Harney refuses to guarantee funds for rape crisis centre

Mark Hamill · 22-06-2010 5:22pm

Nody wrote: »

Tell you what, you point out exactly what part of the hospitals services available today should be cut/have a price added to compensate the cost. How about we cut the 20 Mil from young mother support, or from long term care, is that ok with you? Because you're arguing for money to be taken from some where (there is no additional money to take and if you mention Banks or Builders then you clearly have marked yourself as utterly ignorant about economy) to pay for all of this, so please do tell what service do you want to cut to compensate?

Your argument makes no sense. The money to pay female doctors to do rape treatment wiould be the money given to the male doctors who currently do the rape treatment. No extra money is needed, simply a change in direction in where the money is currently going.

Mark Hamill · 22-06-2010 5:33pm

Lemming wrote: »

And now you're putting words in my mouth. I at no point in time said that a victim should not have the right to choose a doctor. You seem to have glossed over my subsequent comment regarding providing options in very a la carte cherry picking fashion; that I believe the victim should have the option put before them. But reality being reality, options may not always be what are considered best desirable; in this case that there will always be a doctor of your choosing at hand, prompting you to either opt for receiving help in short order, or having to wait until a doctor you do want becomes available.

While it is true that there cant always be a choice, that doesn't mean that simple choices shouldn't be made available. A hospital shouldn't even need to ask for certain choices, a woman coming in for rape treatment is not going to want a man doing it. And, obviously certain choices cant be met (many rape victims wont want to be seen by a doctor at all be cause of the shame), but having female doctors for rape victims is not an massively inconveniencing choice.

Lemming wrote: »

What I also inferred with my "if I was " comment was simple; to somebody in need (and I would consider a rape victim to be somebody desperately in need), a doctor ... any doctor ... represents help. The alternative is to sit in suffering until a doctor that one chooses becomes available.

You are talking from position of massive ignorance of what a rape victim mentally goes through. A doctor does not represent help to a rape victim. Even if a rape victim is badly physically hurt, a doctor will do nothing to ease the mental anguish that the victim feels, and may even aggrivate it through no fault of their own. Rape victims are not wholly rational, not for a good while after the event.

22-06-2010 5:53pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your argument makes no sense. The money to pay female doctors to do rape treatment wiould be the money given to the male doctors who currently do the rape treatment. No extra money is needed, simply a change in direction in where the money is currently going.

So just ignore male victims' needs, or victims raped by women? If not, that means maintaining double the staff again. What about a victim where the rapist was black, or asian, or any of a hundred other factors that will make the victim equally as uncomfortable as their gender? How many preferences do you cater for?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

While it is true that there cant always be a choice, that doesn't mean that simple choices shouldn't be made available. A hospital shouldn't even need to ask for certain choices, a woman coming in for rape treatment is not going to want a man doing it. And, obviously certain choices cant be met (many rape victims wont want to be seen by a doctor at all be cause of the shame), but having female doctors for rape victims is not an massively inconveniencing choice.

You are talking from position of massive ignorance of what a rape victim mentally goes through. A doctor does not represent help to a rape victim. Even if a rape victim is badly physically hurt, a doctor will do nothing to ease the mental anguish that the victim feels, and may even aggrivate it through no fault of their own. Rape victims are not wholly rational, not for a good while after the event.

And it may have nothing to do with with sex they are. You're right, rape victims may not be wholly rational, which means there's absolutely no way of knowing what would set them off. Many victims may even be reassured by a strong positive male figure as a counterpoint to the animal they encountered earlier. It is impossible to predict, and impossible to cater for, what a victim may or may not feel

Mark Hamill · 22-06-2010 6:04pm

28064212 wrote: »

So just ignore male victims' needs, or victims raped by women? If not, that means maintaining double the staff again.

No it doesnt, just keep it simple. People get examined by the opposite sex that attacked them. If this is not possible due to budgetary or personel reasons, then have a female doctor. Why female? Because male rapists outnumber female rapists. So a female doctor is statistically more likely to be prefered.

28064212 wrote: »

What about a victim where the rapist was black, or asian, or any of a hundred other factors that will make the victim equally as uncomfortable as their gender? How many preferences do you cater for?

As many as you can. Its better than throwing you hands up in the air and saying we cant cater for all preferences, so lets not cater for any.

28064212 wrote: »

And it may have nothing to do with with sex they are. You're right, rape victims may not be wholly rational, which means there's absolutely no way of knowing what would set them off. Many victims may even be reassured by a strong positive male figure as a counterpoint to the animal they encountered earlier. It is impossible to predict, and impossible to cater for, what a victim may or may not feel

I think its fairly obvious that the last things a person raped by a man wants is another man touching them. Because that all a rape victim will see when a doctor comes to examine/treat them. Its a simple thing to avoid, so why not, where possible, avoid it? Why is better to just throw your hands up in the air and say we cant cater for all preferences, so lets not cater for any?

Lemming · 22-06-2010 8:26pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No it doesnt, just keep it simple. People get examined by the opposite sex that attacked them. If this is not possible due to budgetary or personel reasons, then have a female doctor. Why female? Because male rapists outnumber female rapists. So a female doctor is statistically more likely to be prefered.

So what you're saying is that the criteria for hiring a doctor now rests on their sex. As opposed to say; the merits of whether or not they are the best choice available from the rest of the prospective employees.

I see. That is also known by another name; beginning with "D".

The bottom line is that there will always be a balancing act between what is desirable and what is possible. How many patients die each year on waiting lists for life-saving operations? How many children are abused or otherwise neglected due to failure of social services (and believe me I can tell yuo a few appallingly shocking dept. social welfare cases ... )? How many people die each year because there aren't enough ambulances or even a single air ambulance for more isolated regions?

Rape victims should be given the option of who they'd want examining them - assuming they seek help in the first place - but again, that option may not (and indeed is not) always possible and they should be informed where that is the case and what if any alternatives can be arranged.

Trying to claim that you should discriminate against one sex or one ethnicity over another for employment, or that you should double-up doctors (thus creating even more waste and more expense in an already diabollically inefficient service) when the money isn't there is madness.

Mark Hamill · 23-06-2010 11:34am

Lemming wrote: »

So what you're saying is that the criteria for hiring a doctor now rests on their sex. As opposed to say; the merits of whether or not they are the best choice available from the rest of the prospective employees.

No, I'm saying to criteria on choosing a doctor for rape treatment rests on both their sex and their ability to do the treatment. Really poor attempt to strawman my position.

Lemming wrote: »

I see. That is also known by another name; beginning with "D".

Yes, but is acceptable discrimination. Just like discriminating against prospective doctors who dont actually have sufficient training is acceptable training. Doctors who are going to be treating rape victims need to be able to perform the treatment properly, while keeping the patient calm and reassured, and should be women, seeing as we cant afford to pay doctors to give victims the choice and more often than not, rape victims are women who were raped by men.

Lemming wrote: »

The bottom line is that there will always be a balancing act between what is desirable and what is possible. How many patients die each year on waiting lists for life-saving operations? How many children are abused or otherwise neglected due to failure of social services (and believe me I can tell yuo a few appallingly shocking dept. social welfare cases ... )? How many people die each year because there aren't enough ambulances or even a single air ambulance for more isolated regions?

And bringing in extremes is supposed to show how my point is wrong how? I'm not saying that you have to cover every possible preference. I'm not even saying you need to cover any. You just need to look at the numbers and see that more often than not, men are rapists, not women, so odds are a female doctor will be better for the rape victim than a male doctor. Different or specific doctor nationalities or hair colours or heights or any other arbitrary nonsense configuration you will pull out of the air are irrelevent to the issue being discussed.

Lemming wrote: »

Rape victims should be given the option of who they'd want examining them - assuming they seek help in the first place - but again, that option may not (and indeed is not) always possible and they should be informed where that is the case and what if any alternatives can be arranged.

Agreed, things dont always work out perfectly in real life. But seeing, like I already said, that women are victims of men, wouldn't you expect that the default choice for a doctor be a woman?

Lemming wrote: »

Trying to claim that you should discriminate against one sex or one ethnicity over another for employment, or that you should double-up doctors (thus creating even more waste and more expense in an already diabollically inefficient service) when the money isn't there is madness.

The latter claim is bs and you know it, I never claimed that you need to double up on doctors. The first claim is something which happens in many situations anyway (they can get a female guard to comfort a female rape victim easily enough and no screams discrimination), and is perfectly valid. You are screaming discrimination when all it is is picking the right person for the job. Sometimes that means picking someone of a specific race or sex. To think otherwise is naive and in, its own way, quite discriminatory.

Lemming · 23-06-2010 12:28pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

No, I'm saying to criteria on choosing a doctor for rape treatment rests on both their sex and their ability to do the treatment. Really poor attempt to strawman my position.

Show me the strawman please. Hospitals do not just 'hire' doctors to sit around and wait for rape victims; that's a total waste of a valuable resource. Again, clinics may have doctors - or consultants - that come in for a few hours a week to provide specific services; and without knowing the ins and outs of how the rape crisis centre entities are structured I would imagine that they operate in similar fashion given the apparent lack of funding to be able to provide sustained coverage.

So, if you are talking about hiring for a rape crisis centre; it would be pruddent to have a mixture of doctors (by gender and/or religion) on rotation in so far is practically possible.

Yes, but is acceptable discrimination. Just like discriminating against prospective doctors who dont actually have sufficient training is acceptable training.

/facepalm.

What did I say? Allow me to refresh y our memory Mark;

Lemming wrote:

So what you're saying is that the criteria for hiring a doctor now rests on their sex. As opposed to say; the merits of whether or not they are the best choice available from the rest of the prospective employees.

What you've just described as "acceptable" discrimination is not discrimination. It's called "best person for the job" because clearly said prospective doctors who lack sufficient training don't match the criteria for the job at hand. Just like in any other profession/field of work. What you are arguing for is not 'best person' for the job, but selection based on gender not medical skill/training/experience.

[SNIP lots of repetition]

The latter claim is bs and you know it, I never claimed that you need to double up on doctors.

My apologies; you have since clarified that to suggest that doctors should be female on the off-chance that a rape victim happens to come forward.

Your argument is utterly absurd unless you are speaking strictly in the context of rape-crisis centres; at which point you conveniently ignore the sensitivities of every other rape demographic that does not fall under one particular category. Bravo.

Mark Hamill · 23-06-2010 1:37pm

Lemming wrote: »

Show me the strawman please.

You claimed that I was saying that the criteria for hiring a doctor now rests on their sex, as opposed to the merits of whether or not they are the best choice available from the rest of the prospective employees. I said no such thing,because that would be ridiculous position to take, hence you tried to strawman me into it because it is easier to refute. My position is that people should be given a choie on who treats them after a rape. If they cant be given a choice, then the default doctor should be female, as females are usually the victims of male atackers.

Lemming wrote: »

Hospitals do not just 'hire' doctors to sit around and wait for rape victims; that's a total waste of a valuable resource.

Who said they did?

Lemming wrote: »

Again, clinics may have doctors - or consultants - that come in for a few hours a week to provide specific services; and without knowing the ins and outs of how the rape crisis centre entities are structured I would imagine that they operate in similar fashion given the apparent lack of funding to be able to provide sustained coverage.

So, if you are talking about hiring for a rape crisis centre; it would be pruddent to have a mixture of doctors (by gender and/or religion) on rotation in so far is practically possible.

Yes it would. But if you cant afford to have a selection (money is an issue, as you keep pointing out) then surely the gender and religion of doctor most likely to be rquired should be the one employed.

Lemming wrote: »

/facepalm.

What did I say? Allow me to refresh y our memory Mark;

Lemming wrote:

So what you're saying is that the criteria for hiring a doctor now rests on their sex. As opposed to say; the merits of whether or not they are the best choice available from the rest of the prospective employees.

What you've just described as "acceptable" discrimination is not discrimination. It's called "best person for the job" because clearly said prospective doctors who lack sufficient training don't match the criteria for the job at hand. Just like in any other profession/field of work. What you are arguing for is not 'best person' for the job, but selection based on gender not medical skill/training/experience.

Still doing the same strawman after claiming you arent? How very dishonest of you. I already said that the gender discrimination is on top of the other required qualifications, not replacing them. I explained this in the rest of the paragraph you cut out:

Mark Hamill wrote:

Doctors who are going to be treating rape victims need to be able to perform the treatment properly, while keeping the patient calm and reassured, and should be women, seeing as we cant afford to pay doctors to give victims the choice and more often than not, rape victims are women who were raped by men.

Lemming wrote: »

My apologies; you have since clarified that to suggest that doctors should be female on the off-chance that a rape victim happens to come forward.

Strawman again. My position is that doctors who are chosen to treat rape victims should be female (we are in a thread about the rape crisis centre, did you not realise that is the context we are discussing?) not doctors in general. Rape victims have a whole mental anguish side of their ordeal to go through, usually a lot worse than the physical event that happened to them, and reducing that is an important part of their treatment.

Lemming wrote: »

Your argument is utterly absurd unless you are speaking strictly in the context of rape-crisis centres; at which point you conveniently ignore the sensitivities of every other rape demographic that does not fall under one particular category. Bravo.

Now, now, you cant have the best of both worlds. When its suggested that we should give victims the choice of who treats them, its "we cant afford to have that many doctors/ what if they want a doctor who's half swahili/half lithuanian, blonde, green eyed and likes long walks on the beach and we cant find one and they die from waiting too long" and when its suggested to keep the same number of doctors, but cater for the simplest most common preference (ie a woman doctor) to cover the most victims, its "you're discriminating against everyone else".

johnnyskeleton · 23-06-2010 3:40pm

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I don't accept johnnyskeleton's implication that giving assistance to rape victims should be regarded as a charity that is not entitled to state support.

Well they are a registered charity so whether or not you agree with me doesn't really amount to much. As regards state support for charities, I never said that DRCC or RCNI should be excluded from the list of charities that the state should support - I said that I don't agree with the state endowment of charities (other than international aid to which we are committed by international agreement). Furthermore, accepting the reality of government payments to charities, just because the government gives them some money doesn't mean that they have to give all the money asked for.

But the real point is this - let's stop blaming the state for its failings, our state simply doesn't have the money. It's not like blaming the gardai where they are exclusively within the state's control and do not normally accept private donations (other than e.g. concert security type payments). If I want to give €5 to help rape victims then I can, if I don't then I wont. So people who want to help rape victims should put their hands in their own pockets and not sit back and demand that the state look after it. For example, should the government also pay all the bills of the Simon Community, Treshold etc?

There isn't an unlimited pot of gold that the state can simply pluck money from, so all worthy causes need to be balanced.

FWIW DRCC is one of the charities that I do give money to when I give donations and I have in the past collected money for them on their flag day. That still doesn't mean I think they should get state support though.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The reason why rape crisis centres exist is that there was a significant shortcoming in state provision, and the reason why government has given them financial support is that they were undertaking work which most people would regard as being part of the responsibility of the state.

I wouldn't consider it part of the responsibility of the state, anymore than I would consider counselling for any other trauma the responsibility of the state. If the state provides such services, they do so as a social benefit, not as a basic function and therefore there is no absolute requirement for them to provide it. There is also good argument to suggest that rape counselling services should be independent.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

If I were attacked, beaten, and bloodied, the state has emergency services that would assist me, and those services are more or less adequate; if a woman were attacked and raped (an offence that is usually greater) the state's emergency services were less adequate, and the rape crisis centres emerged to supplement the state's inadequate provision.

Perhaps you don't understand the work that they do. When a person is sexually assaulted (not necessarily a woman by the way) they get emergency treatment from a special HSE unit in their area (e.g. in Dublin it's in the Routunda). Nothing to do with the RCNI.

The rape crisis centres were set up as voluntary NGOs to provide counselling and advocacy services for the victims of sexual assault. There are also other places to go to if you have been the victim of a violent non-sexual assault - and these aren't provided by the State either.

johnnyskeleton · 23-06-2010 3:55pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Your argument makes no sense. The money to pay female doctors to do rape treatment wiould be the money given to the male doctors who currently do the rape treatment. No extra money is needed, simply a change in direction in where the money is currently going.

Is it possible that there are not enough female doctors who are prepared to do this work? Don't forget that someone who is tranied to do brain surgery is not the right person to perform even a minor foot surgery.

23-06-2010 4:17pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

I think its fairly obvious that the last things a person raped by a man wants is another man touching them. Because that all a rape victim will see when a doctor comes to examine/treat them. Its a simple thing to avoid, so why not, where possible, avoid it? Why is better to just throw your hands up in the air and say we cant cater for all preferences, so lets not cater for any?

Why is that obvious exactly? Based on what you think they might feel? You said yourself that rape victims are not wholly rational in the aftermath of the event. You have no idea what might be going through their head. Neither do I, but I'm not the one arguing that we change hiring policies on the basis of what I think they will be feeling.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Now, now, you cant have the best of both worlds. When its suggested that we should give victims the choice of who treats them, its "we cant afford to have that many doctors/ what if they want a doctor who's half swahili/half lithuanian, blonde, green eyed and likes long walks on the beach and we cant find one and they die from waiting too long" and when its suggested to keep the same number of doctors, but cater for the simplest most common preference (ie a woman doctor) to cover the most victims, its "you're discriminating against everyone else".

Eh, no. That's two options, that doesn't comprise a complete evaluation. We can't afford that many doctors, and it is discrimination, the two are not mutually exclusive. You are claiming that we should hire female doctors to be sensitive to the needs of women who are raped, even though there's no evidence to suggest that would be helpful in any way, and completely ignore any possible men's needs who have been raped, even though they're already much less catered for by rape support.

If we have two equally qualified doctors applying for a rape unit examination post, one's a woman who thinks rape victims were "asking for it", the other's a man who is capable of exerting a calming influence in distressed people, should the woman be hired?

gizmo555 · 23-06-2010 5:05pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

My position is that doctors who are chosen to treat rape victims should be female

You're going round and round in circles.

It is already official policy that:

Sexual Offences

The Gardai will show special sensitivity if you are a victim of a sexual offence.

If it is appropriate, your case will be dealt with by a special Garda unit for domestic violence and sexual assault investigation. There is a special, fully equipped suite for victims of rape and sexual assault (and for other serious crimes) at Store Street Garda Station, Dublin.

The Gardai will try to make sure that the Garda and the doctor who are helping you are of the same gender.

You will be told about special support agencies dealing with sexual offences.

But the operative word in the highlighted sentence is "try" - it is not possible to guarantee that the treating doctor will be the same gender as the victim, especially given the acute shortage of non-consultant hospital doctors which has already been highlighted, and which is forecast to get markedly worse from the start of next month.

Mark Hamill · 23-06-2010 5:53pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Is it possible that there are not enough female doctors who are prepared to do this work? Don't forget that someone who is tranied to do brain surgery is not the right person to perform even a minor foot surgery.

True. If its not possible then its not possible. But I dont think thats what some people here are arguing. They are arguing from a point of view that there is enough, but we shouldn't bother because of difficult or supposed expense.

Mark Hamill · 23-06-2010 6:16pm

28064212 wrote: »

Why is that obvious exactly?

Because they would feel degraded because of the rape by a man in the first place.

28064212 wrote: »

Based on what you think they might feel?

I know someone who was raped.

28064212 wrote: »

You said yourself that rape victims are not wholly rational in the aftermath of the event. You have no idea what might be going through their head.

Just because they arent entirely rational, doesn't mean we cant figure out whats going on in their head (to some extent). Most rape victims wont want to be treated by anyone after their ordeal, little enough of the treatment is actually physically necessary, its also done for a report for the guards, so the benefit of it may not be immediately apparent to them.

28064212 wrote: »

Eh, no. That's two options, that doesn't comprise a complete evaluation. We can't afford that many doctors, and it is discrimination, the two are not mutually exclusive.

I covered this already, are you not paying attention? If you cant hire more doctors, then the current ones should be female, as they are more likely to be needed. It is discrimination, but its the same discrimination we use in all hiring process, its discriminating in favour of the person most likely to be needed.

28064212 wrote: »

You are claiming that we should hire female doctors to be sensitive to the needs of women who are raped, even though there's no evidence to suggest that would be helpful in any way

Really? You dont think that a woman who was raped by a man could possibly not want a man examining and touching her for at least a while afterwards? You are incredibly naive to think this isnt the case.

28064212 wrote: »

, and completely ignore any possible men's needs who have been raped, even though they're already much less catered for by rape support.

Unfortunately for men, they are in the minority as rape victims, and as people keep pointing out, we cant afford enough doctors to give them a choice. So we make the choice that will afford the statistically most likely victim, while keeping costs at the same level.

28064212 wrote: »

If we have two equally qualified doctors applying for a rape unit examination post, one's a woman who thinks rape victims were "asking for it", the other's a man who is capable of exerting a calming influence in distressed people, should the woman be hired?

No, because the woman isn't qualified to do it, I did already say that the female doctor should also be qualified.

Mark Hamill · 23-06-2010 6:21pm

gizmo555 wrote: »

You're going round and round in circles.

It is already official policy that:

Sexual Offences

The Gardai will show special sensitivity if you are a victim of a sexual offence.

If it is appropriate, your case will be dealt with by a special Garda unit for domestic violence and sexual assault investigation. There is a special, fully equipped suite for victims of rape and sexual assault (and for other serious crimes) at Store Street Garda Station, Dublin.

The Gardai will try to make sure that the Garda and the doctor who are helping you are of the same gender.

You will be told about special support agencies dealing with sexual offences.

But the operative word in the highlighted sentence is "try" - it is not possible to guarantee that the treating doctor will be the same gender as the victim, especially given the acute shortage of non-consultant hospital doctors which has already been highlighted, and which is forecast to get markedly worse from the start of next month.

I haven't gone round and round in circles, my point has stayed the same since the start. My points have been rebuttals to the strawman arguments for why we cant or dont need to have female doctors for rape victims. I recognise it cant always be possible, but it should be rare that we cant.

Mark Hamill · 23-06-2010 6:29pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I wouldn't consider it part of the responsibility of the state, anymore than I would consider counselling for any other trauma the responsibility of the state.

Why? (just out of curiosity) Treatment for physical maladies is the responsibility of the state (state run hopitals), so why not mental ones?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If the state provides such services, they do so as a social benefit, not as a basic function and therefore there is no absolute requirement for them to provide it.

Flawed logic here, no? "They dont have to do it, because they only do do it if they feel like doing it".

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

There is also good argument to suggest that rape counselling services should be independent.

Why? (again, just out of curiosity)

johnnyskeleton · 24-06-2010 12:13am

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why? (just out of curiosity) Treatment for physical maladies is the responsibility of the state (state run hopitals), so why not mental ones?

Treatment of physical illness is not a responsibility of the state, rather it is a benefit provided by the State because we voted for it and pay taxes for it. For example, the US Federal Government do not provide universal healthcare, Ireland provides a level of universal healthcare (but its crap and if you want to be seen before you keel over you should probably get private health insurance), the UK government provides a fully free system but it's a bit hit and miss and the French government provides a good system for free. None of these countries could be said to have the responsibility for healthcare in the same way that they have a responsibility to maintain the peace, freedom and democratic rights of their citizens. Also, as a matter of law, if the Irish government doesn't provide a certain health service they cannot be sued to compel them to provide it (e.g. Sinnott v Minister for Education).

I think the Irish healthcare system is too expensive as it is (i'd like to have the French system, but we don't have the money for it) so it needs to reduce the services it provides. Generally, secondary services such as counselling are lower priority to emergency care and the like. A better comparison is not to compare rape counselling with primary medical care 9e.g. put broken leg in plaster) but rather secondary or complimentary care such as physiotheraphy (which the State also doesn't always provide for free).

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Flawed logic here, no? "They dont have to do it, because they only do do it if they feel like doing it".

No. There are some things that the government is required to provide. In Ireland, the government is required to provide primary education by the Consitution. Most democratic governments are required to provide a police force, army, courts system and electoral systems.

In addition to that, governments have a non mandatory function to provide benefits of a social nature e.g. social welfare payments, free secondary education, free healthcare, subsidies for business, public transport, utilities (until recently telecoms, electricity and gas were all provided by the state).No government is required to provide any of these services at all, although most western governments provide some of these services in part. However, the fact that they provide some of this service does not require them to provide more. For example, the fact that there are regular busses in Dublin does not mean that the government is required to provide regular busses in Athlone; the fact that the government provides grants to students of UCD, Trinity, DCU etc does not mean that they have to provide grants for Griffith, Portobello, RSCI etc. The fact that they provide some level of healthcare does not mean they have to provide healthcare on a par with private health providers. Etc.

It's all about balance.

For me, I see Rape Counselling as a non-government / charitable service. I don't see it as being something the State should provide and it is certainly not required in the same sense as the Gardai are required.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Why? (again, just out of curiosity)

So that rape victims are not pressurised into testifying in a prosecution if they don't want to. Other people simply don't trust the government to run a competent and anonymous service. Also, one of the services they provide is to accompany rape complainants into court and advocate for rape complainants' rights in the criminal justice system generally. Occasionally, the rights of a complainant and the duties of the DPP conflict, in which case it is best that the complainant has an independent (as opposed to state controlled/sponsored) advocate/companion.

Mark Hamill · 25-06-2010 12:21pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Treatment of physical illness is not a responsibility of the state, rather it is a benefit provided by the State because we voted for it and pay taxes for it.

Whose responsibility is it then?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

No. There are some things that the government is required to provide. In Ireland, the government is required to provide primary education by the Consitution. Most democratic governments are required to provide a police force, army, courts system and electoral systems.

So you think the governmenst requirements are purely based on what the constitution says, and the constitution is infallible and shouldn't or doesn't need to be changed? Is there not a difference between what a government is minimally required to provide and what a responsible government should provide?

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

In addition to that, governments have a non mandatory function to provide benefits of a social nature e.g. social welfare payments, free secondary education, free healthcare, subsidies for business, public transport, utilities (until recently telecoms, electricity and gas were all provided by the state).No government is required to provide any of these services at all, although most western governments provide some of these services in part. However, the fact that they provide some of this service does not require them to provide more. For example, the fact that there are regular busses in Dublin does not mean that the government is required to provide regular busses in Athlone; the fact that the government provides grants to students of UCD, Trinity, DCU etc does not mean that they have to provide grants for Griffith, Portobello, RSCI etc. The fact that they provide some level of healthcare does not mean they have to provide healthcare on a par with private health providers. Etc.

It's all about balance.

Is that not more about supply and demand? Governments dont supply all of these benefits in every area because either the demand isn't there to justify it, or the government cant sufficiently support it (and other places will suffer).

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

For me, I see Rape Counselling as a non-government / charitable service. I don't see it as being something the State should provide and it is certainly not required in the same sense as the Gardai are required.

Tell that to a rape victim. Tell an injured person that requires physiotherapy to regain function in their limbs that physiotherapy isn't something that should be state provided/supported. You start ignoring these things, victim support, post medical care, even things like public transport and certain areas of tax relief and funding and you create wells. Wells which people fall into and are unable to get out of, because they cant deal mentally, physically or financially with the real world. Then they just become burdens of the state.

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

So that rape victims are not pressurised into testifying in a prosecution if they don't want to. Other people simply don't trust the government to run a competent and anonymous service. Also, one of the services they provide is to accompany rape complainants into court and advocate for rape complainants' rights in the criminal justice system generally. Occasionally, the rights of a complainant and the duties of the DPP conflict, in which case it is best that the complainant has an independent (as opposed to state controlled/sponsored) advocate/companion.

OK, thanks.
One thing though, would it not be possible for victim support groups to be state sponsored, yet independent of the DPP? Its not like the DPP would control their funding.

johnnyskeleton · 25-06-2010 1:15pm

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Whose responsibility is it then?

No one's and everyone's. Many people in the state pay privately for health care, is it the state's responsibillty to reimburse them? If you look across the world, there are many states which do not provide healthcare to their citizens. Are they failing in their responsibility, or are they merely trying to balance the books in countries which cannot afford the same levels as the west?

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So you think the governmenst requirements are purely based on what the constitution says, and the constitution is infallible and shouldn't or doesn't need to be changed? Is there not a difference between what a government is minimally required to provide and what a responsible government should provide?

Not based purely on the constitution, but where the constitution or an international agreement requires something then it is a responsibility of the state to comly. Other than that, the only thing that a government is required to provide is the minimum necessary to maintain civil society. Governments can and do provide additional services, but the point is that these are optional benefits, and if we start to think of them as responsibilities or entitlements then we lose a part of our own autonomy and sense of perspective. Ireland may well go into a situation where it cannot afford to maintain the levels of public healthcare that it currently does. The government may have to cut back on this. It is not that the government is somehow failing in its duty, it is merely dividing out the money it receives as best it can.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Is that not more about supply and demand? Governments dont supply all of these benefits in every area because either the demand isn't there to justify it, or the government cant sufficiently support it (and other places will suffer).

Governments are generally immune to supply and demand factors because they do not need to turn a profit on any particular venture. But you are getting the essential point which is that the government has to make choices as to how it spends its money.

The analogy with a person who earns 35k a year and spends 60k is apt. This person is paying approximately 20k in charitable donations, 20k for health and education and another 20k on day to day living (with quangoes here being like expensive coffees in starbucks or whatever). This person used to spend about 5k on maintenance and repairs to their house, but they have stopped that now, and each year they are paying more and more in interest because they are borrowing 25k a year to fuel their borrowing.

So that person has to decide whether to make cuts to his expenditure or ask his boss to pay him more. The risk with the latter is that if he asks his employer to pay him more his employer might give him a better hourly rate, but will reduce his hours so that his net income is less than it was. As regards cuts, he really doesn't want to stop giving money to charity because most of these people are his friends and helped him get his job, and if the charity stops completely they could starve or turn to crime. Equally, if he cuts down on his education his employment prospects long term will suffer. Without repairing his house it will fall apart and no foreigners will come visit him anymore (bringing gifts), and equally if he cuts down on health it has unfortunate consequence. In each instance there is a reason not to cut, but cut he must because he cannot continue to borrow.

So if the government has the responsibility to pay for all this health, education, social welfare etc then it is going to sink. Thankfully, it does not have to provide these services and will survive, but in surviving it has to choose some of these worthy causes over others.

Relating it back to rape counselling, if the government decides that this is not as important as, say, an extra classroom in a school in Kerry, then this is a choice that the government is entitled to make.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Tell that to a rape victim. Tell an injured person that requires physiotherapy to regain function in their limbs that physiotherapy isn't something that should be state provided/supported. You start ignoring these things, victim support, post medical care, even things like public transport and certain areas of tax relief and funding and you create wells. Wells which people fall into and are unable to get out of, because they cant deal mentally, physically or financially with the real world. Then they just become burdens of the state.

So the state should provide everything to everyone who wants something? Then no one would work, everyone would demand every service. That's great in theory, but it is not exactly a practical solution, particularly since, as set out above, we are currently providing almost twice the level of government services that we can afford to pay for, which is not sustainable. So yes, rape victims will have to rely on private charity, injured persons will have to pay for their own physio or do without.

You talk about wells that people fall into, and sure enough sometimes this can be avoided by providing some government support. But on the other hand too much government support can create wells of its own - worse wells because a person might try to get themselves out of their own mess but will expect the government to get them out of a state created mess. It's about balance and in my opinion the government currently provides too much public service at too high a cost.

Mark Hamill wrote: »

OK, thanks.
One thing though, would it not be possible for victim support groups to be state sponsored, yet independent of the DPP? Its not like the DPP would control their funding.

Yes of course, but it is the perception as much as the reality. But even where there is an independent state sponsored organisation it could still fall, to a greater or lesser extent, to state pressure. Private organisations can too, but are less likely IMO. By the way, I'm not saying that they definately should not be state sponsored, only that State sponsored is not always a good thing.

OhNoYouDidn't · 25-06-2010 1:21pm

dan_d wrote: »

As a woman, if that happened to me, I'd want a woman doctor too. I usually ask for a woman doctor at doctor's surgery specifically when I attend. There are some things a man will never understand no matter how much training he has. But that's just my personal opinion.

With all the sensitivity required here, he is not there to 'understand'. He is there to perform an examination to establish if an assault occured and try and find some DNA evidence for evidentiary reasons.

Should the Gardaí investigating only be women too?

StormWarrior · 02-07-2010 11:44am

Im really horrified and sickened by the people who think that female rape victims should just suck it up and accept being examined by a male. Its also nonsense to say that it makes no difference as the male doctor has had the same training, what has that got to do with anything? They were not implying that the doctor was not qualified to deal with the case, they were complaining that a female should have no choice but to remove her clothes and be intimately examined by a man. That is bad enough that any patient should have to be examined by a doctor of the opposite sex, but someone who has just been raped,who has been humiliated by having their clothes removed by men against their wishes, has to effectively go through the same thing again. I dont accept the rubbish excuse that the male doctor was he only doctor on call - in a case like this they can surely call in a female doctor,even if it is a bit of an inconvenience. I wonder how many rape victims simply dont report the rape or refuse to be examined to gather the evidence, because they cannot face being examined by a male? Just because someone is a doctor doesnt mean that people should feel fine about undressing in front of them. If your mother/wife/sister/daughter had just been raped and was traumatised and being made even more distressed at the thought of having to be examined by a male doctor, would you be so unsympathetic and just tell her to get on with it?

Harney refuses to guarantee funds for rape crisis centre

Comments