Abortion Discussion, Part Trois

aloyisious

end of the road wrote: »

i'm sure they will get on fine, they will probably sell the buildings and land that they own to property developers. is the state going to pay to build new hospitals to replace them if that worst case happened? i'd doubt it. have the state being saving money via using the church to effectively bail them out via providing land and buildings? i'd very much think so.
separating the church from the hospitals is correct and i personally agree with it but it's not going to be a simple exercise, and if the state is actually serious about doing it (at the moment i'm not quite so sure it is) then they need to be aware of this, and have a plan that is actually workible and which the church is going to actually agree with. because whether people like it or not, or want to hear it or not, an amicable solution is probably going to be the only outcome here, the idea of the state going full force on the church is very unlikely.

To encourage anyone to buy the properties, vacant possession might be needed as a draw. Thing is, would the church and religious owners risk taking such a step of shutting down medical care hospitals in the cities and towns here en-masse and turning patients out onto the streets knowing the consequences of such a step towards the health of patients presently in the hospitals, along with those due to enter hospital? It would be moral suicide for any establishment who gave the go-ahead to such a step.

I'd hazard a guess that if such a sale proposal got into the public domain, the Govt might well get all-round support nationally to nationalize the properties and the medical care facilities there-on for the good of the nation and population.

end of the road

aloyisious wrote: »

To encourage anyone to buy the properties, vacant possession might be needed as a draw. Thing is, would the church and religious owners risk taking such a step of shutting down medical care hospitals in the cities and towns here en-masse and turning patients out onto the streets knowing the consequences of such a step towards the health of patients presently in the hospitals, along with those due to enter hospital? It would be moral suicide for any establishment who gave the go-ahead to such a step.

that is the thing, all this is simply unknown. at this stage, the church has nothing to lose, so we don't know what they could be capible of, especially if the state pushes against them.

aloyisious wrote: »

I'd hazard a guess that if such a sale proposal got into the public domain, the Govt might well get all-round support nationally to nationalize the properties and the medical care facilities there-on for the good of the nation and population.

i can't imagine that could be done quick though. if the church wanted, they could probably sell quite quickly even if it was for a small amount. of course this is worst case, based on the assumption that the government care more about politics then the greater good, and will go full force to try and remove the cc rather then being cautious and doing things properly.
i reccan the best way to proceed first is a referendum on the issue, which will likely pass. when the church sees that the people do not particularly want them in charge of state facilities, then they may be willing to give up their control of them on their own. IMO that would be the best outcome.

Peregrinus

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Just take it off them, they still owe how much over the child abuse scandal?

It's not that simple. "The church" doesn't owe money over the child abuse scandal; selected religious orders which managed the institutions concerned do. Unless the hospital you want happens to belong to one of these religious orders, there's not much mileage in this.

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

So stop funding them, see how far they get without the HSE paying the running costs, salaries, investments etc.

And see how far the nation's health gets when a large chunk of its hospitals are suddenly defunded. I don't think this is a very practical strategy.

volchitsa wrote: »

A severe case of having your cake and eating it. Catholic hospitals in America don't get massive subsidies from the tax payer to provide their Catholic medicine.

They get funded on the same basis as non-Catholic hospitals. Which, directly and indirectly, involves an awful lot of public subsidy.

Peregrinus

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

This is the bottom line. The church in fact provides very substantial assets to the health service, at minimal or no cost. If the health service had to buy or rent the land and buildings owned by church entities and used in the health service, that would cost a lot of money. This is true whether they bought the existing assets from the church entities, or replacement assets in the market.

In the end, though, the important question is not who owns the assets; it's what service is provided with the assets, and on what terms. Those questions becomes much easier to address if we stop getting hung up on ownership.

Mark Hamill

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not that simple. "The church" doesn't owe money over the child abuse scandal; selected religious orders which managed the institutions concerned do. Unless the hospital you want happens to belong to one of these religious orders, there's not much mileage in this.

Also, and maybe I'm not remember this right, but isn't the church specifically exempt in the constitution from the government seizing it's property for any reason (be it compulsory purchase order or in lieu of criminal fines)?

Peregrinus

Mark Hamill wrote: »

Also, and maybe I'm not remember this right, but isn't the church specifically exempt in the constitution from the government seizing it's property for any reason (be it compulsory purchase order or in lieu of criminal fines)?

No. Religious denominations (and educational institutions, whether religious or not) do enjoy some protection against seizure of property, but it's not absolute. Their property can only be taken "for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation".

Running a public hospital looks like a "work of public utility", but I think there would be an argument over whether you could be said to be seizing it for the purpose of running a hospital when, in fact, there's already a hospital running in it. Whatever you're seizing it for, it would be hard to argue that you are seizing it because seizure is needed in order to run a hospital.

However, if you change the terms on which hospitals are funded ("We only fund hospitals that provide abortions") and this resulted in the threatened closure of a church-linked hospital, you might then justify compulsory acquisition of the premises in order to ensure the continuation of public hospital services on the site. (The whole thing would look a bit shifty, since it would look as if your new rules for the conduct of hospitals were framed not for the purpose of effecient provision of health services but for the purpose of providing cover for the seizure of property. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court and beyond. Still, you'd have an argument. )

You'd still have to pay compensation though, so the net effect would be the transfer of squillions of public money into the pockets of churchmen's trousers in return for no great change in the provision of health services, which many of the regulars on this board might not think was an altogether brilliant outcome.

Which is part of the reason why I have a sense that exploring ways of reducing or controllling church involvement in hospital management that don't involve buying hospital buildings is probably a more productive avenue to explore.

volchitsa

It would only look shifty if there was some notion that the referendum had been set up for the purpose of seizing hospital land. That would be too far fetched a conspiracy for all but the looniest of loons.

Requiring a publicly funded hospital to provide the full range of health services that the health service requires them to provide is perfectly reasonable, OTOH.

volchitsa

We all agreed in 2013 that "this is a catholic country" was not a sensible thing to say - even the Catholics. Are they now changing their minds on that?

(Can't edit for some reason).

smacl

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which is part of the reason why I have a sense that exploring ways of reducing or controllling church involvement in hospital management that don't involve buying hospital buildings is probably a more productive avenue to explore.

Apologies for what is undoubtedly a rather naive question, but when we talk about 'the church' here, who or what are we referring to exactly? Do we include the laity here, i.e. those citizens who are nominally Catholic and no doubt compromise the vast majority of the local church membership? If we do, then it seems clear that the majority prefer that abortion be allowed to be carried out in their hospitals. If we don't, do the local clergy in effect jointly own this wealth independently of their parishioners, or perhaps is this wealth in some sense owned by Rome or the Vatican? Obviously large institutions privately own a considerably amount of land, and reasonably so, but if this is the case for 'the church' one wonders why we continue to afford them charitable status. If it is on the basis of acting in the best interests of our society, as decided by the people, and they act in a contrary manner, surely they are not acting charitably at all?

Loafing Oaf

One of the two, Joanna Jordan, said she intends to appeal the refusal to let her bring a petition challenging the result. In that context, a stay applies until at least Friday preventing the referendum result being formally certified.

Any word of any developments in the case?

uptherebels

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

Any word of any developments in the case?

Article on Irish times website says appeal being heard 17th of august

Calina

Hearing will be 17 Aug apparently. Stay in place on certification till then.

Loafing Oaf

Calina wrote: »

Hearing will be 17 Aug apparently. Stay in place on certification till then.

I'd say Ms Jordan will be fairly satisfied with that, about as much as she could have hoped to achieve...

Hotblack Desiato

What a fcuking joke.

recedite

Peregrinus wrote: »

No. Religious denominations (and educational institutions, whether religious or not) do enjoy some protection against seizure of property, but it's not absolute. Their property can only be taken "for necessary works of public utility and on payment of compensation".

Running a public hospital looks like a "work of public utility", but I think there would be an argument over whether you could be said to be seizing it for the purpose of running a hospital when, in fact, there's already a hospital running in it. Whatever you're seizing it for, it would be hard to argue that you are seizing it because seizure is needed in order to run a hospital.

However, if you change the terms on which hospitals are funded ("We only fund hospitals that provide abortions") and this resulted in the threatened closure of a church-linked hospital, you might then justify compulsory acquisition of the premises in order to ensure the continuation of public hospital services on the site. (The whole thing would look a bit shifty, since it would look as if your new rules for the conduct of hospitals were framed not for the purpose of effecient provision of health services but for the purpose of providing cover for the seizure of property. Expect this to go to the Supreme Court and beyond. Still, you'd have an argument. )

You'd still have to pay compensation though, so the net effect would be the transfer of squillions of public money into the pockets of churchmen's trousers in return for no great change in the provision of health services, which many of the regulars on this board might not think was an altogether brilliant outcome.

Which is part of the reason why I have a sense that exploring ways of reducing or controllling church involvement in hospital management that don't involve buying hospital buildings is probably a more productive avenue to explore.

Step 1. Zone this land/buildings as "public hospital", making it impossible for anyone to use it for anything else.
Step 2. Introduce new (very high) capital gains taxes for any lands/buildings in community or educational use that are being sold to private developers.

Step 3. Withdraw all public funding from religiously controlled schools and hospitals.
Step 4. Watch while they transfer into public ownership at a peppercorn price.

aloyisious

How I managed this I don't know, my original post [now deleted by me] above recedite's was meant for the Nuns Get To Own New NMH discussion thread. I've transferred it to that thread.

alaimacerc

recedite wrote: »

Step 1. Zone this land/buildings as "public hospital", making it impossible for anyone to use it for anything else.
Step 2. Introduce new (very high) capital gains taxes for any lands/buildings in community or educational use that are being sold to private developers.

Step 3. Withdraw all public funding from religiously controlled schools and hospitals.
Step 4. Watch while they transfer into public ownership at a peppercorn price.

The response would go like this:
1. Squawk about the trampling of rights of developers.
2. Squawk about stifling of free enterprise.
3. Squawk about some muddled mashup of religious freedom, the parent as educator, and the right to an education, as if this amounted to a duty of the state to continue to endow the Catholic church (and others singing faint backup) to indoctrinate kids.
4. Squawk about how the state should be paying their legal expenses as they spend years trying to make sure the state doesn't do any of this, so it doesn't come to such a pass.

alaimacerc

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not that simple. "The church" doesn't owe money over the child abuse scandal; selected religious orders which managed the institutions concerned do. Unless the hospital you want happens to belong to one of these religious orders, there's not much mileage in this.

i.e. "the church" morphs from a rhetorical and authoritarian singular, to a compartmentalised and legalistic plural, as suits its purposes.

alaimacerc

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

State entitled to costs in abortion referendum legal challenge



FFS :mad: fcuking chancer.

As formal declarations of someone as a vexatious litigant seem to be unpopular, perhaps bankruptcy proceedings would be other means to similar ends? i.e., stop him doing it again, and put a semblance of manners on him.

volchitsa

alaimacerc wrote: »

i.e. "the church" morphs from a rhetorical and authoritarian singular, to a compartmentalised and legalistic plural, as suits its purposes.

Yes, this, a thousand times.

The various institutions use their supposed identity as part of one universal Catholic Church to insinuate themselves into teaching and healthcare roles (both excellent earners, as religions everywhere have found to their benefit) and then when there's a problem, these links with the church suddenly become irrelevant.

Their virtues are invariably due to their religious identity, while their faults are always those of the individuals, or even the responsibility of wider society for not having stopped them.

Honestly, I've come to the conclusion that the whole country has been the victim of a decades-long massive scam.

alaimacerc

Cabaal wrote: »

I get the point being made but the previous claims prove the poster is being intentionally disingenuous when posting.

It's hard to take anything they say seriously in any thread given their proven posting history.

If they'd just properly address the issue I'm sure everyone can move on.

I can only speak to my own personal headcanon, as anything else would be rightly frowned on as minimodding, but until they do so, pretty much everything that poster says in this thread is for me the moral equivalent of soapboxing.

Engaging in meaningful discussion has to consist of more than just hitting "reply", and then pivoting relentlessly back to the same talking points and blithe assertions, without properly dealing with what others -- or indeed, they themselves -- have said.

end of the road

alaimacerc wrote: »

As formal declarations of someone as a vexatious litigant seem to be unpopular, perhaps bankruptcy proceedings would be other means to similar ends? i.e., stop him doing it again, and put a semblance of manners on him.

i wouldn't think so, given there are i'm sure a number of sources who would be willing to pay any future legal bills. therefore making him bankrupt in what would be in my view, revenge for using the court system to exercise his democratic right to fair justice, would be in my view a pointless exercise.

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, this, a thousand times.

The various institutions use their supposed identity as part of one universal Catholic Church to insinuate themselves into teaching and healthcare roles (both excellent earners, as religions everywhere have found to their benefit) and then when there's a problem, these links with the church suddenly become irrelevant.

Their virtues are invariably due to their religious identity, while their faults are always those of the individuals, or even the responsibility of wider society for not having stopped them.

Honestly, I've come to the conclusion that the whole country has been the victim of a decades-long massive scam.

i'd agree, but the state seems to have been happy (and seems to be still happy) to go along with it. i believe if the state were to now try and remove religious control of hospitals and schools, it would be more about politics rather then because it's the right thing to do.

alaimacerc

end of the road wrote: »

i wouldn't think so, given there are i'm sure a number of sources who would be willing to pay any future legal bills.

Which is what would also happen if he were declared a vexatious litigant, so you're arguing to my point, and in no effective sense whatsoever against it.

therefore making him bankrupt in what would be in my view, revenge for using the court system to exercise his democratic right to fair justice, would be in my view a pointless exercise.

Your view seems to amount to a belief that your sympathy with the ends of their blatant filibustering, if to be fair not this exact means, means you believe they should arbitrarily be insulated from the normal consequences of frivolously running up considerable costs at someone else's expense.

i'd agree, but the state seems to have been happy (and seems to be still happy) to go along with it. i believe if the state were to now try and remove religious control of hospitals and schools, it would be more about politics rather then because it's the right thing to do.

Politics is always about politics. Hopefully the right thing gets its face washed eventually, if the political system is at all functional.

volchitsa

end of the road wrote: »

i'd agree, but the state seems to have been happy (and seems to be still happy) to go along with it. i believe if the state were to now try and remove religious control of hospitals and schools, it would be more about politics rather then because it's the right thing to do.

Thanks for proving my point for me. Of course it's the state's fault. How could I have doubted that for an instant. :rolleyes:

Still, assuming this is true, what difference does possible shared guilt in the past make to how we should proceed now? Forgive and forget? Or set up a system where there is no religious influence and proper accountability to the people? It's not that hard - remove priests and bishops from selection committees for instance, and make those positions strictly elected ones (that's just one example of where we need to be headed, not a complete solution, just to be clear. And they don't need to be party political, In fact those could be banned, if that is your objection. Something like the way many US towns elect their sheriffs and judges.)

Peregrinus

volchitsa wrote: »

It would only look shifty if there was some notion that the referendum had been set up for the purpose of seizing hospital land. That would be too far fetched a conspiracy for all but the looniest of loons.

Requiring a publicly funded hospital to provide the full range of health services that the health service requires them to provide is perfectly reasonable, OTOH.

It's not reasonable unless there's a practical reason for saying that every service should be provided in every hospital. As you know, it's not currently the case that every service is provided in every hospital, and it would requires a signficant reorganisation of health services, and probable dissolution or reduction of specialist units, if that were to be adopted as a requirement.

volchitsa

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not reasonable unless there's a practical reason for saying that every service should be provided in every hospital. As you know, it's not currently the case that every service is provided in every hospital, and it would requires a signficant reorganisation of health services, and probable dissolution or reduction of specialist units, if that were to be adopted as a requirement.

That's a very dishonest version of what is going on - no-one is saying for instance that non maternity hospitals should provide maternity services, but that legal healthcare should not be refused for ideological reasons.

It's not just about abortion either - the bishops have shown their hand with this document, and have said that contraception cannot be provided. For purely ideological reasons, not health ones. Are you supporting that too, on the grounds that hospitals don't have to provide all services?

seamus

volchitsa wrote: »

Yes, this, a thousand times.

Yep.

Even at a simpler level, people buy it. Criticise the church over abuse: "That was the act of sick individuals, you can't hold the whole church complicit".

Suggest removing community facilities from church control: "What about all the good work done by the clergy?"

The RCC has always been like the worst kind of corporate employer. Takes all the credit for the good work and good ideas of individuals, and will happily throw you or your entire department in front of the bus if necessary to protect head office.

volchitsa

seamus wrote: »

Yep.

Even at a simpler level, people buy it. Criticise the church over abuse: "That was the act of sick individuals, you can't hold the whole church complicit".

Suggest removing community facilities from church control: "What about all the good work done by the clergy?"

The RCC has always been like the worst kind of corporate employer. Takes all the credit for the good work and good ideas of individuals, and will happily throw you or your entire department in front of the bus if necessary to protect head office.

Sure they invented the strategy : their God gets all the thanks for saving one person in a flood that killed thousands, or for curing a child struck down by a terrible illness, but never the blame for causing the flood or for creating the illnesses the first place! And of course "free will" allows him to get off scot-free from any blame for the evil done by humans - including his own clerics.

ohnonotgmail

Peregrinus wrote: »

It's not reasonable unless there's a practical reason for saying that every service should be provided in every hospital. As you know, it's not currently the case that every service is provided in every hospital, and it would requires a signficant reorganisation of health services, and probable dissolution or reduction of specialist units, if that were to be adopted as a requirement.

volchitsa wrote: »

That's a very dishonest version of what is going on - no-one is saying for instance that non maternity hospitals should provide maternity services, but that legal healthcare should not be refused for ideological reasons.

It's not just about abortion either - the bishops have shown their hand with this document, and have said that contraception cannot be provided. For purely ideological reasons, not health ones. Are you supporting that too, on the grounds that hospitals don't have to provide all services?

I have to agree, that is a very dishonest reading of volchitsas post.