I was asked for my religion today..

XxMCRxBabyxX

gurramok wrote: »

You have to explain how a stranger can auto assume my religion and a poster who staunchly defends the Catholic religion cannot be assumed to be a Catholic as your clutch at straws there MCR.

Why defend it in the modern age? I can understand if this was the 1950's with the power of the church over people but nowadays practising Catholic numbers have decreased and we are in a secular society with many religions and no religions from followers..

No straw clutching garramok my dear.
You are assuming that everyone who makes a point HAS to be a Catholic to make it. What ever way you decide to look at it you are still making an assumption which is what you are trying to argue against!

If people want to defend the religion that is their choice no matter what their personal beliefs are. I personally am in no way religious but I would probably still defend the church in certain situation. Are you saying I MUST be catholic then?

Despite all your claims against it, you are being ridiculously intolerant of the Catholic Church and other people's beliefs in this as so many have already said. By being determined to shoot down any statement on the Church's side you are refusing to acknowledge that Church = intolerance

gurramok

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

I have not actually defended the Catholic church, I have defended the right of the hospital to ask the question. Its designed to get a clergyman for those who will need one and not to for those that don't, its a simple clarification. Would you rather sit on your death bed and see yourself being prayed over when you didn't want it.As for the lung cancer patients my understanding from the article is that it was a TEST DRUG, therefore the hospital is under no obligation to allow the patients to be tested with the drug while in their care so it did not affect their treatment as they received all the treatment normally given by any hospital to cancer patients in their care. Any hospital can refuse to give experimental drugs to its patients for any number of reasons so thats just ckutching at straws to back up a facile argument.

Have you read the article? They were denied the drugs because of conflict with the Catholic ethos of the hospital

Actually, have a read of this good article also.
http://www.irishhealth.com/clin/sexual_health/features2.html?artid=16554

I take it you fundamentally disagree? :eek:

he Sisters of Mercy and Sisters of Charity still own two of Dublin, and Ireland's, biggest hospitals, the Mater and St Vincent's respectively.

Other healthcare institutions owned by The Sisters of Mercy include Temple Street Children's Hospital and National Rehabilitation Hospital in Dun Laoghaire. The Sisters of Charity also own St Michael's Hospital in Dun Laoghaire as well as other healthcare centres.

A look at the the Mater Hospital's website shows us how firm a grip the Catholic church still has on hospiutal governance. It tells us that the Mater Misericordiae University Hospital is single member company; a subsidiary of the Mater Misericordiae and the Children's University Hospitals (Temple St) Ltd.

"The majority of the members of the parent company are Sisters of Mercy and the remaining members represent the Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin, the Catholic Nurses Guild of Ireland, the Society of St Vincent de Paul and the Medical Consultants of Mater Misericordiae University Hospital and the Children's University Hospital."

This statement reads like a historical document from the 1950s, rather than a description of how many would now feel a modern, almost wholly state-funded hospital should be run.

A further reading of the mission statements of the Mater and St Vincent's refer to their devotion for caring for the sick and concern at all times for the welfare of the patient. They also refer to upholding the spirit and ethos of the religious orders who own and run them.

And it is not just religious orders that still have a strong influence on healthcare provision. The Catholic Archbishop of Dublin is still Chairman of Crumlin Children's Hospital and Holles Street National Maternity Hospital. The recent Murphy report showed us how two appalling cases of abuse by two priests working at Crumlin hospital were neglected and covered up by predecessors of the current Archbishop.

A glance at the list of governors at Holles Street shows us that not only is the Archbishop Chairman, but three other local parish priests are on the board. These are all "ex-officio" governors, who automatically get onto the board because of the positions they hold.

The Ryan and Murphy reports have demonstrated gross abuses of power and of people by religious orders and the clergy.

Notwithstanding the good work many in both religious groupings still do, the recent revelations about child abuse and how it was neglected and covered up by the Church must inevitably lead to a questioning of its continuing role in the ownership and running of major hospitals .

If one even looks at the 'optics' of the current situation, is it appropriate to have the Sisters of Mercy owning a children's hospital (Temple Street) given the order's controversial history in the area of child welfare? This is course not to deny the excellent standard of care provided by staff at Temple Street. The new Children's hospital to replace the existing three Dublin hospitals will be built on the Mater site. It will be a HSE-owned hospital but will be linked to a major hospital still run by the Sisters of Mercy.

In the same vein, is it appropriate that the Archbishop of Dublin (however decent the current incumbent may be) should have a major say in running Crumlin and Holles Street Hospitals. Should the Hierarchy have any say any more in the provision of child health or women's health services?
1. Accountability.

Hundreds of million of taxpayers' euros are spent on running Catholic hospitals each year. The State provides the vast bulk of the funding for these hospitals, and has paid, over the years for developments at these institutions. Yet much of the ownership and governance of these hospitals is still vested in religious orders or members of a clergy who have a less than glorious recent history in catering for the needs of the vulnerable in our society, in particular to the needs of children. In this respect, their moral authority to own and run hospitals must be questioned. Even if one were to set aside the issue of child abuse for a moment, how appropriate is it today for major hospitals funded almost completely by the State to be run by private groups or companies? Ownership of Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda was transferred from a religious order to the State in the 1990s - surely the same can be done in respect of other religious-run hospitals funded by the State.

2. Societal/cultural.

We live in an increasingly secular and multicultural world in which excessive religious influence on State-funded healthcare is now surely an anachronism. Surely good healthcare within the principles of humanism and justice can be delivered of a similar standard to the care ethos of the major religious orders without having to invoke Jesus or the Virgin Mary or only bring Catholic teaching to bear on how care is provided.

3. Damaged Goods?

Surely evidence of past (and some in the fairly recent past) abuses of power and people by the Church severely diminishes any remaining authority the Church has in terms of running institutions that care for sick and vulnerable people.

4. Influence on hospital policy

As recently as 2005, a trial of a cancer drug was delayed while a committee of the Mater Hospital deliberated over the fact that women who could get pregnant might have to take contraception while getting the drug to avoid fetal damage. Up until quite recently, women sometimes had to pay a heavy price for being treated in a Catholic hospital. The controversial practice of symphysiotomy, a surgical procedure to widen the pelvis which had serious after-effects, was practised in one Catholic hospital as recently as the early 1980s. One of the reasons given for this practice was that women subjected to the alternative of repeated Caesareans might be tempted to use birth control. Again, until recently the Catholic ethos of state-funded hospitals has sought to prevent or actively prevented procedures such as female strerilisation taking place, even though such procedures were legal and available in other hospitals. Such potential influence on hospital policy which can restrict patient choice of treatment is still potentially there. This is surely not appropriate in 2009.

Obviously, given the recent revelations and growing hostility to Church institutions, it is easy to descend into simple anti-clericalism, or 'priest-bashing'.

However we must start thinking about having a truly State-run health service. It is the State and the taxpayer, not priests, bishops or nuns who are paying for it and should be allowed run it without potential interference.

Sofiztikated

gurramok wrote: »

As stated earlier, they're all Catholic.

Each of these Boards consists both of members of the Congregation and members of the lay community with a range of different professional expertise and experience.

I don't see where it says there that they are all catholic. I see where it says it has both members from the Catholic congregation,a dn members from the lay community, as in not the congregation and have EXPERTISE.

gurramok

Sofiztikated wrote: »

I don't see where it says there that they are all catholic. I see where it says it has both members from the Catholic congregation,a dn members from the lay community, as in not the congregation and have EXPERTISE.

Are you having a laugh?

So you reckon a Protestant member of the board enforces the Catholic ethos?:rolleyes:

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

Have you read the article? They were denied the drugs because of conflict with the Catholic ethos of the hospital

Actually, have a read of this good article also.
http://www.irishhealth.com/clin/sexual_health/features2.html?artid=16554

I take it you fundamentally disagree? :eek:

If the hospital is under the auspices of any religious institution then it will reflect the beliefs of that institution. that is the way of the world. These hospitals were founded by the religious and provided care to the poor when the state wasn't able to. It's probably time to take all those hospitals into the state system, until then they are perfectly entitled to follow the teachings of that particular religion. The hospital you refer to denied patients an experimental drug. Not normal care.

gurramok

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

If the hospital is under the auspices of any religious institution then it will reflect the beliefs of that institution. that is the way of the world. These hospitals were founded by the religious and provided care to the poor when the state wasn't able to. It's probably time to take all those hospitals into the state system, until then they are perfectly entitled to follow the teachings of that particular religion. The hospital you refer to denied patients an experimental drug. Not normal care.

Way of the world in other words you don't care about the women who were forced to have horrific symphysiotomy procedures. They denied those cancer patients because of religious beliefs, nothing else. You see, that's why there is a problem with a Catholic ethos in public hospitals and it needs to change to prevent barbaric treatments as a result of religious influence happening again.
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=16907

The Survivors of Symphysiotomy (SOS) group today called for Health Minister Mary Harney to be sacked if she does not order an independent review of a controversial surgical procedure which left hundreds of women disabled.

Symphysiotomies were widely carried out in maternity units in Ireland between the early 1940s and the early 1980s. The procedure involves permanently widening the pelvis by surgically dividing the symphysis pubis, where the pubic bones come together.

The calls come following a Prime Time special on RTE last night which revealed that symphysiotomies were widespread here between 1944 and 1983. The programme also revealed that Ireland was the only country in the developed world where the procedure was widely practised in the 20th century.

At a press conference today organised by SOS, symphysiotomy was described as a "brutal and cruel treatment from the darkest ages", and the practice was described as "institutionalised abuse of women."

It is estimated it may have been carried out on around 1,500 women.

Around 111 women who were victims of symphysiotomy have come forward to date, and there are expected to be many more women suffering for years from the serious side effects of the procedure, which include extreme pain, incontinence and depression. Around 1,500 women are estimated to have had the procedure.

The SOS group claims the procedure was carried out in Ireland when it had long ceased in other countries. It is reported that it ceased in Holles Street Hospital in the mid-1960s, although there have been claims that it continued there until the early 1970s.

Symphysiotomies continued in Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital in Drogheda until 1983.

It is believed that the procedure was encouraged by Catholic obstetricians as a birth-facilitating alternative to caesarean section, as it was believed that women facing repeated caesareans for future births might be tempted to use contraception.

Ailbhe Smyth of the National Women's Council of Ireland told the press conference she believed the practice of carrying out this procedure was a crime. "There can't be any normal person who would not weep to hear these women's experiences."

Colm MacGeehin, solicitor to over 100 symphysiotomy survivors seeking redress, said there was a deafening silence emanating from Government on the symphysiotomy issue. He said the Minister should resign due to her lack of action.

He said previous Health Minister Micheal Martin promised an independent review of the symphysiotomy controversy in 2003 but this never took place.

A briefing document from the Department of Health to the Oireachtas Health Committee last week stated that various obstetric experts from outside Ireland suggested by both SOS and the Department to carry out an independent review were not acceptable to one side or another.

Mr MacGeehin said one UK expert, Roger Clements, proposed by SOS, was turned down by the Department because he had not published any papers on symphysiotomy. However, Mr MacGeehin said that this was not a valid excuse as symphysiotomies were not extensively done outside Ireland, so therefore no papers could have been written.

Two other experts suggested by the Department were unacceptable to SOS as the experts suggested were regarded as pro-symphysiotomy. Mr MacGeehin said a list of four further experts suggested recently by SOS had not been responded to by the Department.

Mr MacGeehin said symphysiotomy was reintroduced into Ireland in the mid-1940s, due to fears that the alternative of repeated caesareans would lead to women practising birth control.

This was at a time when the practice of symphysiotomy was dying out in other countries,

Sofiztikated

gurramok wrote: »

Are you having a laugh?

So you reckon a Protestant member of the board enforces the Catholic ethos?:rolleyes:

Nope, didn't use the :pac: so I'm deadly serious.

You don't KNOW that all the members are staunch Catholics.

If you want to go down that route, I can point out to a number of places in the Presbyterian hymnbook that it still refers to as all one under the Catholic church.

Not all Protestant/Catholic relationships have to be at loggerheads. Its not always one or the other, the IS a middle ground.

gurramok

Sofiztikated wrote: »

Nope, didn't use the :pac: so I'm deadly serious.

You don't KNOW that all the members are staunch Catholics.

If you want to go down that route, I can point out to a number of places in the Presbyterian hymnbook that it still refers to as all one under the Catholic church.

Not all Protestant/Catholic relationships have to be at loggerheads. Its not always one or the other, the IS a middle ground.

Which is it? staunch Catholics or Protestants can be members to enforce the Catholic ethos?

HarryPotter41

gurramok wrote: »

Way of the world in other words you don't care about the women who were forced to have horrific symphysiotomy procedures. They denied those cancer patients because of religious beliefs, nothing else. You see, that's why there is a problem with a Catholic ethos in public hospitals and it needs to change to prevent barbaric treatments as a result of religious influence happening again.
http://www.irishhealth.com/article.html?id=16907

Lets see, I don't care about a group of people who were not part of the discussion until now. You really are stretching the bounds of reasonable argument at this stage and you're increasing anti Cathloic rantings are proving that you are rabidly anti Catholic/Christian. By the way, that article you quote uses the words "its believed" to describe why procedures were carried out, not that that is why they were carried out.

gurramok

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Lets see, I don't care about a group of people who were not part of the discussion until now. You really are stretching the bounds of reasonable argument at this stage and you're increasing anti Cathloic rantings are proving that you are rabidly anti Catholic/Christian. By the way, that article you quote uses the words "its believed" to describe why procedures were carried out, not that that is why they were carried out.

You didn't know about said scandal despite you defending the maintaining of the Catholic ethos? :eek:

Here's your believed as an explanation, a weak defence.

"It is believed that the procedure was encouraged by Catholic obstetricians as a birth-facilitating alternative to caesarean section, as it was believed that women facing repeated caesareans for future births might be tempted to use contraception."

MazG

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056062904

AudreyHepburn

gurramok wrote: »

Audrey, thats quite a jump you have done there.

Where have I displayed hatred for anything remotely Catholic/Christian or me being intolerant? Quote some posts.

Its the defence of said posters hiding behind their true identity. I think everyone of all types should post and they have.

Nope not a jump at all. Just the truth, plain and simple. Every single one of your posts displays intolerance and some vitriolic hatred of Catholicism/Christianity.

Read back through everything you've written and be honest with yourself. You know that the issue isn't really questions or ethics. It is simply that you hate anything remotely religious.

gurramok

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Nope not a jump at all. Just the truth, plain and simple. Every single one of your posts displays intolerance and some vitriolic hatred of Catholicism/Christianity.

Read back through everything you've written and be honest with yourself. You know that the issue isn't really questions or ethics. It is simply that you hate anything remotely religious.

Prove it with posts Audrey. I see nothing at all indicating hate.

AudreyHepburn

gurramok wrote: »

Prove it with posts Audrey. I see nothing at all indicating hate.

Of course you don't.

If you bothered to look at what you've written honestly you would see but that you make you wrong and you just can't bring yourself to admit you've overreacted so you won't even try to see it.

HarryPotter41

MazG wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056062904

Think I will take your advice, I don't have the time or energy to trawl through google finding screwed up medical procedures in non christian/secular hospitals and I am confident there are loads.

gurramok

MazG wrote: »

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056062904

What are you on about? You never contributed a single post to that thread and your first contribution to this thread is to accuse others of trolling? You'd have to prove that young man.

Oh and so says the man defending the Angelus and you have no bias at all :rolleyes: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66897106#post66897106

Thanks for giving ammo to my argument that posters who defend religion to the hilt are indeed posting here with a biased opinion. I salute you

gurramok

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course you don't.

If you bothered to look at what you've written honestly you would see but that you make you wrong and you just can't bring yourself to admit you've overreacted so you won't even try to see it.

So you've nothing to back up your claim of my supposed hate towards Catholics. Thanks for the retraction.

HarryPotter41 wrote: »

Think I will take your advice, I don't have the time or energy to trawl through google finding screwed up medical procedures in non christian/secular hospitals and I am confident there are loads.

If you did not have the time allegedly, you would find they did not screw up based on religious doctrine.

AudreyHepburn

gurramok wrote: »

So you've nothing to back up your claim of my supposed hate towards Catholics. Thanks for the retraction.

Why do I bother ?

This thread is evidence in itself. Your reaction to a simple question is evidence. Your banging on about ethos and the fact that no-one religious should any involvement in hospitals is evidence.

gurramok

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why do I bother ?

This thread is evidence in itself. Your reaction to a simple question is evidence. Your banging on about ethos and the fact that no-one religious should any involvement in hospitals is evidence.

I question the need for a Catholic ethos in public hospitals based on the fact that our society is secular and also the past interference of said ethos in administering care(and trials).

I never said to ban religious from hospitals. They can be involved too but let people of other faiths and no faiths into the running of said hospitals for a fairer system where everyone including said religious can have a say. Whats wrong with that??

If that is hate, you are simply over reacting, not me.

philologos

gurramok wrote: »

Oh and so says the man defending the Angelus and you have no bias at all :rolleyes: http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=66897106#post66897106

Thanks for giving ammo to my argument that posters who defend religion to the hilt are indeed posting here with a biased opinion. I salute you

Oh dear. In the same way as I've regarded this issue, I really couldn't care less whether or not the Angelus is on. They've watered it down to such a degree that it is merely a minute of reflection, and even then I rarely actually watch RTÉ at that time anyway.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

I question the need for a Catholic ethos in public hospitals based on the fact that our society is secular and also the past interference of said ethos in administering care(and trials).

I really am lost for words. A hospital public or not, religious or not can decide upon its own ethos and code of ethics. What you (Someone who has absolutely NO experience with healthcare) think is irrelevant when it comes to medical ethics. A board of governors for a hospital needs a variety of members, not just doctors or people trained in practicing medicine. There's the legal element of medicine, the psychological, moral and ethical elements of medicine.
Furthermore, Irish society is on a whole not secular. As it stands a minority of people are entirely secular. A secular government can often be a good thing, a secular society however is not.

I never said to ban religious from hospitals. They can be involved too but let people of other faiths and no faiths into the running of said hospitals for a fairer system where everyone including said religious can have a say. Whats wrong with that??

You said you want to remove all traces of religion from hospitals. Stop changing your words. Even so, as it stands almost all faiths and people of no faith are represented in the hospital by its staff.

If that is hate, you are simply over reacting, not me.

No one is over reacting here but you.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

I really am lost for words. A hospital public or not, religious or not can decide upon its own ethos and code of ethics. What you (Someone who has absolutely NO experience with healthcare) think is irrelevant when it comes to medical ethics. A board of governors for a hospital needs a variety of members, not just doctors or people trained in practicing medicine. There's the legal element of medicine, the psychological, moral and ethical elements of medicine.
Furthermore, Irish society is on a whole not secular. As it stands a minority of people are entirely secular. A secular government can often be a good thing, a secular society however is not.

I'm lost for words too. In case you missed it, there was religious interference in procedures as documented and what gives them the right to direct consultants and doctors in said procedures? (as per trials and symphysiotomy )
Where is this minority? The church has seriously eroded its own influence on society through countless scandals and cover-ups over abuse. Together with a huge drop in mass attendance, what makes you think their influence is needed in running a hospital?

partyatmygaff wrote: »

You said you want to remove all traces of religion from hospitals. Stop changing your words. Even so, as it stands almost all faiths and people of no faith are represented in the hospital by its staff.

You'll have to quote me on that. I do not want the total control of a public hospital by the Catholic clergy, thats what you object to which is absurd.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

No one is over reacting here but you.

I've been labelled(without evidence)a hater of religion, anti-Catholic, a bigot for sticking up for non-Catholic rights and i'm over reacting??

Sardonicat

Did the trial get the go ahead? I know I've asked before, but....

Symphisiotomy? Where, in the fracture clinic? Recently?

You know, they used to use leeches too...

gurramok

Legally yes but it was blocked by the board on religious grounds.

Your 2nd & 3rd lines are an attempt at humour

Sardonicat

So the trial went ahead then? After the board had ensured that it would be in keeping with the ethos of the hospital? That's the job of the board. All boards can and should do this.

When was the last time a symphisiotomy was performed? What does it have to do with you being asked your religion? Do you think that they will saw your pelvis in half 'cos your atheist?

You know, for a long time I really thought you were a really good troll. Now I think you may have some serious issues and as such you can count me out. I no longer beleive it is morally justifiable to engage in a no holds barred argument with someone who clearly requires help and could best use his time finding that help instead of making a laughing stock out of himself .

Good Luck.

gurramok

Sardonicat wrote: »

So the trial went ahead then? After the board had ensured that it would be in keeping with the ethos of the hospital? That's the job of the board. All boards can and should do this.

When was the last time a symphisiotomy was performed? What does it have to do with you being asked your religion? Do you think that they will saw your pelvis in half 'cos your atheist?

You know, for a long time I really thought you were a really good troll. Now I think you may have some serious issues and as such you can count me out. I no longer beleive it is morally justifiable to engage in a no holds barred argument with someone who clearly requires help and could best use his time finding that help instead of making a laughing stock out of himself .

Good Luck.

You know what, its you who maybe trolling. All that has been explained in post #508. It seems you are not reading the posts.

So anyone who disagrees with you has 'serious issues & needs help', the excuses to defend the status quo just gets beyond the ridicoulous :rolleyes:

Ghost Estate

this thread is still alive? Well **** me pink..

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

I'm lost for words too. In case you missed it, there was religious interference in procedures as documented and what gives them the right to direct consultants and doctors in said procedures? (as per trials and symphysiotomy )

They have something called a CODE OF ETHICS (Read the words in bold). It does not matter on what that code of ethics takes influence from, it's the code of ethics of the Mater hospital and that's pretty much the end of it. If you'd like to change it, take up a career as a Doctor or another healthcare worker, earn a pHD and then work for a few decades as a consultant or something and then perhaps your opinion on their code of ethics will matter. You do not have any experience whatsoever with working in healthcare. Therefore what you think with regard to a hospitals code of ethics isn't worth much.

Where is this minority?

In Ireland. Just because boards.ie appears to have userbase where a slight majority of the members are secular doesn't mean that the country is secular.

The church has seriously eroded its own influence on society through countless scandals and cover-ups over abuse. Together with a huge drop in mass attendance, what makes you think their influence is needed in running a hospital?

What is "The Church"? Is this a thread about your inane issues with short questions or is it about the Catholic Church?

Considering they originally built and funded the hospital I think they do have right to have some influence in its running (Not that its "influence" affects the service they provide)

You'll have to quote me on that. I do not want the total control of a public hospital by the Catholic clergy, thats what you object to which is absurd.



I've been labelled(without evidence)a hater of religion, anti-Catholic, a bigot for sticking up for non-Catholic rights and i'm over reacting??

I won't be quoting anything. Reading your posts once is enough, thank you very much. If you can't see it for yourself then no one can help you.

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

They have something called a CODE OF ETHICS (Read the words in bold). It does not matter on what that code of ethics takes influence from, it's the code of ethics of the Mater hospital and that's pretty much the end of it. If you'd like to change it, take up a career as a Doctor or another healthcare worker, earn a pHD and then work for a few decades as a consultant or something and then perhaps your opinion on their code of ethics will matter. You do not have any experience whatsoever with working in healthcare. Therefore what you think with regard to a hospitals code of ethics isn't worth much.[\QUOTE]

So you are an expert in healthcare then?:rolleyes: No need for a lecture on how to become a doctor.

Do you understand that those code of ethics are damn worth nothing when it runs against the ethos of the hospital just like in the trials and the horrific ops? That part you conveniently missed.

partyatmygaff wrote:

Where is this minority?

In Ireland. Just because boards.ie appears to have userbase where a slight majority of the members are secular doesn't mean that the country is secular. What is "The Church"? Is this a thread about your inane issues with short questions or is it about the Catholic Church?

Catholic Church as after all I've told countless times by religious posters that Ireland is a Catholic country. Outside boards.ie, I know maybe 3 people out of must be 50 that are regular massgoers and one of them is my own mother who constantly reports at her horror of the lack of attendance by the under 50's at mass. So your summation that secularism is only evident on boards.ie is totally wrong.

partyatmygaff wrote:

Considering they originally built and funded the hospital I think they do have right to have some influence in its running (Not that its "influence" affects the service they provide)

Oh, its some now instead of total. Progress at last. No-one answered why objectors like yourself are so passionate against people of non-Catholic origin having a say in the running of the hospital, one wonders what your agenda is.

partyatmygaff wrote:

I won't be quoting anything. Reading your posts once is enough, thank you very much. If you can't see it for yourself then no one can help you.

Another who cannot back up any spurious claims and labels. Whats this help you suggest? No-one said.

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

So you are an expert in healthcare then?:rolleyes: No need for a lecture on how to become a doctor.

Do you understand that those code of ethics are damn worth nothing when it runs against the ethos of the hospital just like in the trials and the horrific ops? That part you conveniently missed.

Yet another incorrect assertion. A doctor's code of ethics supercedes any ethos a Hospital may have or even guidelines that a Hospital may draw up. Breaching a code of ethics may, in some circumstances, result in a doctor losing their ability to practice medicine; going against a Hospital 'ethos' (insofar as such a thing exists) will, at worst, result in a doctor losing their job. And that is incredibly unlikely for a variety of reasons.

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

Yet another incorrect assertion. A doctor's code of ethics supercedes any ethos a Hospital may have or even guidelines that a Hospital may draw up. Breaching a code of ethics may, in some circumstances, result in a doctor losing their ability to practice medicine; going against a Hospital 'ethos' (insofar as such a thing exists) will, at worst, result in a doctor losing their job. And that is incredibly unlikely for a variety of reasons.

Then explain the cancer test event. Even though it was legally approved, it was blocked by the board as it went against its Catholic ethos.

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

Then explain the cancer test event. Even though it was legally approved, it was blocked by the board as it went against its Catholic ethos.

How does not engaging in certain research trials breach a doctor's ethical guidelines?

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

How does not engaging in certain research trials breach a doctor's ethical guidelines?

Clarify what you mean as it was blocked by the hospitals own ethics committee based on that it was against the Catholic ethos but approved legally as not a breach of ethics by law. So any doctor should not have breached any ethics by law.

From the original article

THE people whose advice delayed the treatment of lung cancer patients at a major hospital are a priest, a nun and a businessman.
The three members of the board of Dublin's Mater Hospital were key to the decision to stop trials of the drug for lung cancer patients.

They objected because female patients who get could get pregnant would have to take contraceptives under the treatment.

The subcommittee of the board - Fr Kevin Doran, Sr Eugene Nolan and John Morgan - were delegated the task of examining the conditions attached to testing the drug.

They looked to see if the conditions contravened the hospital's Catholic ethos.

Cancer specialists led by Dr John McCaffrey, who is based at the Mater, had already received legal permission to treat the Mater Hospital patients.

This was because the proposal had already been given the green light by the ethics committee in Tallaght Hospital.

The Tallaght committee has power to give permission for drugs trials in any hospital.

Once an ethics committee complies with rigorous conditions they have the power to allow trials across the whole state - and that includes patients outside of their own hospitals.

Previous decisions by the Mater Hospital on drug trials and questions of their legal standing were brought to the attention of the Department of Health several months ago but no action was taken.

St Vincent's hospital cancer specialist, Dr John Crown who criticised the Mater delay as "sectarian" said he now applies for permission to carry out trials to the ethics committee in Tallaght Hospital. This is because his own hospital's ethics committee 18 months ago raised objections to one of his trials over the same concerns about the contraceptive clauses.

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

Clarify what you mean as it was blocked by the hospitals own ethics committee based on that it was against the Catholic ethos but approved legally as not a breach of ethics by law. So any doctor should not have breached any ethics by law.

The law and a doctor's ethics are different things. You appear to be confused.

Please explain why you believe that not participating in certain research is against a doctors ethical guidelines.

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

The law and a doctor's ethics are different things. You appear to be confused.

Please explain why you believe that not participating in certain research is against a doctors ethical guidelines.

Why you asking me and where did I say that?

I'm not on the board of the hospital to block a doctor carrying out unethical work where said work breaches the hospital ethos.

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

Why you asking me and where did I say that? .

You said a doctor's code of ethics are damn worth nothing when it runs against the ethos of the hospital. I asked you how not participating in research (as per the Hosputal's decision) runs contrary to a doctor's code of ethics. No answer yet, sadly.

gurramok wrote: »

I'm not on the board of the hospital......

Clearly.

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

You said a doctor's code of ethics are damn worth nothing when it runs against the ethos of the hospital. I asked you how not participating in research (as per the Hosputal's decision) runs contrary to a doctor's code of ethics. No answer yet, sadly.

Why didn't you say that your question of participating or not was based on the hospitals decision rather that a doctors personal decision?

In this case, it went against the hospitals ethics.(that ethics committee that makes the decisions) which in turn would go against a doctor whose ethics are not influence by religion. But the doctor has legal backing which was blocked by the board so it would breach the doctors ethics by not participating as the doctor would be breaking the law.

The doctor is just a pawn in this case so I dunno why you are sidestepping responsibility from the board to the doctor but if you're going down that route..

How far should a doctor go against his own personal ethics? We found that out in Kerry alright when a doctor denied a woman contraception on religious grounds. http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/health/woman-denied-pill-on-religious-basis-129181.html

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

So you are an expert in healthcare then?:rolleyes: No need for a lecture on how to become a doctor.

Considering i'm working this year to get a place in medical school I daresay I know more about the job than you. I never lectured anyone on how to become a doctor. You see... Generally speaking you don't "become" a doctor by getting a pHD and working as a consultant for years. That shows to me how little you understand about the healthcare system. You're just talking drivel without any real knowledge.

Do you understand that those code of ethics are damn worth nothing when it runs against the ethos of the hospital just like in the trials and the horrific ops? That part you conveniently missed.

That entire paragraph makes me want to rip my hair out. The code of ethics coincides with the ethos of the hospital. They draw up their code of ethics. They also draw up their ethos. It seems you've "missed" quite a bit in any case.

Catholic Church as after all I've told countless times by religious posters that Ireland is a Catholic country.

So you're admitting you started this thread as an attack (Or to voice your displeasure for want of a better phrase) on the Catholic church? Oddly enough you were saying quite different a few posts back.

and that it has nothing Outside boards.ie, I know maybe 3 people out of must be 50 that are regular massgoers and one of them is my own mother who constantly reports at her horror of the lack of attendance by the under 50's at mass.

Judging by your posts I amn't at all surprised that you know few religious people.

So your summation that secularism is only evident on boards.ie is totally wrong.

First of all I never said that secularism is evident only on boards.ie You misunderstood me. I said that a slight majority of the userbase of the forum are secular and that that gives you a skewed representation of the rest of the country.

Oh, its some now instead of total. Progress at last.

Did I ever say they deserve 100% authoritative control over the hospital? No I didn't. So stop making things up.

No-one answered why objectors like yourself are so passionate against people of non-Catholic origin having a say in the running of the hospital

Wow. Just wow.
I will repeat it one final time. Their job is to ensure the smooth running of their hospital. They do that and they do it well without discriminating against any particular group. Therefore they are competent at their job. Therefore there is no problem and no need for unnecessary change. All that matters is that they are competent at their job. Nothing else.

one wonders what your agenda is.

Oh yeah, I might've forgotten to mention. I'm actually a Catholic preacher whose sole purpose in life is to promote the Catholic church. Too bad I amn't even a Catholic.

Another who cannot back up any spurious claims and labels.

No, just another person tired of your bickering and nonsensical points and "rebuttals". I don't have time to read rubbish twice i'm afraid.

Whats this help you suggest? No-one said.

Here's an idea. Try and get an understanding of how hospitals work before you type.

starbelgrade

Ghost Estate wrote: »

this thread is still alive? Well **** me pink..

Well, at least the tags are entertaining.

philologos

starbelgrade wrote: »

Well, at least the tags are entertaining.

That's all we can hope for on a thread like this. Admittedly I posted 2 of my own there :pac:

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

In this case, it went against the hospitals ethics.(that ethics committee that makes the decisions) which in turn would go against a doctor whose ethics are not influence by religion. But the doctor has legal backing which was blocked by the board so it would breach the doctors ethics by not participating as the doctor would be breaking the law.

Wtf does that mean....?:D

Again, how does not participating in research (as per the Hospital's decision) runs contrary to a doctor's code of ethics. Please quote the specific aspect of a doctor's code of ethics which is breached when answering.

partyatmygaff

The tags are what makes the thread worthwhile. Two of them are mine actually

gurramok

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Considering i'm working this year to get a place in medical school I daresay I know more about the job than you. I never lectured anyone on how to become a doctor. You see... Generally speaking you don't "become" a doctor by getting a pHD and working as a consultant for years. That shows to me how little you understand about the healthcare system. You're just talking drivel without any real knowledge.

Jumping to conclusions again, assuming you are indeed a medical student and not just saying it. I took your knowledge with a pinch of salt by asking not to lecture me. Do you know what rollyeyes mean?:rolleyes:

partyatmygaff wrote: »

That entire paragraph makes me want to rip my hair out. The code of ethics coincides with the ethos of the hospital. They draw up their code of ethics. They also draw up their ethos. It seems you've "missed" quite a bit in any case.

Yes, they have an ethics committee. No need to pull your hair out. As in this case, the ethics crossed into religious beliefs.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

So you're admitting you started this thread as an attack (Or to voice your displeasure for want of a better phrase) on the Catholic church? Oddly enough you were saying quite different a few posts back.

Judging by your posts I amn't at all surprised that you know few religious people.

First of all I never said that secularism is evident only on boards.ie You misunderstood me. I said that a slight majority of the userbase of the forum are secular and that that gives you a skewed representation of the rest of the country.

No, I didn't start this thread as an attack, why you think that? Well, where I am, secularism is flourishing, maybe you need to visit the cities and towns where most of the population are.

partyatmygaff wrote: »

Did I ever say they deserve 100% authoritative control over the hospital? No I didn't. So stop making things up.
Wow. Just wow.
I will repeat it one final time. Their job is to ensure the smooth running of their hospital. They do that and they do it well without discriminating against any particular group. Therefore they are competent at their job. Therefore there is no problem and no need for unnecessary change. All that matters is that they are competent at their job. Nothing else.

Oh yeah, I might've forgotten to mention. I'm actually a Catholic preacher whose sole purpose in life is to promote the Catholic church. Too bad I amn't even a Catholic.

No, just another person tired of your bickering and nonsensical points and "rebuttals". I don't have time to read rubbish twice i'm afraid.

Here's an idea. Try and get an understanding of how hospitals work before you type.

Out of all this ranting, your first line is the most important. Its important in that you finally see the light in removing 100% authoritative control of the Catholic clergy from the running of the hospital and where competence is not overruled by religious teachings. I'm just baffled as to why you didn't say that earlier?

gurramok

drkpower wrote: »

Wtf does that mean....?:D

Again, how does not participating in research (as per the Hospital's decision) runs contrary to a doctor's code of ethics. Please quote the specific aspect of a doctor's code of ethics which is breached when answering.

I explained it in quite enough detail already, not my fault you cannot understand the ethics explanation. Why are you trying to put doctors as piggy in the middle regarding the decisions of the religious board?

Have you something against doctors practising certain aspects of their work?

farna_boy

gurramok wrote: »

I have a belief that I don't belief in what you believe in for example. Thats what I mean.

In fairness, the thread should have ended after this post.

AudreyHepburn

gurramok wrote: »

Jumping to conclusions again, assuming you are indeed a medical student and not just saying it. I took your knowledge with a pinch of salt by asking not to lecture me. Do you know what rollyeyes mean?:rolleyes:



Yes, they have an ethics committee. No need to pull your hair out. As in this case, the ethics crossed into religious beliefs.




No, I didn't start this thread as an attack, why you think that? Well, where I am, secularism is flourishing, maybe you need to visit the cities and towns where most of the population are.



Out of all this ranting, your first line is the most important. Its important in that you finally see the light in removing 100% authoritative control of the Catholic clergy from the running of the hospital and where competence is not overruled by religious teachings. I'm just baffled as to why you didn't say that earlier?

Earlier you claimed you didn't want religion removed completely from hospitals yet now you speak of how important it is to do that.

So which is it? Or do you even know what you are talking about anymore?

drkpower

gurramok wrote: »

I explained it in quite enough detail already, not my fault you cannot understand the ethics explanation. Why are you trying to put doctors as piggy in the middle regarding the decisions of the religious board?

Have you something against doctors practising certain aspects of their work?

You havent explained yourself clearly at all. I just want a simple answer to the following question:

How does not participating in research (as per the Hospital's decision) runs contrary to a doctor's code of ethics. Please quote the specific aspect of a doctor's code of ethics which is breached when answering.

partyatmygaff

gurramok wrote: »

Jumping to conclusions again, assuming you are indeed a medical student and not just saying it. I took your knowledge with a pinch of salt by asking not to lecture me. Do you know what rollyeyes mean?:rolleyes:

WHOA

I cannot believe what I am reading. Did you even read my post at all?
I said I am working to get in to medical school, that means I aim to be a medical student, not that I am one. So stop trying to act as if i'm the one making things up.

Yes, they have an ethics committee.

* Slow clap * Did anyone dispute that? No. No need to fill up your posts with random information that we all already know.

No need to pull your hair out. As in this case, the ethics crossed into religious beliefs.

The "ethics crossed into religious beliefs". Err... You do know that ethics differ from hospital to hospital right?

No, I didn't start this thread as an attack, why you think that?

Hmm...

Well, where I am, secularism is flourishing, maybe you need to visit the cities and towns where most of the population are.

No, maybe you need to actually know what you're talking about before going around making posts. Secularism is growing, that does not mean it has a majority.

Out of all this ranting, your first line is the most important.

Ah yes, I'm the one who's raving and ranting over the unimportant. :rolleyes:

Its important in that you finally see the light in removing 100% authoritative control of the Catholic clergy from the running of the hospital and where competence is not overruled by religious teachings.

The Catholic clergy today have very little control over the Mater hospital. I'd be quite wary of going to a hospital ran entirely by the clergy. You see, clergymen generally aren't qualified doctors.

I'm just baffled as to why you didn't say that earlier?

Sorry if this offends you but...
Who the HELL taught you how to read? They deserve a slap across the back of their head.

Nowhere in that post did I say anything different to what i've been saying in the past few pages of this thread.

gurramok

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Earlier you claimed you didn't want religion removed completely from hospitals yet now you speak of how important it is to do that.

So which is it? Or do you even know what you are talking about anymore?

If you're not going to bother quote what I said in earlier posts, i'm sure I did say that 2 solutions are possible when running a hospital(not to be confused with having chaplins etc).

The above solution you highlight(everyone of all religions and no religions having a say) and the 2nd solution(no religious involvement = independent or state imposed board members). It has to be better than a 100% controlled Catholic public hospital at present. Does that answer you?

drkpower wrote:

You havent explained yourself clearly at all. I just want a simple answer to the following question:

How does not participating in research (as per the Hospital's decision) runs contrary to a doctor's code of ethics. Please quote the specific aspect of a doctor's code of ethics which is breached when answering.

I did answer you. What part do you not understand? What relevance has it to do with religious involvement of said decision?

In this case, it went against the hospitals ethics.(that ethics committee that makes the decisions) which in turn would go against a doctor whose ethics are not influence by religion. But the doctor has legal backing which was blocked by the board so it would breach the doctors ethics by not participating as the doctor would be breaking the law.

partyatmygaff

[QUOTE=gurramok;68819293Why are you trying to put doctors as piggy in the middle regarding the decisions of the religious board? [/quote]
The "religious" board? When did you invent that?
IIRC the only board on the Mater hospital is the board of governors who consist of Doctors, Judges, Businessmen and members of the church who founded the hospital. All of the people on the board offer their own expertise in the running of the hospital.

Have you something against doctors practising (sic) certain aspects of their work?

Doctors work first and foremost under a code of ethics. Lobotomies are considered to be medical procedures, you could even call it a "certain aspect of their work". That doesn't mean they're allowed to do it.