked the Chairman of SVHG was the purchase of the Site discussed and in essence he said no, apart from an aside during discussion with the HSE a number of years ago, it's not the HSE actually making any decisions its the Department of Health and Government.

There's more hole's in the Governments story on this matter than swiss cheese.

It's likely to proceed but Donnelly has some explaining to do.

Not being ridiculous at all but just to point out it should read 2052.

Fast forward 10, 20, 30 years when the sh*t hits the fan... the politicians deciding this today will be long, long gone and some six feet under the ground.

So the public will get the usual palaver then from whoever's in... it wasn't us that made this decision... we'll take learnings from it....... we are where we are.. blah blah.

Just not good enough when there are clearly some fundamental fault lines. Whose 'constitution' is the most important, St.Vincent's (Church doctrine) or the States. And has been said already, there are many ways in which this new hospital can avoid certain procedures as in 'not part of our remit'... 'no staff properly trained for xyz'... 'no resources for xyz' and so on.

Yes though we've seen it all before in this country. Any citizen who has followed events in the last 30-40 years knows that 'Canon Law' supersedes State Law in the churches eyes. The church in Rome is still a powerful force with a view (as they are entitled to have) on all related matters.

As regards the responses of politicians in 30 years, how often do you want to hear the current hackneyed phrase "we'll take learnings from it"?? We've had other versions of it in the past but it all amounts to people washing their hands of responsibility for decisions taken.